Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/23/1994. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 23, 1994 Garry Norsk, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The May 23, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene Clements, Vice -Chair Jan Cottier, Members Jennifer Fontane, James Klataske, and Bernie Strom. Members Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Jim Clark, Mike Herzig, Tom Shoemaker, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, TOM Vosburg, Kirsten Whetstone, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Ron Phillips, Interim Planning Director read the agenda review items. Consent Agenda: Item 1. Minutes of the March 28, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Item 2. The Detail Center PUD - Preliminary and Final #22-94; Item 3. Silver Oaks Paired Housing PUD - Final #14-88M. Item 4. Harmony Market PUD, 6th Filing, Red Robin PUD - Preliminary & Final, #54-87T; Item 5. • Harmony Market PUD, 2nd Filing, Builders Square Expansion - Preliminary & Final #54-87S; Item 6 - Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary & Final #19-H; Item 7. Ethane Allen at Arbor Plaza PUD - Amended Preliminary & Final, #137-80H; Item 8. Miramont PUD, Phase 3 - Final #54-P; Item 9. Cottages at Miramont PUD - Preliminary, #54-Q (continued); Item 10. Oakridge Block One PUD, Second Filing - Harmony Medical Center - Preliminary and Final; Item li. Stoneridge PUD, 4th Filing - Preliminary, #21- 92H; Item 12. Nokomis Subdivision - Final, #8-94A; Item 13. Timberline Plaza, Lots 3-5, Value Plastics - Final, #26-94; Item 14. Fairbrooke, Tract A PUD - Preliminary, #65-82AA (continued); Item 15. 424 West Oak PUD, #40-92B; Item 16. Courtyards at Miramont PUD, First Filing - Final, #54-870; Item 17. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 18 Resolution PZ94-5 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 19. Resolution PZ94-6 Utility and Drainage Easement Vacation; Item 20. Harmony Farm Annexation & Zoning, #21-94; Item 21. Wild West Annexation and Zoning, #29-94, A; Item 22. Changes to the City Code Provisions Regarding Arterial Street Dedication. Discussion Agenda: Item 23. Amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Land Development Guidance System, #29-90A; Item 24. Amendment to the Land Development Guidance System and Subdivision Regulations in Regard to the Development Review Process Schedule, #30-94; Item 25. Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary, #27-94; Item 26. Mountain Ridge Farm Amended Overall Development Plan, #55-87A; • Items 27. Mountain Ridge Farm PUD - Preliminary, #18-92B. Items 28-32 continued. e Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Items 1. 2. 3. S. S. 12. 15. 17 throu Member Strom moved that Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17 through 22 be approved. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Chair Clements asked if Item 6 was to be voted on only for the Preliminary and that Final would be voted on at the June 6, 1994 meeting. Mr. Phillips, Interim Director, said that was correct. Chair Clements asked for a motion. Member Klataske moved the acceptance of Item 6. Greenbriar Village PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #19-93H. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Items 10, it and 16. Chair Clements called for a vote on Items 10, 11 and 16, which she had a conflict of interest and abstained from voting. Member Cottier moved for approval of Items 10, 11 and 16 on the consent agenda. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Notion passed 4-0, with Chair Clements abstaining. Item 7 - Ethan Allen at Arbor Plaza PUD - Amended Preliminary i Final 8137-80H. Member Strom had two questions of staff about Item 7: (1) The question of negotiation with the State Highway Department with no mention of it in the staff report? (2) The architectural compatibility issue? • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 3 Planner Kirsten Whetstone said the letter was dated in 1985, and in reference to the preliminary, the Arbor Plaza was approved for the site prior to or during the time of the South College Access Plan; and in 1994, we did receive comments from the State Highway Department indicating they don't have a problem with this proposal, It takes access onto Mason Street, which takes access onto College Avenue, in accordance with the approved South College Access Plan. Planner Whetstone addressed the compatibility issue of architecture of the building, colors which staff found compatible and stated the applicant could answer if necessary. Chair Clements asked for citizen participation, there being none, closed citizen participation. Member Strom moved for approval of Item 7 - Ethan Allen at Arbor Plaza PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final #137-80H. Member Fontana seconded the motion. • Motion passed 5-0. Item 13 - Timberline Plaza Lots 305 Value Plastics Final #26 94. Member Strom asked the question regarding Item 13, and if there were air pollutants from the plastics manufacturing facility proposed, his concern was it is in a residential area near a high school, single-family and multi -family residences? Planner Whetstone replied that the same question to the applicant. The applicant has an existing manufacturing plant and that there are no emissions that are violating any clean air standards. She asked the applicant to address the questions. Mr. Steve Steinbeck, architect with the Neenan Company. He was not aware of any current or required air -quality standards or permits required by the State. There is a water storm release permit that is required by the State, which has no negative content. It is acceptable to the State. In the new facility there will be a "clean room" application, so that the air circulation and air changes will be 20 changes per hour, filtered out. The facility is a very low -temperature range production in isolated rooms and was not aware of any emissions. • Member Strom clarified his questions to address fumes and odors, understanding air -quality standards would be met. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 4 Mr. Steinbeck showed the location of the new building to the existing one. Member Strom stated that satisfied his concern. Chair Clements opened citizen participation; being none, closed citizen participation. Member Strom moved approval of Item 13 - Timberline Plaza, Lots 3-5, Value Plastics - Preliminary and Final #26-94. Member Elataske seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Item 4 - Harmony Market PUD - 6th Filing, Red Robin - Preliminary & Final, #54-87T. Planner Ted Shepard gave a brief report addressing Item 4 - Harmony Market PUD, 6th Filing, Red Robin - Preliminary and Final, the issue relates to all development criteria relating to architecture, which includes a standard restaurant and red tubing around the lower parapet wall. Staff believes it does not meet criteria and needed discussion before the Board. Mr. Craig Collins from C S Architects, developer of the project. He discussed the single issue of the neon and its location on the building. He indicated the owner of the restaurant has 11 other restaurants with this same identifying feature. It is an accent trim and is subtle. He was unable to find anything in the guidelines for the City of Fort Collins that would prohibit using the neon. He further illustrated his plan in greater detail for the Board. The intensity of the red was questioned, and the developer indicated it was a deep burgundy. CITIZEN INPUT. Scott Mason - 861 Sandy Cove Ln. - He resides in the Harmony Corridor and was involved with the planning five years ago. He believed the neon was not compatible with the Harmony Market area and it would set a precedent for future developments, as well as the high parapets causing visual distraction to the development. He believed that the design of the building should conform to the overall ODP in this area. There are other restaurants that have compromised corporate design to preserve the integrity of the surrounding environment. He agreed with staff's recommendation. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 5 Harold Swope - property owner in Fairway Estates, west of the proposed site. There is no objection to having a sit-down restaurant, but do not wish to have neon lighting. He was concerned about the red color proposed. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Planner Shepard assured the Board all measures have been taken to control lighting hazards by specific design and direction. Member Strom asked about some of the architectural features of the building. Planner Shepard explained the pad sites used to reduce mass, height and bulk. Member Strom was still concerned about the red color that would be used and that the specific sample has not been seen nor is this color being used elsewhere in the area. There was discussion about making a condition to the motion if it • is approved on preliminary. Chair Clements made comment of her support to eliminate the red neon on the building. Member Strom moved to accept Item 4 Harmony Market PUD - Preliminary, #54-87, with conditions given in the staff report and with an additional condition: Staff review the red coloring, which the Board understands to be a more muted burgundy red at final. Member Hlataske seconded the motion. Member Fontane questioned the condition on preliminary. Member Strom supported the condition to avoid unnecessary review at final when the plans are more permanent. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Phillips stated that if the color issue could be resolved, then this item could come back at the continued meeting June 6, 1994. Member Strom moved that this vas acceptable. • Member Hlataske seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 6 Item 23 - Amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan and Land Development Guidance System. •29-90A. Planner Joe Frank gave the staff presentation and read the staff report of the Harmony Corridor Plan with recommendations. Scott Mason - 861 Sandy Cove Lane - He is a resident for 5 1/2 years and active in the Harmony Corridor Plan as a member of Citizen Planners. He spoke as a resident only. He requested of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the changes to the Harmony Corridor and Land Development Guidance System for the following reasons: (1) He read from the Land Use Policy Plan 70: "...that regional community shopping centers should locate transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the city. Large commercial developments often create demands that exceeds the capacity of the existing neighborhood street network and often cause safety issues in adjacent neighborhoods, such as a collector street for a neighborhood elementary school, located on it." The Harmony Corridor Plan states that it "encourage and support mixed land use development in the Harmony Corridor while preserving and enhancing livability of existing residential neighborhoods." Large commercial development located on collector streets does not promote the livability and viability of the existing residential neighborhood and does resemble the strip commercial development of the South College Corridor. The Harmony Corridor Plan, Policy 5 states: "...it needs to focus location of high intensity land uses such as retail services, automotive, etc., at major street intersections and decrease intensity distance from the major intersection increases". Land Use Policy 5 provides that the location of high intensity land uses to be located in compact shopping centers and major street intersections. Major street intersections includes the arterial streets such as College Avenue, Lemay, Timberline Road, and County Line Road #9. Wheaton Drive, McMurray Avenue and Boardwalk are collector streets and are not considered major streets. (2) The Harmony Corridor, Land Use Policy 6 states: "The Harmony Corridor Plan should recognize the importance of the continued livability and stability of existing residential neighborhoods as a means to expand future economic development in the corridor. The intent is that future development in the corridor be • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 7 sensitive to existing residential neighborhoods." He believed the current commercial development proposals will have significant negative impact on the nearby residential areas and are not consistent with Land Use 6 of the Harmony Corridor Plan. For the above reasons he urged the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend these changes to the City Council to be included in the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Land Development Guidance System. Tim Dolan - 4212 New Hampton Court - He spoke as a private citizen and agreed with Mr. Mason's comments and appreciated the staff's efforts and strongly recommended that the revision be enacted for it is in the best interests of the overall community. Jennifer Carpenter - 1719 Hotchkiss - She stated she lives in Golden Meadows and usually comes before the Board for actions that preserve the past. In this case, she felt it imperative to learn from the past and move in a different direction. She read from a prepared statement regarding sprawl, strip shopping and parking lots. She said the Harmony Corridor Plan acknowledges the neighbors desire for a different and better city. The believed the ordinance clarifies the vision of the community that wards of powerful outside interests. She urged the Planning and Zoning Board to support the adoption of the ordinance. Richard Poche - 4507 Seaboard Lane - He stated he was a member of a group of concerned citizens that recently organized to resist the development of two hotels and a restaurant on 5.2 acres adjacent to his subdivision. As he has been involved with the study of the Harmony Corridor, the more he sees the need to clearly define what is appropriate, wise and compatible development. He had a point of clarification that "service" would include hotels and believed the proposed amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan and LDGS would better reflect the needs of the neighborhood. Pam Becker - 1307 Cape Cod Circle in Golden Meadows - She spoke as an individual land owner. She supported Mr. Mason and Mr. Dolans comments and asked the Boards support of the changes proposed. (Ms. Becker came forward a second time later in the citizen input and stated when the area for commercial use in Golden Meadows was first considered, it was for a small neighborhood business center, not a regional retail center that is being discussed now. She believed that Ms. Liley and Mr. Goldberg are misrepresenting what was planned in the first place and strongly suggested that the Board maintain the original intent of the Corridor Plan.) . Lucia Liley - 1113 Williams Street - She stated she represented the owner of property of the portion of the Golden Meadows Master Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 8 Plan which has been approved for shopping Center use. She requested that the item be tabled until the Board has had reasonable time to consider the planning and legal merits of the proposal. This is a major change that will have immediate and major impact on the affected properties. The intent of the proposed change appears to be to remove the possibility of any retail or commercial use along Harmony Road if it is not located at the intersection of two arterials. No evidence has been supplied, however, with regard to documents that might have been generated at the time this was approved to demonstrate that this is merely a clarification as opposed to a major change to the plan, which she believed it to be. It is difficult to tell exactly what is intended by the language proposed. What is the intent of "free-standing", how is it defined and how is it modified? Why delete the word "collectors" from the Regional Shopping Center Chart of the LDGS and not from the Neighborhood Center Chart, which contains an almost identical provision? The Partnership has a significant legal concern about using a master plan, about intending to apply a master plan to deny specific uses at defined locations, a task more suitable for zoning or LDGS criteria. To eliminate certain uses in specific places without regard to site plan, the particular site, its traffic generation and other numerous things one looks at is, in effect, to re -zone certain properties without the hassle of rezoning or having to meet re -zoning criteria. This she believed is not correct. She said it was bad planning to remove the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board to remove the merits of a particular proposal in light of all those many factors which may affect a decision of locational criteria. Instead it says that no commercial use, regardless of any of those factors, is never appropriate unless it is at the intersection of two arterials. Ms. Liley was also concerned if this was intended to be applied to projects with approved master plans showing retail or commercial uses in these locations? Will it affect those projects which, in good faith, have already begun into the city process? Specific facts about this particular property she desired to enter into the record are: (1) This property was purchased by the Partnership in 1977, it is zoned BP, which is intended in the City code to be for business services. (2) The master plan, on this site, was approved in 1980, specifically showing an approximately 20-acre parcel for shopping center uses. (3) At the time of Master Plan approval, the Partnership wanted to put the shopping center component at the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 9 intersection of Lemay and Harmony, which, ironically, would now be approved under the proposed changes. The City instead suggested that be moved to its present site on the Master Plan at an intersection of Harmony and a collector street for two reasons (further from College Avenue --a mile and a half away --and it would not create the kinds of traffic problems generally associated with that kind of use at the intersection of two arterials). Ms. Liley said in reliance on that advice the entire master plan was developed around removing the shopping center use around that arterial location to its present location. All of the master plan has either been built out or finally approved with that locational change which was directed and intended by the City at that time. At this late stage in the game, when the final piece of the Golden Meadows Master Plan is now being formally submitted to make it impossible to make that use anywhere on the Master Plan by a simple amendment to Harmony Corridor Plan, the Partnership believes it does not have a sound basis either in law or equity. She asked the Board to consider this as they proceed with deliberations. Milan Hanson - 1624 Redberry Court - He stated he was a 30-year resident of Fort Collins and has seen considerable growth and was in favor of the Harmony Corridor Plan and believed that planned development in the City of Fort Collins is desirable. The changes being proposed add specificity to the Harmony Corridor Plan and makes it easier to understand what is and isn't accepted and desired by this community. Mark Goldberg - Denver, Colorado - He stated he is the person that has the option to build a major project at Wheaton, McMurry and Harmony. After the notice received on Friday of the hearing, said that this recommendation the Board may make to Council really amounts to a "land use" hearing. He requested a "due process" presenting his plan to City staff and neighborhood associations to work through the plan. The Harmony Corridor Plan needs to be processed for land uses that affect his proposed development to be approved. By changing the Harmony Corridor Plan now, to disenfranchise the master planning that his project has been placed, where it provides for a regional shopping center, the plan would unravel that. It seems the proposal tonight disenfranchises projects that are in process. He requested the Board table it to allow developers to go through the process. Mr. Goldberg further stated that he has seen a lot of good . planning and zoning ideas put forth in the Harmony Corridor Plan, many of which were to consolidate uses of recreation, retail and T Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 10 work in this area versus relocation where there is dependence on the automobile. The property at Harmony and Wheaton and McMurray have bicycle routes to it today. He had hoped to put into their plan an enhancement of those alternate modes of transportation. If the notion is to only put retail shopping centers on cross arterial streets. One of the main premises of the Harmony Corridor Plan is a reliance on alternative sources of transportation as opposed to developing commercial nodes which amounts to "spot zoning", an undesirable method of planning. More in-depth study is needed before adoption of the ordinance is made. Jeff McLaughlin - 4415 Monaco Place - He urged a strong vote on the LU-5. This is a quality -of -life issue that will affect Fort Collins for a long time. He believed it defined the intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Given the expanding population, it is more relevant than ever. To utilize the arterials is good common sense for projects that take 10-20,000 car visits per day. He believed it would make available a progressive type of employment that would have a more positive effect on the type of employment for development rather than offering minimum -wage employment opportunities at retail outlets and part-time workers. Linda Ripley - 110 N. Sherwood - She said she was a local planner and architect and that she had, as a city staff member, worked on the planning for the Harmony Corridor Plan. She represented herself at the meeting as a resident. She was concerned about the quick nature of the plan which is before the Board and collector streets are not the problem, but locating shopping centers at collector streets and arterials is a very good planning strategy. To quickly take that out of the Harmony Corridor Plan and, more importantly, to change the LDGS, may be too rushed. More thought needs to be given to examine the impacts perhaps 6 months to 3 years down the road. She urged the Board to take more time. Ken McNaught - 1606 Barlington Ct. - He urged the Board to listen to the voices of the citizens in the community, which is turning out in large numbers to address the Harmony Corridor issues, and to not be swayed by the arguments of the various developers coming in, developing and leaving. The neighbors will be left with the development. He urged the Board to work with the Harmony Corridor as was originally intended, since he believed ultimately the Board represents the citizens. Harold Swope - 4925 Hogan Drive - He shared as a resident that he lives next to a shopping center where they were told semi -trucks trips per day would range from 6-36 per week. But it is 60-80 (40-60 are semi -trucks) per day and the shopping center is far • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 11 from being completely developed. He wished the amendment would have been in effect at that time because there is grid -lock on the collector streets. He said that the development is not reflective of the developers' estimates for use. He strongly supported the Harmony Corridor Plan. Peter O'Neill - 906 Whalers Way - He represented himself as a landowner and pointed out that it seemed regional shopping centers were being located in community shopping center sites. He believed it is a good concept to keep work, residences and shopping all in a small area so people don't have to travel far, but the kinds of commercial developments moving into Fort Collins are huge regional shopping type facilities. He believed effective land use planning would eliminate fighting each one individually in locations they are not suited for. He urged the Board to accept the proposed plan. He said the Harmony Corridor Plan should be easy to read and interpret and one that is enforced. Kathy Knukke - 1616 Sheandoah Cr. - Asked the Board to look at the flip chart and maps presented and decide which one looks like . Colfax in Aurora and which one looks like Fort Collins. George Obssuth - 1437 Cape Cod - He viewed the issue as being neighbors representing the neighborhoods against business interests. To keep them separate, access, impacts need to be studied. He believed the amendment does not deviate from the intent of the original plan to protect neighborhoods and he didn't see it as spot zoning, but rather a clarification of the actual intent. He hoped that the Board would not get hung up on technicalities and legal points if the intent of the initial action was clear. He believed the amendment would help clarify that. Ray Sons - 4100 Torrington Ct. - He was concerned because of his personal location near Ticonderoga/McMurray. He believed McMurray as a collector street would be transformed if is not clarified and supported the amendment. George Galida - 4312 Revere Ct. - He resides in Golden Meadows adjacent to Wheaton Drive, which is one of the collectors connecting to the site for major development and that LU-5 has an impact upon. He pointed out to the Board concerns the change to the clarifications, the language used, removing four words and adding eight. He believed it is nothing more than clarification. He believed it left room for interpretation as to how various pieces of property would be used, and he believed that spot • zoning would not occur because of the change in wording in the paragraph. He said that arterial and collector streets can be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 12 unique configurations which may or may not make a land use appropriate in a given location and City staff would clarify that for the Board. It is up to the Board to listen to the concerns of the people in the neighborhood or near the property because configuration of the streets, arterial or collector does have an impact whether an appropriate use can be made on the property. He proposed that collectors in question are of two services, one for neighborhood traffic and the other for commercial. That needs to be studied before LU-5 is applied in the Golden Meadows neighborhood. Sarah Kyhl - 700 Richards Lake Road - She mentioned she was not located near Harmony Road but in the northeast area of Fort Collins and a member of the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition. She commented on the master plans for the City and believed it unrealistic to her for a developer to believe it is written in stone and no longer has to take into consideration the development that is occurring around them. It is important that this issue be supported and make the developer notice they will be accountable whether they have a master plan or not. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements directed her comments to Mr. Frank for those projects currently in the City process. Planner Frank said this concerned vested rights and deferred the question to Mr. Eckman. Mr. Eckman said that if a project has an approved "site specific development plan", which is a final PUD plan, in the context of PUDs, then those are vested rights. If this were to be changed, it would not affect the vested rights. He noted that a "master plan" does not have a vested right and he believed that if a project has an approved master plan and then if the LDGS is changed or the Comprehensive Plan is changed, the change would then apply to the on -going project. Chair Clements asked about any project that has not been heard before the Board? Mr. Eckman stated that those would have to measure up to code as it exists as it comes to the Board for hearing. Chair Clements stated that letter received was entered into the record without their needing to be read. Chair Clements asked about the LDGS with reference to PUDs coming in that may meet these criteria would have to locate at t 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 13 arterials? Does this affect all regional shopping? Planner Frank said no, the policy statement is specific to the Harmony Corridor and doesn't apply to community regional shopping centers outside the corridor. The change to the guidance system is not significant. Chair Clements said that although this amendment is a change in clarification, she asked for clarification of what a neighborhood shopping center is versus a regional shopping/free standing building. Planner Frank said the "shopping center" in the Zoning Ordinance is defined as having four or more uses. Then the LDGS recognizes three categories of shopping centers: (1) Community Regional Shopping Center which is a shopping center which is designed to meet consumer demands from the community as a whole or from a larger area with the primary function offering at least one full-time department store. The center includes also associated support shops, providing a variety of shopping • goods and in general, general merchandise, apparel, home furnishing, as well as a variety of services and perhaps entertainment or recreation facilities. An example of a regional shopping center would be Foothills Fashion Mall, Harmony Market at Lemay, Shopko, Best Buy, Arbor Plaza, K-Mart, etc. (2) Neighborhood Service Center, a smaller center approximately 15 acres in size. The distinction is its design to meet consumer demands from the adjacent neighborhoods. The primary functions offerings are usually a supermarket, grocery store, with an approximate equivalent amount of associated mix of retail oriented square footage. It is generally in the range of 90- 140,000 square feet. Examples would be Scotch Pines, Raintree Village, Cedarwood Plaza. (3) Neighborhood Convenience Center, a smaller shopping center, approximately 7 or fewer acres with 4 more businesses establishing its locating complex which is a PUD, a managed unit which is intended to primarily serve consumer demands of the adjacent family neighborhood. Generally the anchor store is a convenience grocery store. It also includes retail services, personal service shops, restaurants, barber shops, beauty shops, etc. An example would be Cimarron Plaza at the corner of Shields and Drake. Member Cottier said she needed more clarification of the change • to the LDGS. It seems if the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart is being changed to say a project must be contiguous Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 14 to an arterial street, that it applies to all projects throughout the City, not just Harmony Corridor? Planner Frank said it does. His point was to analyze what the. impact would be on potential Community Regional Shopping Centers in other locations and would have a negligible effect. The impact was analyzed for only what effect it would have on our location of community regional shopping centers with the rest of the community and felt it was negligible. Mr. Eckman stated that he wanted to clarify one issue of the vested rights. He stated that the final plans are vested under as a site specific development plan concept and also preliminary plans. He stated that was not correct. Preliminary plans have only a vested right with respect to layout and density through the language of the LDGS, it is a limited vested right at a preliminary planning stage. Member Strom asked Planner Frank if there was investigation of the Harmony Corridor Plan with reference to strip commercial and how commercial units need separation from other units with other criteria. He asked how much record is there and what lead to the conclusion that this is simply a clarification of a previous intent? Mr. Phillips answered that the record had not been investigated but the plan was reviewed the way it was adopted. This is, indeed, a clarification and is based primarily on reading of LU-5 and to a certain extent, LU-7. He said LU-5 reads now "...focus the location of high intensity land uses, retail, service, automotive, etc., at major street intersections and decrease intensity as the distance from the major intersections increases." If, in fact, collector streets are considered as major street intersections under the present wording, there really is no opportunity to decrease intensity because those developments that would happen adjacent to collector streets would take up all the space between what the plan intended as major street intersections, those intersections of two arterials. You can't meet the stated intent of the plan by including collector streets in major street intersections. Member Strom indicated that he did not seem as convinced of that as staff seemed to be. He further stated that Harmony Market was a regional center and currently adjacent to Boardwalk, but the manner it sets on the land, it is away from Lemay/Harmony intersection. If these centers were developed at every collector street, there would be a big problem from keeping it strip commercial. He did not think it was about residential neighborhoods versus commercial developers but saw the Board's . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 15 role as bringing them together, making our community the way we want it to be. He believed the best projects have come through the development process when there is planning and discussion from all sides as "we" rather than a public hearing drawing sides. He thought that more meetings where discussion could take place rather than a public hearing would bring results that would be better for the community, particularly the Harmony Corridor. Mr. Phillips agreed that the process Mr.Strom suggested was desirable, many times necessary. He made an additional comment to LU-7 that sheds light on the intent of the plan is not to have strip commercial. The shopping center mentioned does extend to Boardwalk and is considered adjacent to two arterial streets of Lemay and Harmony. Under the present wording for collectors being where they intersect at Harmony as two major streets, the staff believes that, in fact, commercial development could happen to most of, but not the entire length of, Harmony Road under that interpretation. The LU-7 states: "...preserve a transition or cushion with lower intensity uses or open space between existing residential neighborhoods in the more intense industrial commercial areas." Then it gives examples of less intense types • of uses. Again, staff feels that the proposal is a clarification if collector streets are allowed where they intersect with arterials if they be considered major intersections under the Plan, that there could be, indeed, a condition of strip commercial development along Harmony Road. Member Cottier asked if this clarifies the Plan. It seemed to her that the words need to be examined very specifically She believed to focus the land uses was not a requirement and made comment that this rewording seemed to mean that in terms of the uses "that.free-standing retail and shopping centers must be at two arterials" and that does affect the Golden Meadows master plan that was mentioned by one of the speakers tonight. In terms of the language of the LDGS amendment, if the project continues as an arterial street, it does not prohibit an arterial and a collector. It would have to say is the project at "two arterials". She believed the language, as proposed, leaves a lot of confusion. Member Cottier said she believed it was not just a clarification of the Harmony Corridor Plan and did not recall the specific intent. She would want to study documents more to feel comfortable with a statement. She did believe that the proposal represents a very significant change when shopping centers are limited to two arterials. She did not believe based on this particular situation on Harmony Corridor that it is appropriate • to change policy for the entire City. One of the speakers commented that the Board was here to listen to the citizens but Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 16 she said that the Board is also here to address the policies that have been established by the City and to make sure those policies are fairly applied. She did not think that changing those policies without any appropriate process is the manner to go about it. If the intent of the proposal is to really address location of major shopping, then the wording should not just address where it is not desired. what needs to be addressed is where these shopping centers are needed and desired at appropriate locations. To base it on just a street classification (two arterials) is not reasonable for they could be busier than minor arterials. She didn't think the definition was particularly relevant. Member Strom said another concern, without having round -table discussion, under this policy it seems to suggest that major retail would be acceptable at each major intersection. He was not sure that was desirable along the Harmony Corridor. Strip commercial was undesirable. Member Fontane stated she was interested in what traffic generation rates are expected on collectors versus arterials and how much traffic is expected to be generated from a regional shopping center? She also asked about the expected generation for collectors and is there a figure that remains compatible or not compatible with a regional shopping center? Mr. Tom Vosburg of the Transportation Department addressed the questions defining the collector street as having 2,500 average daily trips to 15,000. Regarding the trip generation without specifics of the site, it difficult to answer because it varies so much and felt it inappropriate to answer without a clearer context. Member Fontane had a comment regarding the "time line" as to how this has come up so fast. She said as a member of Congestion Management at a Council Growth Management work session, this was brought out and discussed at that time. She that there was some conflict with this proposal and the Land Use Policy Plan. She read where regional shopping centers should be located that would not exceed limits of the existing and future transportation networks of the City. She read how the regional shopping centers should function as a single commercial district with pedestrian circulation and discourage multi -stop trips of private automobiles or forcing traffic onto streets whose primary function is to carry through traffic. These centers should be served by public transportation. It seems that the manner of the policy would force more use of the private automobile. e ® Planning and May 23, 1994 Page 17 Zoning Board Minutes P & Z Minutes Planner Frank said that the policies referenced were developed in 1979 for location of regional shopping centers anticipated to be located on College Avenue. The intent was to be planned as "strip commercial" and develop on individual sites. The intent was to be able to drive from one to the other. The Harmony Corridor Plan is a refinement of land use policies plan for a particular part of the town and the intent is different for this area than for College Avenue. The plan for College Avenue is from Prospect to Trilby Road to be a regional community area. The concern was when the Harmony Corridor Plan was developed to not continue this type of land use development there. There are two different locations and intents. Member Fontane restated that the Harmony Corridor Plan takes precedence over that corridor. Planner Frank said yes and each of the neighborhood plans being a refinement to that Land Use Policies Plan. Member Klataske recalled when the Board worked on the Harmony Corridor Plan, there was vision that the City not create another • College Avenue that it be more of an employment center and not a retail strip. The amendment states to limit some of the commercial development but he thought it needed more work and input. He pointed out the need for more definition on the intersections at the State highway and their uses. He discussed possible alternatives to having commercial on collectors or at intersections. Member Fontane stated that regional shopping centers that draw traffic from outside the community bring additional air -quality issues not created by citizens and needs to be considered. Chair Clements stated to the public that the Board will be making a recommendation to City Council and more citizen input could be made to them on this item. There are several issues: 1. The City of Fort Collins is at the 100,000 brink population where the super stores are starting to desire to locate here. 2. She addressed a comment made by citizens that the Board needed to listen to what the citizens say and vote accordingly. She believed that the City provides a means to control growth and design to meet citizen and reasonable development plans. Unplanned growth that occurs outside the city may not be the desired "managed growth" we want to see happen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 18 3. Mixed use is important. The concept is to live, work and play in the different neighborhoods in Fort Collins --not 100% of the time --but the idea is to reduce traffic and air pollution by locating convenience shopping close to neighborhoods. The concern for regional centers locating all along the corridor is valid. The LDGS with more prescriptive neighborhood plans for certainty to protect the neighborhood but allow for creativity in planning and zoning. The LU-5 needs more definition with the neighbors to create the desired objective of the City and neighborhood goals. Chair Clements supported the concept of a round -table discussion with persons in the community, with a 60-day process coming to the "table" to clarify intents of policy and needs of neighbors and developers as a recommendation to City Council. There was concern that regional shopping centers could occur on four corners of major arterials. Member Strom also supported the approach. The concept of thinking as "we" and "us" than "them" will generate better solutions. He desired a tool to view proposed development commercial sites, what would be appropriate, how they are designed. He believed Harmony Market was not the kind of development he would envision for the remainder of Harmony Corridor. Member Fontane supported the concept of "round table" planning and discussion. She stated she had conceptual questions about how centers were defined and was interested in creating prescriptive guidelines making centers pedestrian and bicycler "user friendly". Mr. Phillips stated this was the first step of a number being anticipated by staff, looking at a number of issues as suggested by members of the Board. It is not seen as a "panacea" by any means a step needs to be strongly taken at some point because without certain changes would leave the possibility major shopping centers along the corridor at major intersections and collector streets. This is attempt at a first step of many to define more accurately what is desired to be developed. Member Cottier pointed out there is pressure on Harmony Road, but the LDGS does work in community planning and does consider significant projects. The overload of traffic is evaluated for the compatibility to neighborhoods. She was comfortable to leave the LDGS and Harmony Corridor Plan as they exist today until there is more input for clear, comprehensive criteria for shopping centers. She supported the idea of a 60-day process involved. t • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 19 Member Fontane made a motion to establish a 60-dap process to review the changes to the Harmony Corridor Plan and the LDGS by citizens, interested parties, and city staff at a "round table" format. Member Strom seconded the motion. Chair Clement made comment to the citizens that they have been heard and are establishing a process by which a "round table" discussion format that will create a "us" and "we" community. The proposed planning for Wal-Mart and King Soopers project sites will be evaluated under the LDGS and PUD process. She invited interested citizens to come and address concerns at those meetings and hearings. The Board is charged to implement the policies set for the City of Fort Collins under the direction of the City Council. Member Strom commented that the LDGS needs work as well to tighten policies and policy direction, it is along way from being a perfect document. He did not want to see it approached piecemeal. He understood there to be Growth Management Committee • working on it. The changes should be in context. Motion carried 5-0. Process Schedule - #30-94. Planner Frank read the staff report with recommendations. Planner Frank said the explanation of the Neighborhood Compatibility Study had been slowed because the Chief Planner, Sherry Albertson -Clark, had resigned and remaining planners are overwhelmed doing development reviews. He anticipated to pick up some special projects with the new appointment of Chief Planner May 31, 1994. Good ideas have been generated for how the process for development review works and will be pursued. The concern now is a matter of staffing. Chair Clements stated that this measure is needed, and suggested perhaps an additional 2 weeks added to the process will allow time as more help is on the way to provide better service. Member Fontane agreed that staff has been overworked and it takes good communication to say we need more staff and development review time. Staff is too overworked to be able to get quality . work to the Board when they want to. It is a good investment to increase the staff to produce a quality product. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 20 CITIZEN INPUT Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design - He agreed that more work needed to be done and the Neighborhood Compatibility Study conducted would produce more valuable information. He believed extending the process two weeks is a temporary benefit over a 4-6 months period. He was concerned that the staff would be swamped with reviews at a specific time later on and did not think the timing was correct and would recommend a month later than what staff suggests. Planner Frank said starting the process a month later would not be a great imposition. Member Fontane believed it would only delay the crisis one month, but that the crisis will happen. Unless the development community tries to plan ahead and spread things out, the one-time crisis situation will happen. Mr. Ward said they could make the adjustment for mid -July, but not for mid -June. Planner Frank clarified that the new schedule would begin in July. Member Cottier suggested a short time -frame (6 months) and to have the City Chief Planner address these issues within that time frame. Chair Clements said that time limits were appropriate but felt more like a year to bring some one into this job and current political climate to deal with this issue. Mr. Phillips requested that the Board recommend a reporting time of one-year on the performance of the LDGS rather than put a sunset on it. Chair Clements summarized that it would be reviewed in a year rather than it being revoked? Mr. Phillips said yes. Member Cottier said that was conceivable but did not want to lose sight of streamlining the process. Member Fontane said it made sense to have an update as the process evolved within the year. • Planning and May 23, 1994 Page 21 Zoning Board Minutes P & Z Minutes Member Strom moved approval of the extended process with the 30- day delay on implementation and reporting review period within the year. Member Cottier seconded the motion with the clarification that it starts with the July 1S submittal for the September meeting 1994. Mr. Ward said that was acceptable. Motion passed 5-0. Item 25. Stockbridge PUD - Preliminary t27-94 Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, read the staff report with recommendations. Staff recommends a condition stating that at the time of final: The Stockbridge PUD shall dedicate right-of-way to the east property line to provide for future vehicular access from Stockbridge PUD, across the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal into the vacant property to the east. • Mr. Ben Herman of BHA Design representing Progressive Living Structures, with Leo Schuster, President of Progressive Living Structures. He pointed out that Seneca as a collector roadway and attempted to make it a pedestrian corridor, a provision for a future trail along the ditch providing four open space areas and detention for water. He mentioned further specifics of the plan to the Board. He mentioned neighborhood compatibility issues, density, transition between neighborhoods and buffering. There has been a provision of supplying a greater buffer area to lessen the impact of the homes in the area. He mentioned the plan is better because of the neighborhood process. Mr. Herman addressed the right-of-way issue and explained their plans. He believed the street connection was unwarranted and perhaps undesirable and unnecessary for purposes of access. He believed it would compromise the trail connection along the ditch. He said that impacts on the neighborhood would occur and cost factors also make it undesirable. Member Cottier asked about the location of the bike trail. Mr. Herman indicated it was off the Stockbridge property. There was discussion regarding the provision of the bike/ped bridge, the adjoining subdivisions, size of planned lots, density is for infrastructure, etc. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 22 Planner Olt said that the density at Stockbridge has changed from 4 dwelling units per acre to 3 du/acre, leaving the lots to about 1/2 acre in size. CITIZEN INPUT. Peter Dorhout - 3640 Crescent Drive - He represented Imperial Estates and read a prepared statement. He stated there had been a letter of opposition also submitted. This statement covered the size of the subdivision, lots, architecture and nature of the unique community of residents. This unique rural area includes livestock and homes for the mentally challenged. He requested consideration of impacts. Issues of buffering and defined transition areas were requested, specifically: (1) guarantees of landscaping with trees, a fence and a berm to abut the rural livestock and agricultural uses. (2) 60 feet for buffering between lot lines of new area to existing with the request that it be in place before construction for safety. (3) creation of a homeowners association to supervise the maintenance of the green areas, detention pond and border landscape. It should be clearly defined who will be responsible for the maintenance of these items. He also stated that the traffic will negatively impact the Imperial Estates area. Lois Burr - Denver, Colorado - She stated she owns the 8 plus acres east of the proposed site. She has heard many different things about the impacts to her property and is not clear what will happen and what are the required easements. She wanted these issues clarified before there is a settlement on this project. Jonathan Taylor - 3630 Capitol Dr. - A resident of Imperial Estates and an environmental scientist by profession. His concern was for the densities proposed. These are moderate - income households trying to preserve some of the rural character of the area they selected to live in. He believed there could be more compatibility to the existing neighborhoods. He was interested in what the Neighborhood Compatibility Study would say about their area. Steve Birdsell - 3821 Richmond Dr. - He lives in Skyline acres and agreed with the comments from Imperial Estates. His main concern was density. The access right-of-way is news to all the neighbors and they are not interested in increasing traffic. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 23 CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked for the reasoning behind the request for access for future connections. Planner Olt indicated it was good planning to create accesses into other sections of neighborhoods, eliminating the need for existing development on the vacant parcels to access future park and schools. There are logical connections that should be made from a planning standpoint to diminish the amount of traffic that goes through arterials. Chair Clements brought out the drainage easement issue with respect to the Lois Burr property. Mr. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department replied when off -site easements are secured for development from neighboring properties, they have to work with property owners. The compensation for the easement will be between the property owner and the developer. All easements are secured before construction commences. . Chair Clements asked for clarification of the trail along the ditch. Planner Olt stated requests for the bike/ped trail along the Pleasant Valley Canal has been requested in other areas of the community as well. The developer would incur the costs and logically it would be placed on the west side of the ditch. The Planning Department would like to plan for this trail and its development. Chair Clements asked about the homeowner's association and its functions and would there be 60-foot lot lines? Mr. Herman said there would be a homeowner's association for the development. He said that the lots along that edge are 130-140 feet deep. There was discussion regarding density, contiguity, right-of-way, connections to the south, enclave creation, bike path easements, trail location, etc., concluding there will be more definitive plans concerning the Stockbridge properties, lot configuration, house styles, buffering, etc. Leo Schuster - Loveland, Colorado - Progressive Living Structures. He indicated after meeting with the neighborhoods, • he believed he has met more than half way the requirements for setbacks and buffering, he felt it was an unreasonable request to restrict buildings to two stories. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 24 Member Fontane asked about connections to the bike path and relationship to Cobblestone Corners project. Planner Olt said to his knowledge there was no connection, but needed to investigate. Mr. Birdsell - Skyline Acres - He said there was no connection and that it was part of the negotiation of annexation that Richmond Drive remain a deadend. There is an emergency fire access to College. Cobblestone is the first development in the Mountain Ridge. Member Fontane clarified that we are trying to encourage people to bike/ped in that direction and that is not happening real fast either, vehicularily or bike/ped. Planner Olt said if there is no connection at this point, he did not see what the future connection would be. There is a dedicated right-of-way in Skyline Acres. The connections could be in the future. Chair Clements read from the staff report that a score of 33% does not reflect a sufficient amount of earned credit to match the density of 3.7 dwelling units per acre, therefore, the density is not supported on the residential point chart. The request for single family residential lots is not in compliance with the designation on the ODP. So why is staff not recommending approval? Planner Olt said for the reason given in the statement that follows that on the density chart, there is a table that states 30-40% earned on the point chart then entitles you to 3 or 4 dwelling units per acre in terms of density. Essentially you have to earn point for point. He gave examples. The locational aspects with the facilities in the area, 3.77 dwelling units per acre was granted on 33% earned score. This is a staff initiated variance and is a reasonable request. Chair Clements asked with this infill, would the ODP be built out? Are there other options other than a church, what are the other options? Planner Olt said the Seneca ODP is the 31 acres, yes; it is the 8 acre church site and the remainder single-family residential. With the change of the 8-acre church site, the Seneca ODP would be built out with single-family. On the Seneca master plan it is a church site and in the RLP zoning district both uses are permitted by right. Planning views them as inter -changeable. Member Strom asked where "contiguity" defined? t 11 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 25 Planner Olt referred to the LDGS and read the definition under residential uses point chart, Criterion J and under existing developments, Appendix D, the definitions in the LDGS. He read that definition. He indicated that it did not meet the definition of existing urban development. Member Cottier said that the distance to a school should be looked at because in this particular case where it is just outside the 1,000 feet, any elementary kids from Stockbridge would be within walking distance to the school. She believed that should be the criterion given for some points. Member Cottier said that a resident mentioned the need for a greater transition area and berming and landscaping. Mr. Herman.said what is shown on the plan is simply illustrative. The request is the fencing, type of plant materials to be used and spacing. That would be done at the time of final design. Chair Clements asked if that needed to be a condition to the motion? • Planner Olt indicated it would make it clearer and part of record for compliance. Member Klataske asked about the berming being in place prior to construction? Mr. Herman indicated not in its entirety, improvements would be going in by phase as the area develops. Member Cottier asked about building heights? Mr. Herman said two -stories maximum, standard. Mr. Birdsall stated his single level ranch home is plus or minus 20 feet. Mr. Herman indicated that the formation of a homeowners association is stated on the plan. Member Fontana mentioned she liked the idea of connecting neighborhoods and the bike/pad trail, which comes first, access, And there is a condition on the right-of-way, etc. Member Strom said that the easement may be needed in the future. • Member Cottier said she believed if the connection should have been there, the Skyline development should have had it included. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 26 She said a bike/ped crossing would be more beneficial and safe and would allow people to go from the park to the school. Member Cottier moved approval of Stockbridge Preliminary without the right-of-way condition, but with a condition that the developer work further with the neighborhood on transition issues, berming, landscaping and fencing. Chair Clements asked if there needed to be a separate vote on the ODP and does that need to occur first? Planner Olt said yes. Member Cottier moved approval of the Seneca ODP. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved approval of Stockbridge Preliminary without the right-of-way condition for a street, but with a condition that the developer work further with the neighborhood and planning staff on transition issues, berming, landscaping and fencing on the western portion of the property, and that the developer be willing to provide pedestrian/bicycle access across the canal, with the variance to the point chart. Member Fontana seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman said that he would like to make comment on the condition of the motion of working with the neighborhood. His concern was "further" definition. It seemed open ended with no time frame. Mr. Phillips suggested the wording include working with staff as part of the motion. Member Strom stated for the record he believed based on the IDGS, a variance wasn't necessary. The percentage point standard clearly states the requirements. He said he would still support the motion. Chair Clements pointed out that the planning staff is still overworked with the absence of a Chief Planner. Two new planners are now on staff and potential appointment of a neighborhood ambassador, and perhaps technical staff will be added. A lot of these issues should have been resolved before they were presented to the Board and the additional staff should provide a better quality of service to the neighbors and applicants so the Board would not be dealing with issues as these in the future. • 11 • Planning and May 23, 1994 Page 27 Zoning Board Minutes P & Z Minutes Notion passed 5-0. Item 26, Mountain Ridoe Farm Amended Overall Development Plan #55-87A. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, read the staff report. The Planning Staff recommends that the extension be made at this time for the reasons included in the staff report. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, represented the applicant Miramont Associates, Ltd. He stated that the ODP is merely a housekeeping phase and that neighborhood meetings have been held and lot adjustments and setbacks have been made to the plan with regard to Imperial Estates. The main issues is Westfield Drive. The neighbors do not wish that it go through; it can be cul-de- sacked with bike/ped access. From the applicant's view, it is better for the street to have a cul-de-sac. The City Planning Department wants it go through as a street. Traffic engineers were present to answer questions. Tom vosburg, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation of the street proposed. He referred to a memo to the Board that addressed issues of concern and traffic impacts this project may have on Imperial Estates. He went into detail of the alternative plans. Disbursement of traffic would shift to connector streets. Additional traffic to the neighborhood from the City's perspective is that there will be little if any additional traffic through their neighborhood. Current volumes of traffic are presently at 300 trips per day and the projected increase will be 400 tpd, the worst case senecio would be 700 tpd. Signalization at Seneca and Horsetooth is not necessary at the present time. Westfield Drive is 33 feet, and 28 foot street widths are allowable under PUD planning, below 750 tpd. Chair Clements made a statement that the Board encourages less use of asphalt for street planning and that psychologically people are less likely to take a more narrow street as an alternative route through a neighborhood. CITIZEN INPUT Peter Dorhout - 3640 Crescent Drive - He read a prepared statement with the intentions of the Imperial Estates Subdivision. Three key items were outlined: (1) Impact on way of life, (2) Impact of traffic and (3) The precedent set by the City for past subdivision development. He explained the rural residential quality of the neighborhood requiring a special • consideration of life style and livestock habitation. They did not agree with the conclusions of the City Transportation Department. He said that the City has made special exceptions in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 28 the past and he reported that any increase in traffic would dramatically change the nature of the neighborhood. He said that the needed street improvements would not come from the existing residents. There 135 signatures on a petition against development through the neighborhood. They made a 9-question canvas. He presented data and slides supporting his position. The questions concerned pedestrians, children, park, road improvement, etc. There was a neighborhood meeting May 16 with the Stockbridge residents where Mr. Shepard said he did not know who owned the streets and who would upgrade them was even more vague. Phillip Steyn - 1609 Westfield Dr. - He indicated the residents have selected this area for their families with advantages to the life style and certain hardships. The safety of the community is attractive, the ability to have livestock, and three Social Services group homes for the disabled, etc. He described the pedestrian traffic from sunrise to sunset, that the elderly, elementary and junior school children, special disabled groups, pets, occupying half of the street with no sidewalks. He commented that horses and traffic do not mix. On one day there were 230 people from Westfield to the smaller streets. He called it a "rural residential/pedestrian street" and concluded that there was concern for safety and preservation of the rural life style. Member Strom asked what kind of expectation did he have moving in this area seeing that Westfield Drive deadended to a vacant lot. Mr. Steyn said all seven of the streets in Imperial Estates do not intend to connect or be through streets. Member Strom asked if there was no mention that a through street to eventually go through the neighborhood. Mr. Steyn said no. Mr. Ed Robinson - 3632 Crescent Drive - He stated the characteristics of the streets in the neighborhood: (1) No sidewalks, undersized streets, less than the 28-foot minimum, and children who bike or walk daily (concerned about safety); (2) No street lights and few signs, with unrestricted parking --if Westfield is connected, who will be liable for the safety of the people?; (3) The existing paving of these streets has been paid by the Imperial Estate residents in the 1970's and are not up • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 29 to standard for any increase in traffic. If the connection goes through, who will pay for the improvements. The streets were sealed three months ago. He has heard that half the costs of new streets will be shared by Imperial Estates residents. (4) The traffic study conducted by the City was not included in the original plan for the development. An increase of 132 cars impacting the 230 children who walk or bike was not addressed. The study did allow for increased traffic as people decide to drive their children to school due to safety concerns. (5) Arterial road and questions of impact are not true arterial roads. Horsetooth, Shields and Taft are all two lanes around there area. Taft and Horsetooth has been recently designated the most dangerous intersection in Fort Collins, as reported by The Coloradoan (6) The locations of surrounding neighborhoods and their streets have unconnected streets and he requested • consideration of the Board for the unique characteristics of Imperial Estates neighborhood design. Dan Seese - 3830 Capitol Dr. - There is a blue-collar and white- collar mix of residents that have chosen a rural life style. The opening of Westfield would spoil this lifestyle. He focused more on the special handicapped residents in wheelchairs, with wagons and children. An increase in traffic will curtail outdoor activity for these residents. He said the access to other communities supported by the LDGS doesn't necessarily enhance their neighborhood. He would hope the plans for a through street would not go through for this would be against the wishes of the residents and would not be in their best interest. He stated that imposing a plan by the government would be against the people they are to serve. They desired to preserve the integrity of their community and nurture the lifestyle they cherish. Kathleen Harris - 3842 Crescent Dr. - She moved into the neighborhood in 1982 and checked with the County. At that time there were no plans for Westfield Drive to go through. She was opposed to the change and agreed with the high pedestrian traffic use in the neighborhood. She believed the street would be a cut - through to Taft Hill Drive and was not reflected in the traffic study. She asked for the bike/ped connections as proposed by the applicant as an alternative to the street. Kris Fahrenbruck - 3841 Crescent Dr. - He has been a resident since 1968. He strongly supported the bike/ped path. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 30 Steve Birdsall - 3821 Richmond Dr. - He talked about the proposed lining of the Pleasant Valley Lake Canal ditch with a concrete substance. He pointed out that most of the residents have private wells for water and is concerned that this would drop the water levels in the area. He wanted it addressed by the developer. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Chair Clements asked who would be responsible for the street improvement upgrade if Westfield Dr. went through? Mr. Ward said the status of ownership is unclear as was brought out in the neighborhood meeting. He had contacted Rick Burns, County Engineer, who stated that maintenance and improvements are the responsibility of the Imperial Estates residents. There are different answers from other people. The applicant was unprepared to address this. Chair Clements asked about lining the ditch? Mr. Ward said there has been an extensive study by the City Storm Drainage Utility and it is a requirement for basic wide improvements for detention ponds on this site. He believed that study accepts the lining of the ditch and other drainage improvements may drop the water 12" to 18". The wells are deep enough that they should not be affected. Dennis Donovan - 312 Bowline Ct. - Land Development Services - He said the answer came up in the neighborhood meeting, the stated boundary would have the net affect to 12" to 18" decrease in water which would not significantly impact the wells in the area. Mr. Shepard said this issue has come up for a couple of years in the area and impact of the detention facilities out there are due to the present leakage of the ditch. To line the ditch, solves much of the problem. There is a mitigation factor from Storm Water to make the regional basins more efficient with the lining. Member Fontane asked about the responsibility of the down stream water canal to provide table water for down stream users? Paul Eckman said the ditch companies have an obligation to provide water for wells that aren't part of their system. They have, in his judgment, the right to do what they can to insure that their ditches are properly maintained and are not leaking, so the ditch company can elect to line the ditch in order to conserve its water for its shareholders as far as legalities are concerned. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 31 Mike Herzig, City Engineer, responded to the issue of the County and future maintenance of the existing streets within Imperial Estates. Rex Burns, County Engineer, has been contacted, but his plan has not been studied closely to the impacts. There are public right-of-way dedicated to the County. Chair Clements said there needs to be clarification on this issue. Member Fontana expressed thought regarding the goal to connect neighborhoods and not isolate them. She believed the connection for bike/ped is most compatible rather than a street, creating a more user friendly environment encouraging alternate transportation. Chair Clements liked the concept of alternatives for transportation other than the automobile. She expressed her desire to not see a fence walling off the neighborhoods, a split - rail fence makes the neighborhood more open and provides opportunities to communicate, rather than 6-foot privacy fences. Member Fontana moved to amend the Mountain Ridge Farm ODP. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. ITEM 27 Mountain Ridge Farm PUD Preliminary 118 92B Member Fontana made a motion to approve the Mountain Ridge Farm Preliminary PUD without the transportation connection With a bike/pod connection at Westfield. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Member Klataske asked if then there would be a cul-de-sac to be built on the east side of Westfield. Member Cottier said yes. She agreed with Member Fontane's comments and the Board's position to encourage alternative modes of transportation, especially where they are working very effectively, she believe that should not be discouraged. She believed that Seneca Street could carry the traffic generated by the Mountain Ridge Development and it wouldn't be that much more difficult to connect to arterials. A signal may occur on Seneca. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 23, 1994 P & Z Minutes Page 32 Member Strom said he supported the motion but felt that the Board was making a mistake not making the street connection, but the overall proposal was good. Chair Clements restated her view of not having 6-foot privacy fences but something that is more user friendly to accommodate interacting and kids being able to walk between neighborhoods. Member Cottier said that one of the neighbors said that internal streets should not be considered to carry the burden of traffic on unimproved arterials. She believed that was a good point that arterials needed to be improved before other streets are connected. Chair Clements commended the neighbors with their professional approach to the issues and their willingness to work with staff and the developer and took a "we" approach. Motion passed 5-0. chair Clements declared the remaining items would be addressed at the continued meeting on June 6, 1994, 6:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned 11:12 p.m.