Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/16/1999n fu Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Torgerson, Craig, Bernth, and Colton. Members Meyer, Gavaldon, and Carpenter were absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Jones, Fuchs, Eckman, Kuch, Virata, Kreimeyer, Herzig, Stringer, Harridan, Jackson, Gonzales, Wray, Daggett, and Diede. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: • 1. Minutes of the June 3 and August 5, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. Resolution PZ99-8 Easement Vacation 4. #18-99 Brookfield Annexation & Zoning 5. #21-99 North College Rezone Discussion Agenda: 6. #33-94E Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 7 (Village Inn) - Final 7. #11-81S Huntington Hills Apartments, 7`h Filing, Final PUD 8. #53-84A Modification of a Standard (The Preserve at the Meadows — Warren Farm, 3rd Filing, #53-84N) 9. Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Amendment to the Master Street Plan for the Proposed Realignment of the East Vine Drive Arterial Member Craig pulled item 4 for discussion. Member Craig moved for approval of Consent item S. • Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Torgerson abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest. The motion was approved 3-0. Planning and Zoning Boar.. Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 2 of 21 Member Bernth moved for approval of Consent items 1, 2, and 3. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Brookfield Annexation & Zoning, #18-99 Project Description:. Request for annexation and zoning of approximately 43.01 acres of privately owned property located south of East Harmony Road and east of Cinquefoil Lane Alignment. The recommended zoning is Harmony Corridor District (HC) and is located in the Harmony Corridor Plan area. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig wanted to have the In -let Ditch in Fossil Creek be added to the recommendation to the Council about this annexation and zoning. Planner Fuchs had spoken with the applicant and the manager of the North Poudre Irrigation Ditch and asked if they were receptive to the proposal to add the In -let Ditch on to the annexation. Both parties were receptive. He requested a revised copy of the plans and a revised legal description from the applicant. They hoped to have that complete before going to Council. This addition would make for a continuous city boundary. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Craig moved to recommend approval of the project to City Council with the condition to add the Fossil Creek In -let Ditch within the annexation. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. • Planning and Zoningtard Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 3 of 21 Project: Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD, Lot 7 (Village Inn), #33-94 Project Description: Request for a 5,000 sq. ft. sit-down restaurant on 1.24 acres; located at the northeast corner of Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive. The site is Lot 7 and Pad H of the Harmony Safeway Shopping Center. The parcel is zoned HC — Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Approval with color modifications. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Shepard noted this project was continued from the previous hearing, after a request for a more subdued color scheme. The Board requested that the color "Mulberry" be removed from the building. The "Mulberry" color was replaced with the color "Putty". The "Burnt Sienna" Orange was replaced by the color "Clay Pot". The "Prussian Green" was replaced by the color "Teal Green". The condition listed in the staff report was no longer necessary. isMember Torgerson asked Planner Shepard where in the LUC the color issue was discussed. Planner Shepard responded that the project was reviewed by the LDGS, All Development Criteria A2.7, the Architectural Criteria. Rick Forester, Director of Architecture for Vicorp Restaurants, hoped this change was pleasing to the Board. He reviewed the changes that Planner Shepard presented and hoped that the Board found the changes to be favorable. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Torgerson made the comment that in the compatibility section of the LDGS, it listed that buildings need to have colors and textures similar to those in the existing neighborhood. He liked the new colors over the previous ones, he still felt they were not similar to any of the buildings in the center, so he questioned the Board's authority to ask them to change colors. Planning and Zoning Boar. Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 4 of 21 Member Bernth moved to approve the project with the new color scheme. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Huntington Hills Apartments, Final PUD, 7" Filing, #11-81S Project Description: Request for 224 Multi -family dwelling units on 11.94 acres. The site is a combination of two separately owned parcels located between College and Lemay on the eastside of the future extension of Fossil Creek Parkway, north of Fossil Creek and south of Mail Creek. The request includes a new bridge over Fossil Creek and a street connection between Mail Creek Lane and Roma Valley Drive. The parcel is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Residential. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Shepard reviewed some history of the project. The preliminary review was approved in April of 1999 with two conditions. The first condition was that the preliminary did not grant an expression of layout and density. The applicant agreed to that condition, so nothing had to be completed to fulfill the condition. The second condition was about an amendment to the Master Street Plan to allow the Mail Creek/Roma Valley Drive connection in lieu of the High Castle connection directly south. That condition has been satisfied by City Council Resolution #99-59, which was adopted on May 18, 1999. The Final PUD was in substantial compliance with the Preliminary PUD. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, was representing Andover Development. This was a complex and unique site, placed between the two bordering drainage ways. The access was off of Fossil Creek Parkway. There were 11 buildings, with a mix of 2-story, 2 and 3-story and 3-story buildings. The 3-story buildings were on the interior of the site. The buildings are oriented to the outside of the site or to the green space on the interior of the site. All of the parking was "sandwiched" between the buildings, so you would not be seeing all of the parking, just the buildings. The original ODP for Huntington Hills had many multi -family sites scattered throughout the development. Many of those multi -family sites have become other types of development. Parcel J, the last phase of Huntington Hills, needed to be multi -family. This project created many Planning and Zoning ard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 5 of 21 other benefits for the community. Finally, a bridge would be constructed over Fossil Creek, which would allow the east and west ends of Fossil Creek Parkway to be united. This would create a connection from College Avenue to Lemay, which has been a City goal for the last 20 years. This project also created a connection from Miramont to Fossil Creek Parkway. The street plan called for Highcastle Drive to continue and connect to Fossil Creek Parkway. This also called for a connection of Mail Creek and Roma Valley Drive, which was approved on the Master Street Plan. Miramont would also benefit because the developer would be building a pedestrian path with bridges to access Fossil Creek Park. This development would also improve Fossil Creek Parkway. This development was planned to stay 200 to 300 feet away from the two natural drainage areas, which would become the property of the City and be preserved by the Natural Resources Department. Public Comment: Jodi Bublitz, resident of Fossil Creek Meadows at 5408 Parkway Circle East, wanted to share some information gathered about Fossil Creek being a collector street. A collector street was intended to carry a volume of 5,000 vehicles per day. She received correspondence about Fossil Creek Parkway from Mark Jackson in Transportation concerning the anticipated volume of 8,000 vehicles per day. He went on to say that the City was concerned because the projections go beyond the preferred 5,000 vehicles • on a collector street. Mr. Jackson listed other collector roadways currently exceeding the 5,000 vehicle per day. She respectfully requested that the project be denied until the City and the developer can come up with a pro -active plan to keep traffic volume down to the level intended for a collector road of 5,000 vehicles per day or less. Trish Abelhoff-Smith, resident of Miramont at 5112 Sawgrass Court, shared a story of walking down the hill seeing a child almost get hit by a car and a different story of a woman racing down the street to park in front of the school to pick up her child. She wanted to say that there was a major safety problem behind the school. She felt connecting Roma Valley Drive would create more problems. There is still a major problem in the front of the school. There has been a flashing school zone incorrectly placed. She felt they could use another flashing zone light and raised crosswalks. Ms. Abelhoff-Smith felt the children would not go all the way to the provided crosswalk. There are problems with the bike lanes too. She felt that the whole process of the project has been fundamentally flawed. Attaching Roam Valley Drive to the complex is atrocious. She felt there were conflicts of interest with more that one City staff person. Discussion: Member Colton asked Mark Jackson about the traffic issues. Mr. Jackson, Transportation Department responded to the traffic volumes on the • collector street. The recommended level was around 5,000 vehicles per day. The impact study showed, depending on which part of Fossil Creek Parkway, the anticipated Planning and Zoning Boar. Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 6 of 21 volumes do exceed the collector street standards. This was not a unique situation. There were other collectors exceeding the recommended levels and still function well. He did research Planner Shepard's comments and consulted with Eric Bracke to see if the roadway would operate efficiently and safely. Member Colton noted the width of a collector is the same as a minor arterial. The main difference between the two was a left turn lane, as far as he could remember. He couldn't remember from the preliminary what Mr. Bracke said about the safety of the road. Mr. Jackson stated that a minor arterial had an estimated daily traffic of 3,500 to 15,000 vehicles per day. The collector could transition into the usage of the minor arterial. Member Colton asked if the roads are the same widths. Mr. Jackson stated that the travel lane widths are the same. The minor arterial has a center lane for left turns. Member Craig asked about having 8,000 cars per day on a road that would never have a center lane for left turning, isn't there a problem? Mr. Jackson said that was the same question he asked of Mr. Bracke and was told that because of the design of Fossil Creek Parkway, the roadway would operate safely and well within the level of service for the City. Member Craig assumed that Fossil Creek Parkway is fragmented right now, so were the figures a modeling right now or were they taking counts only to the dead end. Mr. Jackson said they were long-range forecasts. Member Craig asked if it would make a difference in the vehicle count if this development did not go in. Planner Shepard stated that after a discussion with Mr. Bracke, the estimated 8,000 trips per day would rise to that level with or without this development. Member Craig asked with all of this information, why did they decide to keep it a collector? Planner Shepard responded that it was an agreement, made in 1989, by the Service Director and the Fossil Creek Meadows Home Owners Association. He gave a historical background about when they downgraded Fossil Creek Parkway from an arterial to a collector and shifted the road off of the section line. Planning and Zoningtard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 7 of 21 Member Bernth asked which streets were the collector streets exceeding the vehicle limits. Planner Shepard repeated the names of the streets as West Swallow Road, East Swallow Road, and East Stuart Street. The volume was only at certain times of day, not 24 hours a day. Marc Virata, Engineering Department stated that the developer has provided a left turn lane heading south on Fossil Creek into Mail Creek. There is also a left turn lane into the site itself. There has been bays provided at those intersections. Member Colton was concerned about not having Kathleen Reavis at the meeting to discuss the safety issues, Mr. Jackson had a memo about safety features written by Ms. Reavis with three issues. The features include a raised sidewalk to be installed on Highcastle behind Werner at Milan Terrace as well as school area pavement marking, plus a ramp from the bike lane to the northern school entrance (so cyclists can avoid parked cars). These improvements were scheduled to be completed this summer. This was an e-mail dated August 1999, so Ms. Reavis meant the summer of 1999. Another feature for Fossil Creek Parkway, would be on -street bike lanes and detached sidewalks. These would • be required due to street standards for a collector. A 20-mile per hour school zone with yellow flashing lights and a raised crosswalk would be installed by the developer at the intersection of Fossil Creek Parkway and Mail Creek Drive. The City would monitor this area for a possible crossing guard to help students get to Werner Elementary. The last feature discussed was a 10 foot detached bike/pedestrian path with curb, would be provided by the developer along the east side of Mail Creek Lane. Member Bernth asked Ms. Abelhoff-Smith if the memo helped mitigate her concerns. Ms. Abelhoff-Smith said that the memo listed what they have done there already. She felt there needed to be additional measures taken. The problems even exist after what they have done already. Member Craig suggested getting the problems fixed by having City staff make a site visit to assess the problems. Member Bernth moved to approve the project with the condition that additional safety issues are discussed with the neighbors. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig would be supporting the motion, but she was not comfortable with the is fact that the street was a collector. She felt there was a larger problem with the public over -using cars. Planning and Zoning Boai.. Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 8 of 21 Member Colton said he would also support the motion and he felt the connections were necessary. He thought the design of the site was good and it was the best use given the area and it preserved more of the natural area than the original plan did. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Modification of a Standard (The Preserve at the Meadows —Warren Farm, 3`d Filing, #53-84N), #53- 84A Project Description: Request for modifications of Standards of the Land Use Code Sections 3.5.1(D), 3.5.2.(C)(1), 3.5.2(C)(2)(d), 4.5(E)(1)(a), 4.5(E)(1)(b), 3.6.2(L)(2)(c) and 3.6.2(2)(e). Located west of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad and north of Horsetooth Avenue generally between McClelland Street and Manhattan Avenue, Recommendation: Denial Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planner Fuchs reviewed the modification requests. The eight modifications could be broken down into two groups, building orientation as related to a street and continuation of streets or street lengths. The applicant brought 3 plans, but the intent was not to choose one plan over the other. The plans were provided to show a comparison if the alternate plans were equal to or better than the LUC plan. Option A was the applicants preferred plan with an internal 'Private Drive", which has been designed to resemble a "Public Street". Option B was similar, but it took out some of the amenities included with Option A. Option C closely resembled a plan that would comply with the LUC. The applicant provided maps with street flows shown in black for comparison in all plan options. Planner Fuchs described the site shots available for the Board. As noted in the staff report, staff does not feel the request met the intent of the code and the proposed plan is not equal to or better than a plan, which would comply with the LUC. Member Colton asked for clarification of what the decision the Board was to make about each option available. Planner Fuchs clarified that the Board was reviewing Option A to see if that plan met the intent of the LUC. Most of the modifications would not be required if the applicant chose Option C, but the applicant has brought Option A to the Board for review. Planning and Zoning lard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 9 of 21 • Director Blanchard stated that Option C is available for the Board because it was likely that the Board would ask for a plan that complies with the code for comparison. The applicant will discuss how Option A is equal to or better than Option C. The applicant, John Spillane, was representing the applicant, David Bailey of Erie County Investments. Mr. Bailey, who created the other Preserve Apartments in Fort Collins, was available for questions. Mr. Bailey hoped to obtain the same quality allowed in the other complex. Mr. Jim Youngie, the architect for the project and Mr. Terence Hoaglund, the project planner were both available also. Mr. Spillane gave a presentation promoting the approval of the Option A plan. Mr. Spillane felt all of the modifications pertained to one issue, which was a "Public Street" that would connect between the two developments. The developer's proposal was to have an internal "Private Drive" to maintain the identity of the development. The question to be considered was if the "Private Drive" was as good or better than the pubic street. The center of the entire project was a town -center. It included a clubhouse, which was easily accessed by tenants next to the clubhouse and was also easily assessable because of the "Private Drive" around it. All of the buildings had a four-sided design, which is a 360-degree architecture on all of the buildings. They were designed with safe pedestrian walkways and they connect into the whole pedestrian system throughout the entire apartment community. The park between the developments had a bikeway from the park and connects with the inter -model corridor • that the city is planning along the Roy Mercer Canal. The applicant designed two access points along the to -be -constructed Meadowlark and an emergency access on Horsetooth. Mr. Spillane said the applicant met with staff in November of 1998 to consider the development plan, which included the present design for the "Private Drive". They felt the street issue never came up at conceptual review and it didn't come up in the first round of comments regarding the application. After the final engineering had been done and the single-family project has been approved, now the staff wanted to require the street to go through. Other options would destroy the quality of the project and make it economically infeasible. By using the terminology of a "Private Street", it would remove the need for some of the modifications. The applicant believed that Option A was the one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfied the intentions of the Code. Option C was only a way of compelling technical compliance of the Code at the price of losing the quality of the development. The staff also believed that the orientation of buildings to face a street and block size made by being bounded by a street was also required. Mr. Spillane provided a packet of the Code requirements for review, which was simply a reprint of the Code. He went over the Code sections that overturned or fulfilled the modification requirements. Mr. Spillane believed a development like this involved the Compact Urban Growth Standards, which were on Page 7, where the city had adopted a Compact Urban Growth Standard policy that would encourage and direct development to take place within areas contiguous to existing development in the • community. That is why the connectivity was not necessary for multi -family Planning and Zoning Boar. Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 10 of 21 developments, so they could maintain their identity. That identity would be shattered with a "Public Street" going through it. On page 8, 4.5(E)(b) all blocks should be limited to a maximum size of 7 acres. This development is 9.7 acres of developable land on this property. All of the blocks are smaller than 7 acres in size. The applicant was simply asking the board to allow them to use the internal "Private Drive" as the definition of where the orientation of the buildings. Mr. Spillane stated there were 45 families in the single-family development that would be affected because they believed they would live on a cul-de-sac. The whole community would be affected by putting the road through. Putting the "Public Street" through the park and the bike trail destroy the pedestrian access and safety. Alternative compliance in reviewing a proposed alternative plan - the decision makers should review if the plan minimizes impact on natural areas, fosters non vehicular access, and provides distribution of the development's traffic with out exceeding level of service requirements. The applicant is pushing for a "Private Drive", but the city wants a "Public Street", and the city would have to pay for it. "Public Street" standards do not allow the amenities that are offered by a "Private Drive". The plan as submitted will protect the public interests equal to or better than a different plan. Option A met those standards. Granting of the modifications would result in benefits for the city, costs are less, no maintenance required by the City, and the modifications preserve the intent and the integrity of the development. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney stated the applicant had some draft proposals of specific findings because they were not in the staff report due to the recommendation of denial. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Bernth wanted staff to address some of the concerns Mr. Spillane addressed and why staff has recommended denial of the modification request. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department addressed the issue of a street standard, public or private, and that this proposal did not meet the standard. It was more of a "Drive" due to the design. This design did not meet the same standards as a `Private Street". The circuitous route would not meet the city standards. The other issue was about the emergency services. The route would be cumbersome for emergency services due to the design not being of street standards. Member Colton asked Ron Gonzales if he would like to comment on the accessibility issue. Planning and Zoning Pard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 11 of 21 • Assistant Marshall Gonzales stated that typically with an internal fire lane in an apartment complex, if there were a party, there would be parking problems for the visitors. The parking problems could become obstructions for emergency access. The developers have to be careful of the turning radiuses in the developments for larger equipment. Member Colton asked staff if the intent now was to require all apartment complexes to have through streets in all of the multi -family projects. He was not sure that was the vision when creating City Plan. Director Blanchard responded that every project could not be connected to a neighboring development, but when the opportunity was there, the staff expects that additional opportunities for connections would be provided. Staff not only relied on the technical criteria used in the staff report, but there were general standards that the Board and the staff needed to pay attention to. There were a couple of those that pertained to this development. One related to street pattern and connectivity standards in the Code. In the General Code, it stated that local streets must provide for both intra and inter -neighborhood connections to knit the developments together rather than forming barriers between them. The applicant made reference to the Compact Urban Growth Standards and providing for physical separation, but in fact that citation referred to separation between communities, not neighborhoods. Like between Loveland and • Fort Collins. A technical criterion was used by staff for review and by applicants while creating the design. This was like the old developments in the LDGS, but not under the new City Code. A multi -family development represents a neighborhood in it's own right, but it also represents part of a larger neighborhood. To provide the opportunity for vehicle and bicycle connections as well as for pedestrian connections to adjacent developments regardless of what land use they are was important. Member Torgerson noted the majority of the applicant's argument was over "Private Drive" versus "Public Street" and a part of the presentation brought up alternative compliance. Member Torgerson felt the applicant made a good argument for that. Why did the applicant not take that route instead of doing all of the modifications? At one point the report stated they met the 150-foot dead-end requirements, and if the applicant could meet those items, they could probably do what they wanted to do. Mr. Spillane replied that if it was a matter of making the drive wider, that was easy to do instead of connecting the road. About the point made for alternative compliance, the development would still have similar problems with either application. The applicant would be prepared to come back with that type of application if necessary, but there still would be a need for a modification. In reference to the 150-foot dead-end length, the applicant responded by saying that Building D had and arguable dead-end, but the building actually had the emergency access off of Horsetooth. The applicant felt as if they fulfilled the requirement. They did want to have a full access there, but staff felt it • was too close to the street to the east, so the applicant tried to solve the problem by allowing the emergency access. Planning and Zoning Boar, Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 12 of 21 J Member Torgerson asked the applicant if that part of the development could be redesigned to meet the 150-foot dead-end criteria. Mr. Spillane replied that to comply with the 150-foot dead-end requirement, it would require eliminating that building. The Roy Mercer ditch created a physical problem where the applicant couldn't bring the building closer. The applicant placed the building far enough away from the ditch to allow for the natural migration of wildlife. Eliminating a whole building would make the project infeasible. Member Torgerson asked the applicant about the comment in the presentation that Option C was economically infeasible. Mr. Spillane responded if you have a "Public Street" through an apartment community, you are going to have a lesser quality community. It would be difficult to finance it and sell it. You would not have the quality, like at the other Preserve Apartments. If there were through traffic, the development would not have the same identity. Member Bernth asked if the fact that not many people would be driving through the development, wouldn't that do the same thing for marketing? Mr. Spillane stated that "Public Streets" are treated differently. There might not be a lot of traffic, but there will be through traffic. It is the Board's personal opinion. Mr. Bailey stated the customers in the development expect a level of care and standard. They wanted the speed controlled, the roads plowed and walks cleared. If this was a "Public Street", the applicant could not control and provide that level of care and standard for the customer. Member Colton stated that neighborhood groups could contract out for snow removal on city streets. Engineer Stringer stated the city did not plow neighborhood streets during normal snowstorms, but a neighborhood could contract out to have that done. Member Colton stated he agreed with the safety issues of the streets, but the connectivity is also important, so it was a matter of weighting the benefits. Member Bernth asked Assistant Fire Marshall Gonzales if he was familiar with the other Preserve Apartments. How was that development with fire safety. Assistant Fire Marshall Gonzales replied the development was not too bad, but the speed bumps make the response time slower. The Fire Authority supported traffic claming devices, but they needed to educate the public that it has impacts on the fire services as well. Planning and Zoning September 6, 1999 Page 13 of 21 lard Minutes 0 Member Torgerson mentioned the architect wanted to address the 360-degree architecture of the buildings. Mr. Jim Jungie stated he was frustrated with the staff for saying this development was like any other apartment complex. It meets the intent and the standards of the City Plan. The development has parallel parking on both sides of the drive, it has a detached sidewalk, and it has an avenue of trees, just like a city street. All of the buildings faced the internal drive and/or the perimeter streets. The "Private Drive" allowed the applicant to have the traffic claming devices at every intersection and turn. The road was defined by protruding eyebrows, so there was specific parking, not at the intersections. There were connected pedestrian walkways at each intersection. The "Private Drive" had the town -center feel that slowed the traffic instead of a road straight through. He felt as if the applicant couldn't have gotten the staff recommendation for approval in November and the applicant would not have gone through final engineering process if they had known about these issues. The applicant had Clark Mapes, of the Long -Range Planning Department, sign off on the plan. Mr. Youngie felt as if the issue of the connectivity came up at the last minute. Member Colton asked staff to comment on the issue that the project seemed to be okay up until just recently. • Planner Fuchs responded that the November 1998 "approval" as stated by the applicant was only conceptual review. Conceptual comments were issued based on the plans that were presented at that time. There was no approval given at that time. The application was submitted in January of 1999. With the first round of formal review, Planner Fuchs addressed many of the items, up for modification now, that the applicant needed to meet, such as street orientations and the block standards. The application was resubmitted, and there was another response by staff addressing the same issues. The second round of review had the same response as the first round of reviews, so the applicant came back to submit the eight modification requests. The applicant was made aware they had to adhere to the block standards, and the staff would not just ignore them. Connectivity was included in that discussion. Mr. Jungie respectfully disagreed. There was a written confirmation of the February meeting with no mention of the connectivity. The applicant would not have completed final engineering if they knew. Member Colton wanted a copy of that letter. He also wanted the staff to explain why the connectivity was such an important item in this case. Planner Fuchs responded that the Code does require the connectivity, instead of creating barriers. The single-family portion had preliminary approval for a neighborhood 40 park. There had been a condition placed that if the modification requests were denied, Planning and Zoning Boara Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 14 of 21 the street would be placed and there would be the needed connectivity. This would knit the respected neighborhoods together as required in the LUC. Assistant Fire Marshall Gonzales added that PFA liked to see two points of access so if there were an accident at the entrance to the cul-de-sac, there would be another way in. Mr. Spillane stated it was not the intention of the applicant to be name-calling. They still felt as if they were not informed of the street connectivity issue until just recently. They were not here to discuss fire access and other issues. The issue tonight was building orientation and how facades should be faced. Ron did mention the need for a modification, and that was why there were here. Member Torgerson asked staff if connectivity was not an issue, would all of the modifications be required. Planner Fuchs responded that many of the modification requests would be met if the "Private Drive" was designed to a "Private Street" standard, but there was also the need for connectivity, which would still need to be addressed. Member Torgerson noted if the applicant went for alternative compliance, many of the modifications would not be necessary. Planner Fuchs stated if the "Private Street" was designed to meet the standards in the code, it would comply with many of the modifications. Member Torgerson asked Assistant Fire Marshall Gonzales that if the road weren't connected and the drive was designed to the street standards, would he support the project. Assistant Fire Marshall Gonzales said that yes he could support the project. Mr. Spillane stated the applicant was prepared to accept that condition of designing the "Private Drive" to "Private Street" standards. Engineer Stringer wanted to make sure the applicant understood that "Private Streets' were to be designed to city street standards. Mr. Spillane said that was Option B. The project would lose a few of the amenities, but it was a feasible condition. Member Bernth asked for clarification of what amenities were being lost. Mr. Jungle stated the amenities were the eyebrows to make the pedestrian connections at every intersection, the ability to have the raised crosswalks, and the opportunity to have the parallel parking defined by the eyebrows. They created this development to Planning and Zoning bard Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 15 of 21 • be better than a "Public Street". The rounded corners around the clubhouse may be forced to become T-intersections. The developer would make it a "Private Street", but he feels they would be moving a step backwards. Member Colton asked if there were bicycle and pedestrian connections over to the cul- de-sac. Terence Hoaglund stated there was a pedestrian connection through the north side of the development, where they did enhance the crossing at the parking lot. In addition to a connection to the bike trail, a further connection up through the single-family has been made. They met pedestrian connection requirements between neighborhoods. Member Colton noted the connection was not direct, it kind of went to the west then connected to the bike trail. Mr. Hoaglund stated there was a possibility that maybe they could get it to go straight thorough, but they would have to widen things out. That would push the parking lot closer to the property line, which would take away from the landscaping, and the development had to be five feet off of the property line. Member Torgerson asked a process question about alternative compliance, and if • alternative compliance needed to be applied for by the applicant. Director Blanchard stated that was correct. It would be part of the development review process and the ultimate decision -maker, whether it is the Board or the Hearing Officer depending on the type of hearing it is, would actually grant the alternative compliance. That decision would not be made until the project was designed and taken to hearing. Director Blanchard wanted to give clarification about a comment that "Private Drives" are the only way to provide certain amenities. There is a provision for City Engineer variances to street standards. Engineer Stringer confirmed what Director Blanchard said as correct. Our standards are set up with a variance request so it could be reviewed to see if there would be any adverse affects to the community. If there were no ill effects, he could grant a variance. There were several instances where they have allowed those amenities. Member Colton noted "Private Drives" were allowed, but not to circumvent connectivity requirements. If there weren't a road up there, it would be easy to just put in a "Private Drive", but the fact that there was a road up there with a potential connection to it was the problem. To him that meant a developer should not come in and say they want to put in a "Private Drive" to avoid having to connect to another road. This could be the same in any type of development. On the other hand he was still struggling with the public good of having the road put through when there was a pedestrian connection to • the cul-de-sac so the people could freely go between the communities. Understanding Planning and Zoning Boar Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 16 of 21 that connectivity was a big issue, but in this instance, he felt it was a smaller issue than he would say in general. Member Craig said one thing struck her when she was looking at the diagram with the blackened streets. If you looked at all of the streets throughout the entire project, they were all interconnected, but when you get to the purple area it almost looked funny the way it did not connect. Connecting the street was more like City Plan. Member Craig saw the interconnection as the important part of the development. Member Colton wondered why the little turn around was not the connectivity for the other project. Member Bernth asked the citizen for his input. The citizen stated that the discussion was to stop people from driving around more than they needed to, yet some of the Board Members were pushing to make it easier to get in a car and drive a block. If you looked hard on the map, there were a lot of cul-de- sacs that were not highlighted, so we might feel that we should connect them all. If you didn't connect them, you might actually encourage people to stop driving and get out and walk to see their neighbor. It was spending money on something that really didn't accomplish anything but stick to a standard that in this situation may not be the best decision. Member Torgerson asked for clarification of what findings needed to be made in the motion. Mr. Eckman responded with the appropriate findings to be made in the motion. Mr. Spillane stated he would provide the wording for the findings more specifically if necessary. Member Bernth stated first that he felt it was a prime in -fill site, with natural physical restrictions. He felt the applicant had done their best to address those restrictions. There were safety concerns of the PFA, but there were similar projects in the city where it was not a huge issue. He could understand the marketing issues of the quality of the development. For the connectivity, he did not disagree with Member Craig, but he could not see that it did much to connect the street through. That was his justification for supporting the modifications. The applicant did change his mind on this one. Member Torgerson asked for clarification on the Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) modification request. Engineer Stringer referred to a driveway cut that you would have similar to what might be on your own driveway with a depressed curb and no radiuses at a street intersection. • Planning and Zoningpoard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 17 of 21 Member Torgerson moved to approve the LUC Modification Requests of Sections 3.5.1(D), 3.5.2(C)(1), 3.5.2(C)(2), 4.5(D)(2)(d), 4.5(E)(1)(a), 4.5(E)(1)(b), and 3.6.2(2)(e), EXCLUDING the LUC Modification Request of Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(c) from the approval. He felt these modifications were not detrimental to the public good. He felt the modifications did not impair the intent and purposes of the LUC. Member Torgerson considered the "Private Drive" to be equal to or better than a "Public Street" with the exception of the connectivity. He did not feel that leaving the connectivity out was detrimental to the public good and he felt it furthered the purposes of the LUC, specifically it met a lot of the alternate compliance, even though that was not how this project was to be judged. Assuming the drive would function as a "Private Street" the block size, in modification request 4.5(E)(1)(a), would be addressed. Section 4.5(D)(2)(d), the lot size and layout is addressed. Section 3.5.1(D), building orientation, is addressed because it is facing what he considered equal to a "Private Drive". Section 3.5.2(C)(1), orienting to a connecting walkway is addressed. Section 3.5.2(C)(2), street -facing facades, are facing what he considered to be a "Private Drive". Member Torgerson felt that Section 3.6.2(2)(e) was necessary for the project to function as a "Private Street". Member Torgerson added a condition that the "Private Drive" be upgraded to "Private Street" standards. • Member Craig wanted clarification of whether he meant "Private Street" or "Private Drive". Member Torgerson stated he meant "Private Street". Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Torgerson left out the maximum 150-foot dead-end drive. He felt it was detrimental to the public good and it is not better than the code so it was not included in the motion. Member Colton supports connectivity, but in this instance he did not see the public good for the neighborhoods affected by the connection. He felt the "Private Drive" was an appropriate option for the development. With that, many of the other modification requests would not be necessary. He would support the motion. Director Blanchard wanted to clarify the condition made on the motion, which related to a requirement that the internal drive be designed to "Public Street" standards. Member Torgerson responded that was correct. The motion was approved 3-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative 0 Planning and Zoning Boaro Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 18 of 21 Director Blanchard wanted to clarify again, there was no modification granted to the 150-foot dead-end requirement. Member Torgerson agreed. Project: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Amendment to the Master Street Plan for the Proposed Realignment of the East Vine Drive Arterial Project Description: Recommendation to City Council to Amend the Master Street Plan for proposed changes to the current alignment of East Vine Drive. This revision has been prepared in response to Council direction to present an amendment to the Master Street Plan for the East Vine Drive arterial. Three potential alignments will be presented for the Board's consideration. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Mr. John Daggett gave a presentation explaining the three options for the eastside and four options for the westside of the East Vine Drive realignment. The option for the Null Alternative included the existing positions on the Master Street Plan. The four westside options include the Conifer Street Option (Option A), the Pinon Street North Option (Option B), the Pinon Street South Option (Option C) and the Option D. The Conifer Street option included curves and strange angled intersections. The Pinon Street North Option included skewed intersections, but it followed the current alignment of Vine with a grid like feature. The Pinon Street South Option, which was similar to Pinon Street North, but has regular 90 degree intersections. Option D was created to see if there was a way to change the alignment, without having people go north to get south. The last option has many S-curves, so it is not as safe. From the citizen input at the neighborhood meeting, the least preferred option was the Conifer Street Option. Staff recommended Option C, the Pinon Street South Option. Options A through D had neighborhood improvements included in the plans, but there was a lack of funding for the improvements. Many of the intersections and areas still needed study. The three eastern options included Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3. The Option 1 displaced a parking lot, a barn and a coral. The Option 2 hugged the railroad alignment to make developable parcels of land in a grid. The Option 3 was a hybrid, which allowed development on both sides of the road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 19 of 21 • Member Craig asked if the City owned the eastside of 1-25. Pete Wray, Advance Planning, had additional maps that might show the area better. The area was in the Growth Management Area. Many of those parcels are eligible for annexation. Mr. Daggett stated that the Master Street Plan showed the east part of East Vine Drive as a minor arterial. The Transportation Board unanimously voted for Option C, the Pinon Street South for the western end and Option 3 for the eastern side. Member Bernth asked if staff has foreseen the costs for 30 years from now. Mr. Daggett stated that the roads would be built as development occurs. The fees paid by the developers would increase as the market increased. Member Craig wanted to discuss the street improvements that would cost extra. Who would pay for the intersections? Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, responded that as pieces develop, they would • improve the roads. Public Comment: Delores Williams, 1520 Hillside Dr., felt that she could not travel on Vine Drive during the Five o'clock hour because of the traffic. She liked the grid alignments better than winding roads. She recommended the Null Alternative. Debbie Ray, 1000 N. College, owned a business that would be impacted on any of the options. She felt there was no real opportunity to look at the Null Alternative. She liked the Null Alternative, and felt the interchange at 1-25 deserved better consideration. Chris O'Brian felt there were existing streets, so it would be a waste to build new roads. He felt there was great potential on Vine where is existed now. He thought that investing the money in improvements along the existing Vine would, better use the money for this realignment. Another issue important to Mr. O'Brian was the meadow to the north of Vine on Lemay. He felt the City kept putting in more roads, which cover open space, watersheds, wildlife refuges, open views, etc. Lemay and Vine seems to be a grid as it is. Discussion: • Member Craig asked to place the information on the record that Options A through D will effect a red hawk nest on the north east corner of Vine and Lemay. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 6, 1999 Page 20 of 21 Kim Kreimeyer, Environmental Planner, stated that the developer would have to setback 1,320 feet. The options vary in distance from the existing historic tree. There is an existing horse farm that doesn't seem to be affecting the tree. The concern is the construction, not the regular existence of the road and people traveling it. Red Tail Hawks are not disturbed by non -human impact. Member Colton asked what is proposed out there already? Mr. Daggett believed that the Structure Plan called for single family residential. Planner Wray stated that there were no proposed projects in the area at this time. Member Colton asked why the Null Alternative was not to be reviewed. Mr. Daggett stated that Council asked staff not to examine the Null, but to create new alternatives. Gary Diede, Engineering Department stated there were many discussions about the neighborhoods in the area, so the plans were made to go around the neighborhoods instead of through them. Member Torgerson asked why the New Harmony Road was not placed around the neighborhood. Mr. Diede stated that the New Harmony Road was placed to the north due to a very dangerous intersection. The housing was not developed at the time, so the people buying the new houses knew an arterial would be placed through the neighborhood. Member Torgerson asked how long the Null Alignment has been on the Master Plan. Mr. Diede responded that it has been on the plans since the 80's. The neighborhoods in the East Vine area have been there since the 40's. So the City would have to purchase housing anyway. Member Craig felt that the Null Alternative was the better option. Member Torgerson moved to recommend the Null Alternative for the westside of East Vine Drive as is exists on the Master Street Plan. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Colton concurred with the recommendation. He felt it should be studied more now that it is not a truck route. Planning and Zoning Pard Minutes • September 6, 1999 Page 21 of 21 Member Bernth agreed with the other Board members. Member Torgerson felt it was important to keep the roads in a grid. The motion was approved 4-0. Discussion for the eastside of East Vine Drive: Member Torgerson asked which option would be better from a safety standpoint. Mr. Herzig responded that all options have the appropriate curvature to the allotted speed for the road to be safe. Member Torgerson moved to recommend Option 3 for the eastside of East Vine Drive. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Member Craig moved to recommend that Council make these changes on the associated plans consistent with the Master Street Plan changes to be made by Pete Wray. Member Bernth/Torgerson seconded the motion. Mr. Wray said that there would be changes needed, but they would be housekeeping changes to the Mountain Vista Map, Transportation Plan for Mountain Vista, and the City Structure Plan Map just to change the Transit Route on Vine Drive. The motion was approved 4-0. Other Business: Not enough people to discuss the other business. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. 40