The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/16/1998r� • Council Liaison: Mike Byrne Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3415 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 OM 679-3201 The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Gwen Bell. Roll Call: Craig, Colton, Gavaldon, Davidson, Bell. Member Weitkunat was absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Harter, Shepard, Stringer Blandford, Wamhoff, Dean, Schlueter, Jones, Waido and Macklin. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. 1. Minutes of the June 19, July 17, August 7, August 21, 1997 and June 4 and June 18, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #21-98 Poudre School District "VIPS" Building at Barton Discovery Center/Preschool - Site Plan Advisory Review. 3. #13-82CB Oakridge Business Park PUD, 27th Filing, Candlewood Inn - Preliminary and Final. 4/6. Modifications of Conditions of Approval for June 18 and July 16. 6. Resolution PZ98-8 Easement Vacation. 7. Resolution PZ98-9 Easement Vacation. 8. Resolution PZ98-10 Easement Vacation. 9. Resolution PZ98-11 Easement Vacation. 10. Resolution PZ98-12 Easement Vacation. 11. Resolution PZ98-13 Easement Vacation. 12. #25-98 Ruff Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 13. #13-98 Lincoln Jr. High School, 1st, Annexation and Zoning. 14. #13-98A Lincoln Jr. High School, 2nd, Annexation and Zoning. 15. #44-841 Prospect East Business Park, Advanced Energy, Buildings 7 & 8 - Project Development Plan. 16. #55-95K Brune Rezoning (Withdrawn) 17. #55-95J Worthington Rezoning. 18. #49-95B Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase 1 - Final Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 2 Member Craig pulled item 4/5, Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. Chairperson Bell declared a conflict of interest on item #2. Vice Chair Colton asked for a motion on item #2. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of item #2. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of item #12. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Projects: Lincoln Jr. High School, 1 st - Annexation and Zoning Lincoln Jr. High School, 2nd - Annexation and Zoning Case #'s #13-98 and 13-98A Project Descriptions: 1st: Request for annexation and zoning of the Lincoln Jr. High School First, which is approximately 1.89 acres in size, and is located on West Vine Drive, between North Shields Street and North Taft Hill Road. The proposed zoning is UE, Urban Estate. 2nd: Request for annexation and zoning of the Lincoln Jr. High School Second, which is approximately 48.7 acres in size, and is located on West Vine Drive, between North Shields Street and North Taft Hill Road. The proposed zoning is UE, Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 3 Leanne Harter, City Planner, gave the staff presentation recommending approval of the annexation and zoning of UE, Urban Estate zone district. Planner Harter noted an error in the staff report, stating that the owner is Larimer County, not Poudre School District on the 1st annexation and that Larimer County is also an owner along with Poudre School District on the 2nd annexation. Member Colton asked if the City has any policies on flag pole annexations. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the City does not have any policies, the City's policy is to follow the State's policy regarding annexation. Ron Daggett, Property Manger for Poudre School District gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the principle reason for the annexation request was to obtain services from the city that the county cannot offer. Mr. Daggett also discussed vandalism at Lincoln, and the city smoking ordinance taking hold at this school. • Public Input Citizen (did not give name), stated that he rides his bike there daily and disputes Mr. Daggett's claim of vandalism at the school. Joann Demaranville, 1529 W. Vine Drive, felt the most important issue here is the West Vine Drive Drainage Basin. This project is in the planning stages and is a County issue. She felt that annexing the school and the street would limit them from using the easement of West Vine Drive for a drainage ditch or box culvert. Ms. Demaranville disputes vandalism at the school and feel that the School District should have notified them of the construction of the ball fields, and the fencing of the school. She felt this should be put on hold until the Drainage Basin project is complete. John Burns, 1440 West Vine Drive, stated that his concern is he has not seen any road easement widths, or surveys showing how much land they are even asking for. Mr. Burns was concerned with his current farming activities and if they would be allowed in the city. He concurred with the School District on the problems surrounding the school. Craig Mueller, 1712 West Vine Drive, lives in the rectangle that Lancer Drive surrounds. He stated that he supports the increased police protection and supports the annexation. • He was originally against the annexation but believes the annexation will not affect him, his property, or his property taxes, and the improved police protection at the school is much needed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 4 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Bell asked for information about the West Vine Drive Drainage Basin Study and how it will affect surrounding property owners if this property is to be annexed into the city. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department replied that he did not know how this annexation would affect any property owners in regards to the Drainage Basin. He stated that City and the County have entered into an agreement for a study for that basin. The County has enacted a stormwater utility and fees that they are now collecting. It will take some time to collect enough to fix anything. The City and County will be working on this project regardless of whether this property is annexed or not. Chairperson Bell asked about the road easement widths. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department replied that if they were talking about right-of- way widths, then there is no tax assessed against the property owner on that, that is County or City owned property. If Vine Drive were ever to be improved, then the City would negotiate a purchase price with the property owner of any additional right-of-way that is needed. There is no immediate need for improvement of that road. Member Craig asked about the maintenance of Vine Drive and would it be maintained to city standards. Mr. Stringer replied that routine maintenance would be done to repair potholes and patching for pavement failures. The road will go onto the street system and will be rated and will fall within the guidelines established of when a street needs to be overlaid. Chairman Bell asked if the police protection would be on -site only. Mr. Daggett replied yes, only on -site only. Member Gavaldon asked if the Sherriffs office has a resource officer program like the City. Mr. Daggett replied that there is a part-time Sherriffs Officer that patrols several schools. Member Gavaldon asked if they have met with Sherriff Shockley to see if there could be any improvement in the program. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Daggett replied that there is regular meetings with both the City and County regarding the SRO program. Member Gavaldon asked how much the school would save on utilities. Mr. Daggett replied 15%, which is a significant amount for Lincoln Jr. High. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council denial of Lincoln Jr. High School, 1st Annexation and Zoning. Member Craig commented that our maintenance bills are in the millions that we are short on, and she did not think that we would be gaining anything from this. She stated that previous flag -pole annexations were huge employment bases that brought in taxes and other improvements (the School District does not do road improvements). She felt that the vandalism is not going away whether they are in the City or the County. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon echoed Member Craigs comments. He was concerned with what we would be taking on. Member Colton commented that he sees positives in security in the school, seeing that 50% of the students are from the city, and a high level of control by the city of the growth that occurs in that area. He does have concerns about accepting responsibility for the street maintenance and that it will cost the city more for another police officer. The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Craig, Gavaldon and Bell voting for denial. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council denial of the Lincoln Jr. High School, 2nd Annexation and Zoning. Member Craig cited the same reasons as the first annexation for denial. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Craig, Gavaldon and Bell voting for denial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 6 Project: Advanced Energy, Buildings 7 & 8 (Prospect East Business Park & Prospect Industrial Park), Project Development Plan Case #: #44-841 Project Description: Request for an industrial/office use development in the existing Prospect East Business Park and Prospect Industrial park, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Prospect Road and Timberline Road. The applicant proposes to construct one single -story building and associated parking on a site that is 4.85 acres in size. The total floor area and (site) building coverage is 62,800 s.f. The property is in the E, Employment and I, Industrial Zoning Districts. �ii ► .._ . i .. . • 1 t . t tNpT�_L�T� Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning gave the staff report, recommending approval. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design gave the applicants presentation. He gave a background on Advanced Energy, reviewed the site plan and surrounding areas, drainage, landscaping, pedestrian accesses, internal access to the site, and building elevations. Mr. Hendee also pointed out where a transit stop would be located. Member Craig asked why Midpoint Drive and Timberline were not included in the traffic study. Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland did the traffic study for the applicant. He stated that they were not analyzed because in the scoping session the City it was not requested. Secondly, that intersection was analyzed with a previous project and it was recommended that the Midpoint/Timberline intersection was to be restricted to right -in, right -out, therefore, the operation at that intersection with that mitigation would be acceptable and there could not be any more mitigation done at that intersection. Member Craig asked about the Sharp Point/Prospect intersection. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Delich replied that with the elimination of building 9, acceptable operation is achieved. Fred Jones, Transportation Department stated that there was an evaluation of the accidents at the intersection of Prospect and Sharp Point. There were 4 accidents in 1996, none which involved the northbound left turns. There were 2 rear end collisions with east bound directions. There was some mitigation done at that time to extend the right turn lane and sign it. In 1997 there were 0 accidents and as of yet, there have been no accidents there today. Member Gavaldon asked if there would be a plan for building 9 in the future. Mr. Merle Hayworth, Neenan Company replied it may come up in the future, but at this time, the growth potential is not there. Mr. Jones added that an updated traffic study would be required at the time of application. Mr. Jones also discussed the intersections of Timberline and Prospect Roads and Midpoint Drive and Timberline Road. Mr. Jones stated that a median would • not go in until the Spring Creek Center project developed. Public Input There was none. Member Colton moved for approval of Advanced Energy, Building 7 & 8, #44-841, with the condition that Advanced Energy construct a median at Midpoint Drive and Timberline Road with a repay agreement with Spring Creek Center PUD when it develops. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 8 Project: Worthington Farm Rezoning Case #: #55-95J Project Descri to ion: Request to rezone approximately 5.648 acres located east of South Shields Street and south of West Swallow Road from the LMN, Low -Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, Zoning District to the RL, Low Density Residential Zoning District. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested RL Zoning District. Hearing Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ken Waido, Chief Planner gave the staff report, recommending denial of the requested rezoning. Planner Waido discussed the size and depth of the lot, right-of-way and easements. Member Craig asked Planner Waido if there was not a City Plan and the property were zoned RL, what uses would be allowed on the property. Planner Waido explained that prior to the Land Use Code, a PUD would have been allowed in theory, any use could have been proposed. PUBLIC INPUT Dale Rushneck, 3194 Worthington Avenue, representing the adjacent property owners stated that they were not opposed to development of the Worthington Farm property for uses that they feel are compatible with a single family neighborhood. They believe this is infill development, and that City Plan states that infill development should be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. That is why they would like the zoning to be returned to RL, because this property is surrounded on all four sides by single family homes. Mr. Rushneck stated that they tried to negotiate with the Worthington family to sign protective covenants for uses in the LMN zone. Mr. Rushneck stated that the three restrictions they wish to place on the property are: That any buildings built on the property be apartment buildings only. That the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 9 apartment buildings be set back 3 feet linear distance for every foot in height from any adjacent property. 2. That any roadway be set back 50 feet. 3. That landscaping be installed to mitigate the transition. The Worthington family has rejected these restrictions, and instead proposed that the property and suggested that the property owners try to buy the property. Mr. Rushneck asked that the property be returned to the RL Zoning to allow the surrounding owners to negotiate their restrictions. They feel that they will not be protected in the LMN zone. Mr. Rushneck asked for the Board's support for a recommendation of RL. John Worthington, owner of the property gave a history of the property. Mr. Worthington supports the LMN zoning and stated that at this time they have no immediate plans to develop the property. Sherm Worthington, 1021 Alexa Court, owner of the property stated that the surrounding property owners arguments for the return of the RL zoning is based on speculation. It seemed more appropriate to him that when and if a development plan is developed for that property, that the merits and the impacts of that plan can be evaluated at that point in time based on real information and data. Jackie Worthington, owner of the property had concerns with the neighborhood because she felt that this was a private property issue. She felt that the neighborhood has had the use of their property for years for their kids to play and for them to walk their dogs at night. She felt that they will develop the property for the good of the community. She asked that the zoning remain LMN. Tom Peterson, Planning Consultant stated that the Worthington family has had this property for 5 generations and that it is true that they do not have any intention of developing it at this time. He stated that the neighbors want to keep their open space that is provided to them by someone other than a public entity. He stated that they have offered the property to the City and to the neighbors and both have refused. Mr. Peterson stated that this piece of property is not a single family property and their is not many good multi -family parcels left. In summary he stated that they agree with the staff • report in keeping the property zoned LMN. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 10 Public Input Closed Chairperson Bell asked Planner Waldo to explain the allowable uses, the review process, and who would be reviewing what uses (Administrative or P & Z Reviews) for both the LMN and the RL zone. Member Craig asked if the farm had historical designation. Planner Waldo replied that he has spoke to the Historic Preservation staff and they stated that they would be interested in trying to preserve, if possible, some of the barn buildings and the silo. The Historic staff would review any development proposal for the property and would attempt to preserve as much of the historic characteristics as they could. Planner Waldo explained some grant and tax credit options available. Member Craig felt the neighborhood was very interested in the property and that the figure that the property owner came up with and the figure they came up with seems to be the deciding factor of why they can't meet on this. She asked for options that they could work with the Worthingtons to preserve some if not all of the property at a price that they can agree upon. She wondered if the HOA could buy development rights on this property. Planner Waldo responded that the two parties idea of the value of the property are pretty far apart. Member Colton asked for clarification on the neighborhood center. Planner Waldo replied that a neighborhood center in the LMN zone is 2 or more of the allowed uses on a fairly small tract of ground, 5 to 7 acres in size. It is designed to serve neighborhoods within a 1/4 mile walking distance. Member Davidson asked about other centers in proximity to this site. Planner Waldo replied that those centers were developed under a previous land use code. They are both in the neighborhood commercial zoning district. Member Davidson stated that the code states that neighborhood centers with retail uses or restaurants shall be spaced at least 3/4 of a mile apart. He felt that that would negate this from ever developing as a neighborhood center. Planner Waldo responded that there are other uses, if combined, that could develop this property as a neighborhood center. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 11 Member Davidson has concerns regarding compatibility, at the same time he understands being able to market property. His concern is the mitigation we go through and did not feel we mitigate well when it comes to larger scale or larger density up against smaller scale or lower density developments. He felt that the neighborhoods suggestion of so many feet buffer for so many feet of height is something that we should pursue to change in the City Code. Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council that they deny the request for RL zoning and retain the current LMN zoning. Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Colton explained that he understands what the neighbors are saying about uncertainty, however he also understands staff and that there are parcels on the edges of RL throughout the city. He agrees that the new City Plan is encouraging us to do certain things and it comes down to trust of City Plan. Chairperson bell commented that all single family would restrict the use on the property • a little too much if they would honor the request by the neighborhood to RL. She felt a lot of options would be cut out by the size of the property. There is a process for the neighborhood to be able to discuss potential projects. She felt it made sense to keep the zoning as is. Member Gavaldon felt that City Plan is a living document and changes should be made and the document should be flexible. He commended the neighborhood on an excellent documentation piece of work. On the Worthington's side, they have made a conscious decision in 1971 but they did not understand the impacts of what it would do in 1998. There is a significant difference, and he would vote on what is best for the community and felt that the citizens do have impact. He would take the approach that the people who live there are going to be impacted by the development of this property and he felt we should be balanced and work within the zoning and Structure Plan. Member Davidson commented that compatibility meant that everything around this property has been zoned RL. He does not like a lot of aspects of the RL, but if he could safeguard some aspects of LMN, he would go for that. Based on his experience and the history of what he has seen go through here, the rationalizations he sees and the hardships that are thrown out, he gets a little sick to his stomach sometimes. For that reason he would not be supporting the motion. • Member Craig felt that infill would be a challenge to everyone and each one would be different. She felt that Planner Waido is putting too much emphasis on 3.5.1, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 12 neighborhood compatibility. She thinks we have a huge gap between criteria and purpose. She strongly supports City Plan and believes in it, but is concerned with this one piece. She is hoping that the neighbors and the Worthingtons work something out. She would not support LMN. The motion was denied 3-2, with Members Craig, Davidson and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Member Gavaldon moved for recommendation to City Council for the Worthington Farm Rezoning, #55-95J to be RL. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-2, with Members Colton and Bell voting in the negative. Project: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final Case #: #49-95B This project was appealed to City Council and a verbatium transcript is attached. • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Held Thursday, July 16, 1998 At Fort Collins City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Concerning the Application of Harmony Ridge PUD Members present: Gwen Bell, Chairperson Sally Craig Glen Colton Jerry Gavaldon Bob Davidson Neadors Court Reporting, LLC 0 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone. (970) 482-1506 Toil --free (800) 482-1506 Fax: (970) 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@frii.com 2 1 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Let's move on to Harmony 2 Ridge PUD, item No. 18. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Madam Chair, could I 4 get a commitment that we will make it through the 5 agenda tonight, including the polled item, for people 6 that are staying? 7 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Oh, yes, we are 8 committed. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Madam Chair, I will present a few brief points to get on the record from the staff report prepared by Steve Olds (phonetic) tonight on Harmony Ridge. As before, we do have a number of staff people present to answer any specific questions you have on different issues that came up at the work session or during your review. You will need to change hats on this. This is not a land use code item. It is a Land Development Guidance System project. It's a request for a final planned unit development under the Land Development Guidance System for 130 residential units on approximately 29 acres. If you look at the vicinity map in your packet, it is located south of what we typically call the old West Harmony Road, south of the overlook at Woodridge Filing 1 and also the Arapahoe Farm town 3 • 1 homes. It is west of the Ridge PUD and north and east 2 of the Cathy Fromme Prairie natural area. Under the 3 land use code, it does have current zoning of low 4 density, mixed -use neighborhood. 5 Of the 130 residential units, the site plan 6 shows that it will include 15 single family -- 7 single-family residential lots at the southeast 8 portion, primarily adjacent to the Ridge PUD, and 115 9 town home dwelling units. This equals a gross 10 residential density of 4.48 dwelling units per acre. 11 Staff has determined that the final PUD is in 12 conformance with what this Planning and Zoning Board 13 approved on the Harmony Ridge preliminary PUD. • 14 At the time of preliminary, there were six 15 conditions applied to your approval. And it's our 16 opinion that each of those have been met. Quick 17 summary of the conditions is that there was two that 18 related to -- actually three -- that related to 19 transportation engineering concerns. 20 one of those was: At the time of final PUD 21 submittal, that the developer must provide for the 22 request for a variance to the city street design 23 standards to allow some of the internal streets to be 24 narrower than the required 36 feet. 25 There was also a requirement at the time of 4 1 the final PUD submittal that the developer must 2 provide designs for the intersection of old Harmony 3 Road with the Harmony Road -- I'm sorry -- with the 4 Harmony Ridge PUD entry and the intersection of old 5 Harmony Road with the new Harmony Road. 6 As you recall from our work session 7 discussion, there had been some changes to the 8 internal private road system, so that there is now 9 only one private road; that is, Chokecherry, which on 10 the site plan is the eastern access onto Harmony Road. 11 It's the north/south section. And that variance for 12 that particular road was denied by the director of 13 engineering. And so, that is the primary reason that 14 it has retained its status as a private street within 15 the development. 16 The third engineering transportation 17 condition that was applied at preliminaries: that a 18 new traffic study was required to be submitted that 19 included the impact of Registry Ridge and the impact 20 of the expansion for -- of the Front Range College and 21 shows possible improvements in the time line for 22 improvements at Harmony and Shields intersection. And 23 that was done. You should have had that included in 24 your packet. Matt Delich prepared that. So that 25 condition was met. 0 5 • 1 There's one rather long condition relating 2 to storm drainage. To summarize that, again at the 3 time of submittal of the final PUD, the developer was 4 to provide a design for storm water conveyance 5 channels and structures from the Harmony Ridge PUD to 6 the Burns Tributary to the south across Cathy Fromme 7 Prairie. That has also been done, as has letter of 8 intent submittals have been provided for outside 9 drainage easements to cross the natural area. Those 10 were easements that were provided by the City to this 11 applicant. 12 Actually, I would have to rely on other 13 staff for that. It was either provided by this • 14 applicant to himself, if it was -- if it occurred 15 prior to the sale of the property or if it was 16 provided by the City to the applicant if it was after 17 the sale of the property, which brings us to the last 18 condition, which is resource protection. 19 As you recall, the southerly, I think it was 20 about, 140 acres of the property was -- has been 21 purchased by our natural resources department for an 22 addition to the Cathy Fromme Prairie. 23 In connection with that, the last condition 24 that was required at preliminary was a notice that the 25 layout and density of the development may have to be C 1 changed based on evaluation of street width variance 2 requests, the configuration of design of the street 3 intersections, as well as information regarding views, 4 the building mass transition zones and site layout 5 from the prairie -- from the trail through the prairie 6 as well as Taft Road. 7 So it is our opinion that all six of those 8 conditions have been addressed and been met. We are, 9 as a staff, recommending approval of this final PUD 10 with two conditions that were included by Steve as two 11 additional memorandums that were presented -- or 12 prepared for the Planning and Zoning Board. 13 The first of these, in a memo dated 14 May 7th, is a recommendation that there be a condition 15 applied that says that the street right-of-way of a 16 width of 58 feet for the Seneca Street extension from 17 the new West Harmony Road south across the Overlook 18 Convenience Center property and the Harmony Ridge PUD 19 must be dedicated to and accepted by the City prior to 20 the filing and recording of the plat, the utility 21 plans, and other PUD documents and/or the issuance of 22 any building permits for this development. 23 What this condition applies to is this 24 section of road right here, this portion of Seneca. 25 Just to the north of this is a proposed convenience 0 • 7 • 1 center. And the applicant and the owners of that 2 property have reached an agreement, and they have 3 executed a contract. But because it will not become 4 final until after the P and Z's action on this 5 tonight, we are recommending that this remain as a 6 condition. And I think Mike Dean can address that -- 7 can address that more if there is any questions on 8 that. 9 The last condition is that prior to the 10 issuance of any building permits, the developer shall 11 provide a public handicap accessible, 12 bicycle/pedestrian trail with easement from the east 13 side of Mourning Dove Lane to the south property line • 14 at a location near the west end of the proposed dam 15 for pond 6. The exact alignment and design of the 16 trail must be finalized prior to the filing of the 17 final PUD documents. 18 And that is this trail that is noted on the 19 site plan right down here. This is Morning Dove Lane 20 that runs right here. So with that, either I or other 21 staff members could attempt to answer any questions 22 that you have. 23 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Does the board have any 24 questions or can we move on to the applicant's report? 25 Is the applicant present? I thought you 8 1 might have left us or something. It is getting late. 2 MR. VAN ZANT: Hello, Board Members. My 3 name is Joe Van Zant. I live at 119 West Lake. The 4 goals we have tried to maintain, as we have gone 5 through this project, I would just like to review 6 them. We have tried to maintain and take advantage of 7 the natural topography that we have to work with on 8 this site. 9 It's probably a little difficult site with 10 the fingers of land that run off to the southeast. We 11 have tried to use the natural topography to run our 12 roads around and to locate the town houses and houses 13 on the natural lay of the land to -- so that we 14 wouldn't have to disturb it, and it takes -- makes it 15 a more attractive project. 16 This has allowed us to have the majority of 17 the units, both town houses and single-family, look 18 off over the Cathy Fromme Prairie and also have a good 19 view of the mountains. And because as the ground 20 steps up to the north, even the units that lie in the 21 middle of the project will be able to see over the 22 southern units and see the mountains. 23 The lowest spot in the project is where 24 Seneca comes in, and that we have provided a water 25 feature which will help establish and keep the same 0 • 1 natural feeling as you enter the project, as you'll 2 see out as you approach the south side of the project. 3 We worked closely with natural resources in 4 the front end of this project developing criteria. 5 They have the units that look out over the prairie. 6 Their massing and their colors and their textures will 7 be attractive from the natural resources, as well as 8 from the interior of the project. In fact, natural 9 resources did a computerized generation, and I think 10 we might have some picture of that this evening, and 11 they paid for it to make sure that it was something 12 that they were accepting. • 13 We also worked closely with the ridge to the 14 east in establishing property lines that laid out on 15 -- lined up with their houses so that their views 16 would be blocked to the least amount. We have 17 established a height criteria on those single-family 18 houses to help that along. 19 And we feel that the overall result is that 20 we have had a relatively high density for this 21 difficult site, and we think it's an attractive 22 alternative to the older developments in town that 23 will provide a choice for home purchasers. 24 I'm willing to answer any questions. And we 25 also have engineering here to answer any technical • 10 1 questions. 2 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Okay. Any questions at 3 this time? 4 Okay. We will call you back when we need 5 you. Is there anyone from the public that would like 6 to address us on this matter tonight? 7 Okay. Then we will bring it back to the 8 board for questions and discussion. 9 MR. DAVIDSON: The question I have is 10 Chokecherry, the private road, what grade is it? 11 MR. DEAN: Chokecherry, the grades are 12 approximately 6 and a half percent, I believe, to 7 13 percent. 14 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I don't know that 15 that's necessarily correct. Because I understood that 16 the reason that was a private road is because the 17 grade exceeded city criteria. 18 MR. DEAN: Well, the approach grades to the 19 intersections do not meet the city standards. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: What grade is that? 21 MR. DEAN: The approach grade to Harmony 22 would need to be 2 percent or less for a distance of 23 125 feet. 24 MR. DAVIDSON: And at that point for this 25 125 feet, what is the greatest gradient? 11 1 MR. DEAN: Over the 125 feet, I believe the 2 first 85 feet of that, leaving Harmony, would be under 3 2 percent and then increasing with a vertical curve to 4 the 6 percent over the last, I think, 40 feet. 5 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. I guess my concern is 6 we have a safety issue here in the wintertime. We are 7 talking about people trying to pull out onto Harmony 8 during rush hours and everything else on a gradient 9 that's going to be icy. And if you try to pull out of 10 any intersection with no gradient and ice, it's tough. 11 And on such a busy intersection as that, where 12 nobody's going to be slowing down for you, and there's 13 no lights at that point, I think that is an incredibly 14 dangerous situation. 15 MR. DEAN: Staff had -- the applicant had 16 requested a variance for this that staff denied, 17 because we had some of the same feelings at that time. 18 However, our code doesn't really address private 19 streets. 20 The applicant at that time, rather than 21 trying to meet the engineering standards, chose to 22 make the street a private drive. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. I guess my attitude is 24 whenever we are given variances or let things like 25 that slide, they had to be as good as or better. And 12 1 I don't see this as good as or better. I see it as 2 worse. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The important point, 4 though, Bob, just to make sure you understand this, 5 was a variance was not granted. 6 MR. DAVIDSON: That may be, but this to me 7 is part of the network of our streets. If it connects 8 to a major artery, that is different than connecting 9 to a collector street. We are talking major artery 10 here. 11 And then, I guess my other question is what 12 -- I don't have a copy of the Harmony plan with me as 13 far as access control. But I would like somebody that 14 is familiar with that to cite maybe that also. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Harmony corridor 16 plan doesn't extend on the west side of the college. 17 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's just on the 19 east side. 20 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have an 22 access plan out here. 23 MR. DAVIDSON: I guess I have real concerns 24 with the gradient. My attitude is in order to lay 25 this property out right, for multiple reasons they 13 1 chose to go down one of the steeper routes. When if 2 they had laid out the roads differently, maybe they 3 would have lost a few lots along the way, but the 4 gradient wouldn't be as much of an issue. 5 So in essence, we are making amends. We are 6 letting them slide on something like this so they can 7 maximize lots, possibly. And I don't buy that when 8 we're talking safety. 9 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Glen? 10 MR. COLTON: Yeah. What improvements, if 11 any, are being done to West Harmony Road as a result 12 of this project? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This project is not 14 improving West Harmony Road. It's part of the Harmony 15 realignment. There will be a median placed in Harmony 16 Road that will restrict the Chokecherry access point 17 at Harmony Road to a right-in/right-out only, as well 18 as other medians along the new Harmony Road as it 19 extends to the north and ties into Taft Hill and 20 County Road 38D. 21 MR. COLTON: Fred, I was wondering if you 22 could speak to the condition of Harmony Road, both 23 west but primarily east, in terms of bike lanes, 24 sidewalks, curb and gutter. Could you address what 25 condition the road is in? 14 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where the new Harmony 2 Road will extend through the Overlook Subdivision, it 3 will be built to the four lane cross section with 4 raised curb medians, bike lanes, and turn pockets. 5 Where it extends back to the east from Seneca, it will 6 basically remain as is with some improvements along 7 developed sites. 8 The new subdivision east of the ridge has 9 curb and gutter sidewalk improvements. The new Latter 10 Day Saints Church has also got improvements to that. 11 But most of it will maintain its rural character with 12 the bike trail pedestrian -- or the pedestrian trail 13 on the north side and bike lanes, I believe, don't 14 fully connect back to Shields Street on the south 15 side. But at this point, the extra width of the 16 pedestrian and bicycle trail on the north side of 17 Harmony Road utilizes those opportunities on the north 18 side. 19 MR. COLTON: Okay. I was out there, so I 20 can just use personal testimony, but I just wanted to 21 get your vouch for what is out there. My observation 22 was from basically that church on the south side to 23 the new development that you talked about, there is no 24 sidewalk at all and no bike lane; is that correct? 25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. rIL • 15 • 1 MR. COLTON: And I think on the north side 2 from new Harmony down to the church, there wasn't a 3 bike lane or sidewalk either. I think there was a 4 sidewalk that started further on down towards that 5 vacant lot; is that true? 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think you're 7 correct in that. 8 MR. COLTON: I guess I might ask the 9 applicant, how are you meeting needs of the 200 -- the 10 people that live in these 200 units in terms of being 11 able to bike or walk safely anywhere from this 12 development? • 13 MR. VAN ZANT: I guess I don't quite 14 understand your question. We are attached to the bike 15 system in the Cathy Fromme Prairie with two 16 connections directly on the south and one on the east 17 and one on the west. And you know, our sidewalks come 18 out to Harmony where they attached to sidewalks across 19 the front of our property, with the little bit of 20 property that we have on the new Harmony sweep. 21 And the bulk of the property kind of fronts 22 on old Harmony Road on to the west. And that whole 23 strip along there will be used as a lane to the 24 trailhead; the trailhead being just right on the 25 corner. So the pedestrian is fairly worked out pretty 16 1 good. 2 MR. COLTON: The reason I'm asking this is 3 because one of our criteria is: Can additional 4 traffic -- vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic 5 -- generated by the land uses be incorporated into the 6 community transportation network without creating 7 safety problems? And I'm just wondering how people 8 might wish to ride their bike east or walk. 9 MR. VAN ZANT: They can go directly -- there 10 is connections right directly into the ridge to the it east, and they can go right down into the Cathy Fromme 12 Prairie and attach, you know -- 13 MR. COLTON: But not on the street system, 14 just on the trail? 15 MR. VAN ZANT: Across the front of our 16 property there is, I think, a sidewalk. 17 MR. COLTON: Okay. But there is an area -- 18 sensitive area to the east -- 19 MR. VAN ZANT: East on other properties. 20 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. 21 MR. VAN ZANT: I think our engineer also 22 wants to make some reasons why we haven't been able to 23 quite meet city criteria on why it is a private -- we 24 preferred not to have it a private drive, but why we 25 had to go that route. 17 • 1 And keep in mind, that even the grades that 2 we have aren't as steep as some that exist. And they 3 say right now, like at Remington -- and Elizabeth, 4 Remington, and would-be Remington and Prospect -- I 5 mean, these are all street grades that are steeper 6 than what we have here. 7 This was really brought into the project -- 8 just this street connection, to allow secondary fire 9 access into the project is why it was brought into it 10 at some point. 11 Are there any other questions? 12 MR. GAVALDON: If you can remain out there, 13 sir, but I have got a couple for Fred, and maybe I can • 14 get some understanding. Fred, when we were doing 15 Martinez Park under the LDGS, they wanted to name some 16 private streets, and we went through this 17 clarification in changing one street to be connected. 18 But Sherry indicated they do not name private streets. 19 But I'm going on her thought on that. 20 So I'm looking at -- Chokecherry Trail is 21 labeled as a private drive. Is this going to be named 22 and recognized in the city or how will they identify 23 this? 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not sure on that. 25 Maybe I can defer on that to Mike Dean. 18 1 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. That's all right. 2 MR. DEAN: I believe the street would not be 3 named, and any resident along that street, addresses 4 would be referenced off of a city -named street. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. So that's good to 6 hear. So we won't see that Chokecherry Trail looking 7 like a street sign. It will be something totally 8 separate from a city street. 9 MR. DEAN: That has been our policy in the 10 past. 11 MR. GAVALDON: And this will continue with 12 this particular one. 13 MR. DEAN: Yes. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Now, I've got an 15 observation here. And I probably should have brought 16 this up at the workshop. But I just noticed that we 17 have courts, drives, trails, and lanes as the suffix 18 to the streets and private street. 19 Isn't that a bit confusing for the 20 residents, fire department, and police that we have 21 three nomenclatures for identification, courts, 22 streets -- no, courts, drives, lanes, and trails? It 23 just seems awfully confusing. 24 MR. DEAN: The Poudre Fire authority and 25 police emergency dispatch do have the opportunity to 19 • 1 review the plans and review the street names, and have 2 not indicated such a problem. 3 MR. GAVALDON: I see a problem on this. 4 They have got three nomenclatures as suffixes to this. 5 Can there be some opportunity to kind of minimize the 6 diversity of these? I mean, court is a court. I can 7 live with that. But you have got drive. You have got 8 lane and you have got trail. It is just an 9 observation that just really confuses. And a would-be 10 resident will probably be just as confused with this 11 process. 12 But I'm concerned about the private street, 13 and I do see a safety issue. And just reading, the • 14 LDGS cannot exceed 8 percent. You say 6. Maybe 15 perception is one thing versus what the data says. So 16 I'm concerned. Do you have any comments on that to 17 alleviate my concerns? 18 MR. VAN ZANT: Alleviate your concerns? 19 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. How will this not be -- 20 how will you keep it safe? 21 MR. VAN ZANT: I think it's -- keep it so we 22 can lower the speed limit on it. And it doesn't have 23 a long shot. It's rather a short piece of street from 24 the intersection to where it enters Harmony. That is 25 one thing we can do. 20 1 It is a right-in/right-out only. So there's 2 nobody that's going to be trying to shoot across 3 traffic. I think that in itself helps what happens on 4 that street. Nobody is coming across fast trying to 5 get into it. I think that is an eliminating factor of 6 what happens on that street. 7 MR. GAVALDON: What is your posted speed -- 8 what will your posted speed limit be? 9 MR. VAN ZANT: 25 miles an hour, I think. 10 Probably less than the 30 -- we might go lower than 11 that. I doubt that you would get up that fast anyway 12 in that short -- if you look, it is a real short strip 13 in there between the interior intersection and 14 Harmony. It's not -- I haven't measured it, but it is 15 not a very great distance. 250 feet. I mean, you 16 can't really get going very fast in that amount of 17 time, too. 18 MR. GAVALDON: I know some cars that could. 19 MR. VAN ZANT: If they attempt to do that, 20 they don't have much where to go. When they get to 21 the corner, they have to take a turn. 22 MR. GAVALDON: I'm just concerned about the 23 private street, and where it is, and how it is a 24 secondary access out. 25 MR. VAN ZANT: Well, it was intended as • 1 mainly an emergency access in for the fire trucks is 2 the reason. Original it was a cul-de-sac. And it was 3 by the request of the fire authority that it was made 4 a street out -- or in. 5 MR. GAVALDON: Is there any opportunity ever 6 to make this a public street? Is there any -- 7 MR. VAN ZANT: Why don't we let the engineer 8 talk, and he'll tell you the subtleties why we can't 9 do it. We would love to do it if we could. The new 10 Harmony sweep, as it turns, drops to 3 foot at our 11 property line, and that was from our natural grade, 12 and that gives us some problem in getting down quick 13 enough to make it work. • 14 MR. GAVALDON: Along with the engineer, if 15 he can speak to this, I would like to know what the 16 net loss would be if he did attempt to make this a 17 private street in terms of units. What was the data? 18 Maybe ask Mike, please. 19 MR. WARD: My name is Rich Ward, Testique 20 (phonetic) Consulting Engineers. To give you a little 21 bit of the history, back when, as was just said, this 22 was originally a cul-de-sac at that end, the fire 23 department came back and says, We need to have a 24 secondary access. 25 It wasn't so much as a secondary access for 22 1 the residents that live there. It was basically for 2 the fire department in itself. When that, the 3 original preliminary was done, there were a couple of 4 things we looked at. They said, Yes, it would work. 5 The new Harmony design came through. 6 When they designed the new Harmony Road to 7 make that work, the -- if you've been out there, you 8 will notice that the curb and gutter that is on the 9 north side that's in already is significantly lower 10 than the old Harmony Road. That is what we're having 11 to meet as we're coming down. 12 So the perception out there, when you go out 13 there, Well, what is the problem? Why is this steep 14 grade here? Why can't we make it work? Because we 15 are not matching the old Harmony. It is the new 16 Harmony that we are trying to get down to match. 17 And again, right now in order to -- even 18 with the 6 percent, we are coming out of the 19 intersection at a 6.67 percent going into a 1.72 20 percent and then going into a vertical curve coming up 21 to a 6 percent, and this is all within 200 feet until 22 we come to the next intersection. 23 In that same area right now, we are cutting 24 anywhere from 5 to 3 feet in that 200 feet to bring 25 that even lower to give as much as we could -- you 23 • 1 know, the grades to work. 2 I said, you know, the right-in/right-out, it 3 is not going to be a major -- what we consider -- a 4 major thoroughfare coming in there. People from -- 5 coming in from College are going to have to come down 6 to Seneca to come into the subdivision. 7 Are there going to be people that are going 8 to come out? I'm sure there will be. But the access 9 was primarily put there for a fire -- emergency fire 10 department access, secondary access to the site. 11 Seneca at our end down there is also a 12 divided -- we have a median in the street down there. 13 So, if you will, it is two streets. So if one gets • 14 blocked by an accident, there is still the other side 15 that is accessible. 16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Did you run an 17 analysis to make this a public street? And what was 18 your unit change? 19 MR. WARD: For the units themselves? 20 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. If you were to make 21 this private street -- 22 MR. WARD: Street public? 23 MR. GAVALDON: -- street public -- 24 MR. WARD: How many units would we -- 25 MR. GAVALDON: -- did you run an analysis, 24 1 and how many units would you lose or gain? 2 MR. WARD: If we would make that a public 3 street, we would probably be looking at in the 4 neighborhood of probably 10 to 12, minimum. And 5 probably, the other thing that I would have to take a 6 look at, the entire site out there, we are trying to 7 -- we are trying to stay as close as we could to the 8 natural topography of the site. You know, that was 9 one of the criteria that was asked upon us by the 10 natural resources and other folks to try to make the 11 subdivision blend in with the natural topography out 12 there. 13 If we try to come back in and get this 14 street to meet the criteria to come in at the 2 15 percent for 125 feet, and make this thing work, we 16 would significantly change the topography of the -- 17 this property itself and also what you would be 18 looking at from new Harmony as you came by and on down 19 towards the Cathy Fromme Prairie. 20 So that was -- you know, there was more than 21 just the street. We looked at the entire subdivision 22 that it was going to affect. 23 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. That is all I have for 24 now. Thank you very much. 25 MR. DAVIDSON: A few questions in regards to • 1 this private lane yet. From what I see here, I'm 2 going to estimate that one quarter to one-third of the 3 residents will use that for exiting and entering, 4 because it is just the way the roads run in that 5 development. 6 I had a couple of thoughts. One is why 7 wasn't this road contoured in such a manner that it 8 would have gone over to Morning Dove Lane, then you 9 wouldn't have had that lane to deal with. Instead of 10 shooting it straight down, you could have jogged it 11 over. I'm going to assume you would have lost lots 12 and that was the main reason. But again, we're 13 talking safety here. • 14 The other thoughts I had to make maybe this 15 road doable where I would feel better about it with 16 safety, one of two things, why couldn't there be -- as 17 in many intersections that access Harmony, why 18 couldn't we have an acceleration lane as part of that 19 development, so that somebody who pulls out of there 20 has some chance to accelerate? 21 Because I'm going to imagine that Harmony at 22 that end is going to be four to six lanes in the 23 future, and it's going to be very tough to get out of 24 there without that acceleration lane going out of that 25 road. There is no light there. You have got the M 1 grade there. In wintertime, it is going to be very 2 interesting, not to mention coming in. 3 When you look at that road, you're going to 4 be coming in there at a fairly quick clip, because you 5 have no deceleration area. And as soon as you hit 6 that steep spot, you're going to be in somebody's 7 front yard or their driveway. 8 I guess maybe if somebody could address -- 9 if they can remember everything I have said -- if they 10 could address some of the ideas I had. One other 11 thought was if that was designed just for emergency 12 vehicles, then why can't it be like some of the other 13 developments chained off except for them? 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: To address your 15 accel/decel lanes or acceleration lanes, we normally 16 do not require acceleration lanes in an urban type of 17 roadway. You will see those type of acceleration 18 lanes on state highways. Harmony Road, where we do 19 have a much higher design speed and travel speed on 20 Harmony Road, a decel lane was not planned. It would 21 be more of a right -turn pocket, and we really don't 22 require decel type of storage length for decel lanes 23 in an urban type of environment. 24 The intersection of Harmony and Seneca at 25 some time in the future is slated for a potential 27 • 1 traffic signal at that location. That addresses two 2 of your questions. What am I missing? 3 MR. DAVIDSON: Well, the chain to chain it 4 off, because it was designed -- at least the rationale 5 I heard was -- it was for emergency vehicles only and 6 that was why they had to have the second access. But 7 yet, to me, they are taking advantage of it for other 8 reasons. 9 I guess what bothers me is anytime we can't 10 build a road to city criteria, we call it a "private 11 road." I think that is a bad habit to get into. We 12 can wind up with a lot of private roads that won't 13 meet city standards, and then where are we later on in • 14 the future? 15 I mean, to me that is not acceptable. I 16 mean, that is just a cop-out. That's just a -- that's 17 just one more loophole to go through when you don't 18 want to meet the criteria you're supposed to meet. 19 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Glen? 20 MR. COLTON: On Mr. Davidson's remark, 21 I just want to make it clear, it doesn't make a 22 difference in my opinion in the code whether it's a 23 public street or a private street. It needs to be 24 safe. 25 The term "street" in the old code, under 28 1 which the Land Development Guidance System is 2 characterized, says a street is a -- shall mean a way 3 for motorized vehicular traffic, and it says whether 4 it is a street, highway, thoroughfare or any other 5 designation. 6 And so, if this is a way for motorized 7 vehicular traffic, I think it is a street. And then, 8 the question of A2.4, Is the street and parking system 9 designed to be safe, efficient, and convenient, comes 10 into play with both public and private streets. 11 MR. DAVIDSON: Right. That was what I 12 wasn't clear on when I started through the LDGS. I 13 mean, I don't have a problem with most of the 14 development. I think you have done a really nice job 15 on it compared to what we saw, I don't know, a year, 16 year and a half ago. I mean, it's improved 17 exponentially in many ways. It's just, this really 18 bothers me. 19 I wish there was a better solution to this 20 one problem. If it weren't for this, I would not have 21 much issue with this proposal at all. 22 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Glen? 23 MR. COLTON: I just have one question. I 24 appreciate Paul clarifying that. I guess I envision a 25 situation where this is a private drive; the City 1 says, This doesn't meet our standards, but we approve 2 it. And then, someone's driving down this hill and 3 runs over someone on an icy day or something, and the 4 City gets sued. 5 You know, someone may say, No, it is a 6 private street; you can't get sued, but I also know 7 that down in Douglas County, or whatever, there is 8 this whole subdivision sliding off the hill that 9 people said, You shouldn't build up there; you 10 shouldn't build up there. And now, the citizens are 11 suing the county for allowing it. 12 And so, I have real concerns about saying, 13 Well, we said it wasn't safe, but go ahead and do it; • 14 not being a real smart thing to do. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And I can't guarantee 16 you that -- in fact, we discussed that some in the 17 office as to -- presumably there would be an easement 18 for public usage of this street across the property. 19 And so, whether there would or would not be liability 20 in a case like that is kind of a lawyer's paradise. I 21 can guarantee you that -- 22 MR. COLTON: I hate lawyers either way. 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In other words, 24 arguments can be made on each side of that. 25 MR. COLTON: Okay. I want to follow up with 30 1 Fred, I guess, on Harmony/Shields intersection. All 2 right. Now that I've been through this thing, I hope 3 I'm looking at the right report by Mr. Gutledge 4 (phonetic), but there is, I guess, a July 197 and then 5 a February of 198 end of report. And I feel I should 6 look at the most current one. And let me get at the 7 correct place here. 8 Okay. On the February 23rd report, it says 9 that the current level of service overall is D, which 10 is acceptable. But that was current level 1997 11 peak -hour operation. Okay. It says, Five-year, short 12 range, peak -hour operation -- which I assume has to 13 be, like, by 2002 or maybe even earlier. I don't know 14 if that is -- it says, Overall unacceptable for a.m. 15 and p.m. Okay. Now, I know we have level -of -service 16 standards, and I don't think "asterisk" is within our 17 current level -of -service standards, is it? I mean, 18 that is F, right, or below F? 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir. 20 MR. COLTON: So would this meet 21 level -of -service standards within the next four years 22 or so, in your judgment, with no improvements? 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is a problem 24 with the geometric design of Harmony and Shields 25 currently. There is an existing problem. It was 31 • 1 looked at by our traffic engineer and his feeling on 2 it that the minimum number of trips that this 3 development would add to the intersection of Harmony 4 and Shields would not justify requiring them to 5 mitigate. 6 They're looking at a.m. peak adding six 7 right turns. And primarily the problem we have at 8 Shields and Harmony Road is going to be with the 9 eastbound right turn lane. There is none, currently. 10 MR. COLTON: Okay. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The intersection has 12 a quasi right turn lane. People are driving in the 13 dirt out there. • 14 MR. COLTON: With potholes. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are potholes. 16 At p.m. peak, the development would add three right 17 turns at p.m. peak hour. And the background traffic 18 and the overall traffic from other developments from 19 existing traffic on Harmony Road and the lack of 20 geometric design is what's creating the problem at 21 Harmony and Shields. 22 Our traffic engineer at the time didn't feel 23 that this project would be responsible for building 24 right turn lanes or additional through lanes when it 25 is a -- in this particular location is an incomplete 32 1 arterial street network system. So that was the 2 staff's position on that. 3 MR. COLTON: Okay. This also shows that the 4 eastbound a.m. is unacceptable, not just the right 5 turn. It also shows that the westbound afternoon is 6 unacceptable, not just the right turn. So it seems 7 like there is a little more of an issue. And I hear 8 that the incomplete geometry -- it will be mixed 9 sometime in the future. 10 Are there any firm plans in place or any 11 funding in place within the next five years to fix any 12 of these deficiencies? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It would probably 14 fall back into the overall sizing category for a 15 capital project, and I'm not sure if oversizing has 16 funds addressed towards this location at this time. 17 MR. COLTON: Okay. So we have an 18 intersection that isn't -- won't be at acceptable 19 level of service within three to four years. And 20 there is no money available -- we already have a 21 seven-year building community choices that doesn't 22 have this in it; is that correct? That doesn't have 23 improving this in it? And we have no plan within our 24 street oversizing. It is a potential, but there is no 25 plan that says, We are going to fix this within three • 33 • 1 or four years; is that correct? 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We are in the process 3 again of looking back at our deficiency index on 4 existing intersections. This intersection did, as we 5 ranked the intersections last year looking at 6 deficiencies level of service, volumes of traffic, 7 ranked third on our list for a right turn lane, 8 eastbound right turn lane. 9 MR. COLTON: Okay. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We are follow up -- 11 following up on that study currently, and doing some 12 valued engineering, looking at potential improvements. 13 And we may have some answers to that question, but we • 14 sure don't have those answers this evening on when and 15 what time frames that those improvements will be 16 implemented. 17 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. 18 MS. CRAIG: Fred, I want to ask you about 19 the old Harmony Road and the intersection of Taft Hill 20 and old Harmony Road. When -- what is the time line 21 on when the new Harmony Road is going to be put in? 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The new Harmony Road 23 should be open sometime in September of 1998. 24 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So it's -- are they going 25 to block off so that people can't use the old Harmony 34 1 Road/Taft Hill intersection? 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. That 3 connection -- that intersection will go away when the 4 new Harmony Road opens up. 5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you. I did want to 6 ask, since Glen is sitting there, did I read this map 7 right? Is this dam going to be 20 feet tall? 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I don't think 9 it's 20 feet tall. It's not jurisdictional. And the 10 way they do that is on the upstream side -- in order 11 to be jurisdictional, it is 10 feet, but I don't think 12 it's 20, is it? It's like 12, 15, something like 13 that? 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On the upstream side, 15 it's 10 feet. The reason it looks so tall, the 16 downstream, is because we are trying to catch the 17 grade -- the matching existing grade -- so the 18 criteria is on the upstream side. And that upstream 19 side is only 10 feet deep. 20 Okay. So, yes, it does look like it is 21 tall, but it's going to look very natural. The slope 22 is shallower than what the existing topography is out 23 there right now. So, yes, it does look like it is 24 steep, but it's not a pounding 20 feet of water behind 25 it. 35 • 1 MS. CRAIG: And it has a little road over 2 the top, so we could have kids there jumping off the 3 top of it? I guess I don't envision this quite being 4 very safe. 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have to provide 6 two things. There is a bike path connection to come 7 down to the Cathy Fromme Prairie bike path connection 8 that goes across there. We worked with Craig Foreman 9 with the parks department to come up with a design 10 that will meet ADA requirements to come down through 11 there. 12 The ditch itself will have to be realigned 13 -- the irrigation ditch which goes across there. So, • 14 yes, it does look like there is a road across there 15 for the irrigation ditch that is going to travel 16 across there. We originally had a culvert, and both 17 the parks department and the ditch company would 18 rather have seen a bridge, from what I understand very 19 similar to the one that they just installed down at 20 Taft and the Cathy Fromme Prairie. But, yes, that is 21 the access that will go down to the bike path. 22 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So it is going to be just 23 a dirt road over the top of this dam. It's going to 24 be 10 feet on one side and 12 feet on the other, and 25 there won't be any fencing or guarding of any kind to 36 1 keep people from falling off of it, is how I envision 2 it? 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're right, it's 4 just a -- but the slope is just like walking down some 5 of the streets around town that come off the sidewalk 6 when you're going down. But, yes, where the bike path 7 itself will be, it will be graded out. So it's not a 8 steep slope. 9 MS. CRAIG: Okay. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. 11 MS. CRAIG: An old down -the -hill kind of a 12 slope. 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, if you go out 14 there -- sure, if you go out there, somebody goes out 15 there along the ditch, yes, it will be -- it will be 16 the safety edge, and then, there will be a slope going 17 down. Where the bike path itself is going to be and 18 the access down to the ditch and the Cathy Fromme bike 19 path, that will meet ADA requirements and the side 20 slopes accordingly. There won't be a safety issue out 21 there as far as pedestrians are concerned. 22 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Let me check with our 23 staff. How does that meet the criteria or water 24 hazards or safety under the LDGS? 25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not sure there is 37 • 1 any -- I think it is silent on that issue. 2 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Because the pond is far 3 enough away that if somebody fell off it, they 4 wouldn't fall into pond 6? 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is a shoulder, 6 yes, along the dam. 7 MR. VAN ZANT: There is not a road across 8 the top of the dam. Only the irrigation ditch goes 9 across the top of the dam. 10 MS. CRAIG: But because they are going 11 across, there will be some kind of a path that -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 13 MS. CRAIG: It looks like Paul is trying to • 14 help me on this one. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to read 16 the criteria that is stated under water hazards. If 17 the project includes an irrigation canal, water body, 18 or other water channel, have necessary precautions 19 been taken to minimize any hazard to life or property? 20 A3.3. 21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So somebody on this, if 22 they fell off, wouldn't fall into any kind of a water 23 area, the pond or -- 24 MR. VAN ZANT: It's not a steep bank. It's 25 a gradual sloping bank. There is no sharp drop off. 38 1 There is nothing -- we are not creating anything 2 that's even as steep as what is already out there, in 3 fact. I mean -- 4 MS. CRAIG: What you're doing is you're 5 bringing in 130 units that puts X amount of kids out 6 there horsing around; that's all I'm worried about. 7 I've seen kids in action and I just want to make sure 8 with staff that they feel this is a safe environment, 9 especially with the Cathy Fromme and the bike trail 10 and so forth. 11 And if it isn't, if there is a way that we 12 could mitigate it with some kind of fencing or 13 something -- or am I just. . . 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Rich, do you know 15 what the slope on that is? Is it three to one or four 16 to one, do you know? 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the -- the 18 upstream is four to one, and the downstream side is 19 four to one, I believe -- or three to one on both 20 sides, three to one on both sides of that dam. 21 MS. CRAIG: So a four to one slope you feel 22 comfortable with? 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 24 accepted a three to one. 25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I think they've Right. 39 • 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We require four to 2 one for our -- for our detention ponds. And when 3 they're privately owned, we do let them go to three to 4 one. If you go any steeper than that, then you 5 probably have to put some rip -rap, or something to 6 hold them. But three to one is not that bad and it's 7 only for 10 feet of fall. It's not -- it will be 8 pretty steep, but it's not -- it's something you can 9 walk on. You wouldn't slip down it. 10 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I just needed some 11 reassurance on that. Thanks. 12 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Okay. Have we got 13 through all the board's questions? • 14 We must be ready for a motion. Who's going 15 to try this one? 16 MR. COLTON: I will do it. Okay. I 17 recommend denial of the Harmony Ridge PUD Phase 1 18 Final 49-95B, and the criteria A2.1, the neighborhood 19 compatibility, which is vehicular, pedestrian, and 20 bicycle transportation. And the initial statement on 21 here is, Can the additional traffic, vehicular, 22 pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, generated by the land 23 uses within the project be incorporated into the 24 neighborhood and community transportation network 25 without creating the safety problems; and can impact 40 1 from additional vehicular traffic meet city traffic 2 flow delay policies; and pedestrian and bicycle needs 3 be addressed so that opportunities for these travel 4 modes are integrated into the overall pedestrian and 5 bicycle systems? 6 In reading those three criteria, I think it 7 flunks in all three. And first of all, not having any 8 bike lanes or sidewalk along the south side of Harmony 9 from this development back connecting into, what, 10 Shields Street, I think is unacceptable. 11 I appreciate our traffic engineer's opinion 12 that, Gee, just adding a little bit to an already bad 13 situation isn't bad or is acceptable. I think adding 14 any traffic to an unacceptable traffic situation where 15 we don't meet the city traffic flow policies is bad 16 policy, and we shouldn't allow it. 17 And I also think that this private road 18 thing is not safe. And so, that's why I'm 19 recommending denial. I know we can't ask the 20 applicant to fix the Harmony/Shields intersection or 21 to put bike lanes and to put sidewalks in on that 22 other area. 23 However, I do know we have a huge funding 24 problem within the city to fix problems like this. 25 And by not addressing these issues as they come up and 41 • 1 saying, We just can't improve a development with these 2 sort of conditions, we have no way of addressing 'those 3 issues. And I want someone to address those issues, 4 and this is an issue right here that needs to be 5 addressed. 6 There is nothing in community choices that 7 is going to fix any of those problems. I don't think 8 of those areas will be addressed in street oversizing. 9 As far as I know -- and I was on the, again, 10 transportation funding community that studied this in 11 some detail, and since those are areas that were 12 developed in the county, my understanding is that, 13 well, those are things that are going to have to be • 14 fixed through other mechanisms, and we can't even 15 charge for those things through the street oversizing 16 fund. 17 So I think the community is stuck in a hard 18 place here. The development itself is not bad, but we 19 have got deficiencies that need to be corrected, and 20 we have no money. In fact, we probably have a hundred 21 and some million dollars worth of capital improvement 22 needs over the next 15, 20 years that we don't have a 23 clue how we're going to pay for it. That is why I'm 24 recommending denial. 25 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Is there a second? 42 1 MS. CRAIG: I would second it, but I want to 2 add a, I guess -- what would you call it -- a friendly 3 amendment, because there are some other criteria that 4 I don't feel like they've met. I would like to add 5 A2.4. 6 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Excuse me, Glen, you did 7 A2.1, right? 8 MR. COLTON: Yes. 9 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I would like to add A2.4, 10 and this involves the private drive, because I don't 11 feel that the street system was designed to be safe, 12 and I also am looking at the design criteria, which 13 would be A3.2, because I don't think it complies with 14 the design standards that are necessary. Can I add 15 that to your -- 16 MR. COLTON: I agree to 2.4. Could you 17 explain a little bit more on the next one in that 18 sense? 19 MS. CRAIG: It's 3.2. What is it? It's 20 page 58. What it says is, Does the project comply 21 with all design standards, requirements, and 22 specifications for the following services or have 23 variances been granted? And one of them is streets. 24 MR. COLTON: Okay. So we haven't -- it 25 doesn't apply, and we haven't granted a variance, so . • 43 • 1 you are citing this one. 2 MR. COLTON: Yes, I would agree -- 3 MS. CRAIG: Yes, it doesn't comply. 4 MR. COLTON: -- to add those two to the 5 motion. 6 CHAIRPERSON BELL: At this point we have a 7 motion for denial based on A2.1, A2.4, and A3.2. Any 8 further discussion? 9 MR. DAVIDSON: I would add that I would go 10 along with that also. I don't have a problem with the 11 development in general. I think it is a very nice 12 development. It is a class act as far as design and 13 most of the layout, but I do have some real concerns • 14 for these areas myself. 15 MR. GAVALDON: I have to agree with my 16 fellow board members in all aspects, because -- I'm 17 going to support to deny this as well, and I do agree 18 with all the criteria. But my main concern, I want to 19 get back to, is our funding and not having the money 20 for this. 21 However, I would like to -- hopefully that 22 there is a learning on this that we needed to address 23 these issues. But the private drive, that is a major 24 concern. And so, I will be supporting to deny the 25 application. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON BELL: Let's go ahead and take a vote. THE CLERK: Craig? MS. CRAIG: Yes. THE CLERK: Colton? MR. COLTON: Yes. THE CLERK: Gavaldon? MR. GAVALDON: Yes. THE CLERK: Davidson? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Bell? CHAIRPERSON BELL: Yes. Harmony Ridge Final PUD has been denied, 5/0. I guess we need to take another quick break. (End of discussion.) 1 STATE OF LORADO ) • 45 ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON) 3 4 I, Mary Louise Eick, do hereby certify 5 that I am a Registered Professional Reporter, 6 Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public within 7 the state of Colorado. 8 I further certify that this videotape 9 recording was listened to and taken in shorthand by me 10 and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form, and 11 that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct 12 transcript, transcribed to the best of my ability. 13 I further certify that I am not related 14 to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties 15 herein, nor otherwise interested in the result of the 16 within proceedings. 17 In witness whereof, I have affixed my 18 signature this 27th day of August, 1998. up' 20 )Yla � , (S E A L) MEADORd COURT REPORTING LLC 21 Mary Louise Eick, RPR, CSR 22 and Notary Public 23 24 25 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 13 Project: Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Project Description: Request to modify the condition of final PUD approval, which required that the development agreement, final plans and final plan be executed prior to the June 18, 1998 (Continued) and July 16, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig pulled this item for discussion. Member Craig wanted to discuss a specific project on the list (Waterglen PUD). Member Craig was concerned that this project has been on the list for 3 years. She wanted to get a figure from staff on how much time they have spent on this project. She asked Stormwater how many submittals have been made to their department from this applicant. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility replied that they have had 13 submittals which included the preliminary and ODP. There have been 8 final submittals. The submittal is very large and he estimates about 100 hours have been spent reviewing this project. They even had an outside consultant come in to review the plans at $1,100. He added that 35 to 40 hours of meeting time. Member Craig asked Engineering the same question. Mike Dean, Project Engineer responded that the same number of submittals would have come through as Stormwater. He stated that their review is not as long as Stormwater's. He estimates 70 - 100 hours of review time. He stated that their meeting times were the same as Stormwater. Mr. Schlueter added that there is a lot of phone time and internal discussions also. Member Craig asked Director Blanchard about the time the Planner would have spent on this project. Director Blanchard replied that our time is minimal after P & Z approval. Member Craig also questioned the time for other departments staffs time for this project and other meetings that have been held on this project. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 14 Member Craig believes that there has been a lot of money spent on this project from a city standpoint. She as a taxpayer believes that there has been too much time and money spent on this project and this project has gone on too long. Member Craig referred to this item being pulled last May and was told at that time that this was a done deal. The Board even looked at giving them 6 months, until 1-28-98. The project is still not complete and that she feels that this project is being poorly handled, it is not complicated and not unique to other projects. She feels this has become detrimental to the public good. Member Craig moved to deny the extension of Waterglen PUD. Lucia Liley, representing the Roch Company who is the owner and developer of the Waterglen site. Ms. Liley understands the frustration of this, and she was not present at the last Board meeting when this came up -- to remember that there have been two different owners. The original owner of this took this project through the ODP, the preliminary and the • final. That accounted for the majority of the submittals. The engineering drawings were started after the final, and then the project came to a halt. It was not the current owner who had any lapse in time in filing revisions. This owner has tried diligently since before the May hearing, they purchased the project just prior to the May hearing, and this Board new that at the time the extension was given. Ms. Liley went on to say that they have hired two sets of Engineers to be able to bring this project to conclusion. She stated that it no ones fault particularly, that a plat and development agreement have not been signed, but it is certainly not within the control of this applicant that they are not now at a point where they have this done. They have been advised that the development agreement can begin as of last week, but it is not a process that is totally within their control. Ms. Liley listed a number of major issues that they have had to deal with since the owner took over this project. She stated some of the major issues that they have had to deal with have been a result of changed direction by the city staff. New things have been wanted and demanded by the staff and it takes time to go back through the city process, with additional staff review and revisions. She noted the issues with Vine Drive both the on -site and off -site, how to allocate costs, what about Summitview, the truck route possibility, the park purchase agreement, Vine Drive improvements, Cooper Slough and ELCO service. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 15 Ms. Liley stated that they do not know what more they could be doing, that this applicant is not dragging his feet. He has spent a huge amount of time and resources as well trying to get a large complicated project through the city system and respond to city changes and requests. She stated that they are close to being done and that was based upon the advise of staff and that is where they are tonight. She strongly urged the Board not to take the step of trying to rescind the approval of this process because this developer does not deserve that result. Chairperson Bell asked city staff to respond to those comments. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department stated that he could vouch for the comment that they have been diligently working with the new developer trying to reach some consensus of approval of this project. There have been numerous submittals, with lots of meetings to reach agreements and they are very close to finishing this project. Member Craig asked if there have been any submittals since December of 1997. Just recently there has been a submittal to engineering and asked where stormwater was. Mr. Schlueter replied that that was the last official full -set submittal, but there have been numerous meetings with their new engineers, the last discussions with them have been more complete and they have gone the extra step and they are trying. He would say maybe a couple more submittals and a round of review of mylars would complete them. Member Gavaldon commented that there was a level of risk in buying a project that is three years old and all the complicated problems that go with it. His opinion is that this has been on the burner too long and he supports Member Craigs views and her working and analyzing the costs that go with it. Ms. Liley addressed Member Gavaldon's concern. She stated that when this developer picked up this project it was almost in final form, but as she has already explained, this developer has had to deal with new city policy and various major changes requested by the city staff. Chairperson Bell asked Ms. Liley for a time frame for the completion of this project Ms. Liley stated that their goal would be 60 days. Chairperson Bell asked staff the same question. Mr. Schlueter felt 60 days was optimistic with 2 rounds minimum of review left. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 16, 1998 Page 16 Mr. Stringer felt a November date would be more realistic. Member Craig discussed the question of past and present school enrollments and can the same schools absorb the children from this development after the time has past. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained to the Board that there was no criteria or obligation to extend this project, but if they see diligence and think that it would equitable to extend it, it would be the advisable thing to do. If they see lack of that, on the part of the applicant, then that would be another matter. He thought that the Board should base their decision on whether there has been diligence or lack of. Deputy City Attorney Eckman also suggested that if the Board thinks an extension is appropriate that they make it clear that the Board would not be enamored with another extension, then they need to make that clear in the decision. That any extension beyond this would not be a reasonable request. Ms. Liley offered for the developer to continue this project until a date certain. • Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Modification of Condition of Final Approval for all projects with the exception of Waterglen PUD. Member Bell seconded the motion The motion was approved ". Member Craig's previous motion failed for lack of a second. Member Colton moved to extend Waterglen PUD to December 16, 1998 and if the project is not complete by that date, that the project dies. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-2, with Members Craig and Gavaldon voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:46 a.m.