Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/17/2000Chairperson Colton called the,meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Dodge, McCallum, Stringer, Jones, Bracke, Eckman, Gloss, Byrne and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 20, May 4, and July 20, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. Resolution PZ00-24 Easement Vacation 4. #13-82CG *Centre for Advanced Technology, Parcel U, 11d' Filing, Preliminary and Final PUD S. #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 1't Annexation & Zoning 6. #10-00A Irish Elementary School, 2nd Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 7. #54-87AP The Lodge at Miramont — Preliminary PUD Member Craig pulled items 5 and 6 for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 2 of 10 Project: #10-00 Irish Elementary School, 15t Annexation & Zoning and #10-OOA Irish Elementary School, 2Id Annexation & Zoning Project Description: Request for a two-phase sequential annexation and zoning for the Irish Elementary School. The Irish Elementary 15t Annexation consists of approximately 0.5 acres of land within the Vine Drive right-of-way. The Irish Elementary 2"d Annexation consists of approximately 12.6 acres of land. These applications will be a total of approximately 14.2 acres of land and will consists of the existing Irish Elementary School property, the adjacent street right-of-way of Cherry Street and Irish Drive, the portion of Irish Drive north of the school site, and the portion of East Vine Drive from Irish Drive roughly 1040 feet to the east. Recommendation: Approval with LMN Zoning Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave a presentation describing the annexation. He noted the location of the site using site shots. Member Craig asked for clarification of the location of the first annexation on Vine. Troy Jones clarified where the contiguity was with the City for this annexation. Member Colton asked for clarification of the contiguity requirements concerning the surrounding neighborhood houses. Troy Jones responded that a road right-of-way can not classify a parcel as an enclave, it must be something more substantial. Some of the lots against the school could voluntarily annex, but they could not be forced at this time. Ron Daggett, Poudre School District Representative, explained the reasoning behind the annexation request. He sited better police protection and use of City power resources. Member Gavaldon asked for information concerning cost estimates of police services for the school, vandalism reports, costs for street maintenance and utility savings by annexing into the City. Planning and Zoning•rd Minutes • August 17, 2000 Page 3 of 10 Troy Jones stated that he did not have that information available for the Board. Ron Daggett responded that the savings for utilities were approximately three to five thousand dollars per year. Troy Jones explained the process for maintaining newly annexed land. Mark McCallum, Engineering Department, explained that the City would not take over the maintenance of that street until it was brought up to City standards. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that the County currently maintained the streets1n the annexation and he did not see any reason why that would change at this point. The homeowners in the area would be responsible to upgrade the roads to City standards. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Craig asked what the City cost would be to get the City utilities out to the annexation. Ron Daggett responded that the only utility that they would be using from the City would be electricity. Member Craig had concerns about it being a flagpole annexation with no close proximity of services to tap into. Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office, was not sure of the process, but the City had in the passed purchased the existing lines at a discounted rate and then used them for the new service. Troy Jones added that the annex parcel would pay 10%of the cost to switch over the services per year. Member Gavaidon moved to continue the recommendation concerning the annexation and zonings at Irish Elementary School. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Bernth felt if the savings were substantial for the school district, he was in support of that. He also agreed that the City police could provide better service for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 4 of 10 school. He felt that the project could be conditioned with the absorption of the cost for the new services, but he would not support continuing the project. Member Colton stated he would be supporting the motion because he wanted to hear the information concerning cost before making a decision. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Bernth and Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: #54-87AP The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D. Project Description: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 108 multi- family dwellings on 7.7 acres. There would be nine residential buildings and one office/community building. The P.U.D. includes a combination of garages attached to the buildings, detached garages and surface parking. The buildings are three -stories in height (39 feet at the ridgeline) with the ends of the buildings dropping to two -stories and one-story. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Lemay Avenue and Boardwalk Drive and zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave a presentation describing the project and he used site shots for clarification. He explained the slides in the presentation concerning the LDGS aspect of the review. Mike Sollenberger, applicant, described the unique project and the proximity to the services in the area. He introduced Frank Vaught. Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, gave a presentation including the Oak Cottonwood ODP. He described the densities for the project and how he did not feel that the proposed development had the most density in the area. He felt they had adjusted the project to address the issues expressed by staff and the neighbors. The detention pond became 2 acres in size as an added amenity for the project. They adjusted the building placement to open up more view corridors to the mountains. He described the setback of the buildings from Lemay and the added streetscapes within the development. He showed 3-D renderings of what the 'lodge -type" buildings would look like. He showed estimated views of the development from the street. They felt that the LDGS submittal best fit the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning August 17, 2000 Page 5 of 10 Lard Minutes Member Craig asked about the perimeter fence. Frank Vaught responded that it was placed in front of the pond as a safety measure. He also felt the fence was necessary on the side of the park to protect the development from pedestrians and vehicles from entering the development that do not live there. It would be a lower wrought -iron fence with pillars at the entrances. Member Craig asked if there would be any fill dirt needed for the development. Frank Vaught felt that the development had a close balance of cut and fill dirt and would possibly have to truck out a few dump truck loads. This development would not be building up the base of the foundations to make the buildings seem higher. Member Gavaldon asked why the development was completely enclosed by the fence. Frank Vaught responded that due to the liability of the homeowner's association and the fact that it was a private development, he felt it was best to protect the interests of the association and the public. Member Carpenter asked if there were many children anticipated to be living in the . development. Frank Vaught stated that they could not restrict children from being in the development, and he felt it was actually a nice place for young families. The anticipated impact of new children on the school was only 21 students. Public Comment: Al Hauck, 1100 White Elk Court, reviewed his letter of concern that was submitted as a response to the staff report. He outlined the neighborhood concerns with the proposal. He expressed concerns with violations of the Master Plan, incorrect density calculations and lack of neighborhood compatibility. He described previous versions of the master plan for the area. Unfortunately, this infill parcel was the last left to develop at the higher density, which would contribute to over -development. He discussed Density Chart H of the LDGS and what he felt to be incorrect. He argued the measurements to neighborhood services as being ambiguous. He felt the largest source of concern was with the issue of neighborhood compatibility. He did not feel that the development maintained the character of the existing neighborhood. He had concerns about the traffic impacts. He referred to the findings of fact with which the neighborhood group disagreed. John Busby, 1119 White Oak Court, summarized the efforts of involving the community and the surrounding homeowner's associations with the information concerning the . project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 6 of 10 Laurie Pesetto, neighboring resident, reviewed a paragraph from an affected property owner letter sent to the residents adjacent to the project. She discussed the traffic problems that the neighborhood would incur with the addition of another dense project. Carole Tuttle, 1130 Live Oak Court, expressed her support of the comments made by Al Hauck. Fred Tuttle, 1130 live Oak Court, expressed his support of the comments and recommendations made by Al Hauck. Discussion: Frank Vaught gave a short rebuttal explaining that the original ODP listed more multi- family units than would exist with the proposed project included. He stated that the project had changed after the neighborhood meetings and after comments from staff. He reflected that the applicant had no problem setting a benchmark from which to measure the height of the building to discourage the burming of the land underneath the buildings. There was no objection from the traffic operations staff with the proposed plan. He addressed the density concerns. John Busby made the comment that the neighborhood was not against the project, but against how many units were included in the project. He felt the neighbors were looking for compromise in the size of the buildings and number of units within the development. Member Craig asked for a review of the old ODP and the densities associated with it. Ted Shepard reviewed the Oak/Cottonwood ODP as listed in the staff report. He described some of the changes to the ODP from 1992 to the present. Member Torgerson asked Al Hauck how he felt the staff was incorrect. All Hauck addressed the concern of the placement of the density throughout the development. Member Carpenter expressed her concern about the intersection at Boardwalk and Lemay. She asked if there were any plans to improve that intersection. Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, stated that the intersection was planned to be signalized next Spring, approximately April of 2001. Member Gavaldon asked what the service level would be with the new signal. Eric Bracke responded that it would function at Level B. The intersection was well below the maximum counts. The proposed project would not add significant numbers of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • August 17, 2000 Page 7 of 10 • traffic to the neighborhood. It was developing out as it had been planned. The City did provide a crossing guard at that intersection. Member Craig asked if it was usual to have a project with such densities have only one way in and out. Eric Bracke stated that the project originally came in with a curb cut on Lemay. He had asked that it be removed due to complications it would cause on the arterial. He showed on the plan how the intersection would function. He did not feel that removing a few of the parking spaces on Boardwalk would effect the parking situation for the park. Member Gavaldon asked about the process of dealing with issues surrounding the fence on this site. He asked if it should it be addressed at preliminary or final. Ted Shepard responded that the Board could give advisory comments of what information would be needed for the final. Member Gavaldon asked to see alternatives for completely surrounding the development with a fence. Member Bernth asked Al Hauck if there was enough notice for the neighborhood meetings or if he still had a concern. Al Hauck stated that the second and third meetings had a larger notification area, so he did not continue to have a concern. Member Bernth asked if property values decreasing in the surrounding neighborhoods was still a concern. Al Hauck stated that concern was still being expressed to him by some of the neighbors. Member Bernth asked why some of the neighbors wrote in their letters that they thought the site was going to be a continuation of the park. All Hauck stated that he had not seen all of the neighbor's letters, but he assumed that people saw the site as one farmer's field, so they believed the site would be one park even though it was two separate parcels. Member Carpenter asked Mr. Hauck how the measurements were taken to find the distance to the surrounding services. Al Hauck responded that they were unsure how to take the measurements, so staff told them it was by walking or biking, but they later found out the measurement were to be taken as the crow flies. He felt that was part of the confusion to the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 8 of 10 Density chart. They were unsure if full credit or partial credit would be given depending on the distance. Ted Shepard gave a clarification of the measurements and how they were interpreted. Member Craig asked how close the Collinwood Gym was to the development. She wanted to compare the heights of the buildings. Ted Shepard reviewed a site shot to demonstrate how close the next building was to the proposed development. Member Craig asked what the vacant parcel was to the south. Ted Shepard stated that there was an existing structure on that parcel, so it would not add to the density of the neighborhood. Member Craig asked why the project wouldn't work with the 88 units. Ted Shepard responded that the first point chart submitted by the applicant was not accurate. The applicant made a separate decision to raise the units from 88 to 108 units. Frank Vaught added that they had made an incorrect first try on the point chart. He added that the roofline on the two-story building model only decreased about two feet from the three-story model. The current design allowed for the upper dwelling units to be tucked up underneath the roofline. Member Colton asked if there was any way to explore options of the two Lemay buildings being only two-story in height. Frank Vaught stated that they had already eliminated two buildings. The decrease in number of buildings gave them the flexibility to arrange the buildings so there would be better view corridors between the buildings. He did not feel that eliminating 8 units from the development and dropping the roofline only two feet would have a visual impact. Member Gavaldon asked for a description of what a two-story building would look like. Frank Vaught used a 3-D representation of the proposed buildings to demonstrate what a two-story building might look like. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project as recommended by staff. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning1lard Minutes • August 17, 2000 Page 9 of 10 • Member Craig was concerned about the fence. She thought it looked like a gated community and was a problem for pedestrian connections. She felt that issue should be addressed in the preliminary review. Ted Shepard felt that there were sufficient pedestrian connections at the appropriate places for the connecting services. The sidewalks within the development were detached from the drive isles, so the pedestrian ways within the development functioned as sidewalks. Member Carpenter asked if there was a way to approve the project without the fence and have that addressed at final. Member Torgerson understood the reasoning for the fence along the park, but did not understand the reasoning for the other sides of the fence. Member Carpenter did not want to be doing the design work. She wanted to approve the project without the fence and have the applicant bring a new fence design at final. Member Gavaldon accepted that as a friendly amendment. Member Carpenter added a friendly amendment that the fence be removed from • the preliminary approval, with the invitation to the applicant to bring a new design to final review addressing the issues of better pedestrian connections, more openings, and less of a gated -community feel. Member Colton asked how active the detention pond would be Steve Human, TST Engineering, responded for the applicant that the pond would have water in it, but the tails would only be used during a major storm. Mike Sollenberger added that they will be using the pond as an amenity for the development, so they will be pumping it for water quality and using features like a rolling brook and waterfalls. The water would be 6 feet deep, with a 6 to 7 foot upward bank to hold the additional stormwater when necessary. Basil Harridan, Stormwater Department, stated that they would not know the extent of the storm detention because it was only being reviewed as a preliminary. The stormwater issues would be finalized at final review. He felt a pedestrian connection over the detention area would require a major bridge structure that would be very costly. Member Torgerson appreciated the neighborhood input and that it was to the point and worked with the code. Member Craig expressed her understanding of the frustration that the citizens had, but she hoped that the development would have smaller families and less of an impact. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 17, 2000 Page 10 of 10 Member Colton felt it was a better design in comparison with other multi -family projects that have developed. The motion was approved 6-0. Other Business: Greg Byrne described the Council's action concerning Amendment 24. He described the amendment and the definition of a "valid development application." It was determined by the Council that an ODP was the first development application within the process to be accepted as a "valid development application." He showed a preliminary map defining different committed or growth areas. The Board members asked questions about the amendment. Greg Byrne and Paul Eckman responded to the questions to the best of their knowledge. The Board requested more information concerning the amendment to be discussed at a later worksession. Member Colton wanted to review it and if there were any major concerns that he would forward that as a recommendation to adjust the resolution. Member Torgerson was glad that they did act on the situation as quickly as they did. He felt it would better serve the community. Member Carpenter agreed and felt it was a necessary step to take. She did want to clarify that what Council did was not in any way an endorsement of the amendment, just a response. She did feel that an ODP was the correct place to start. Member Colton asked if the City had been actively approaching developers to update or submit ODPs and wanted to ensure that the ODPs coming in were complete. Greg Byrne stated that the City was only responding to questions asked by the developers and added that he had given specific instructions that Cameron Gloss was to personally review each of the submittals. Member Colton asked if the Board could be informed with how many projects were going to be coming in over the next few weeks. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.