Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/27/1993PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 27, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The September 27,1993 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene' Clements -Cooney, Sharon Winfree, Jim Klataske, Jennifer Fontane, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, and Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, and Mike Herzig. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Election of Officers; Item 2 Spring Court Storage PUD - Final, Case #50-93; Item 3 - Rocky Mountain High School - Advisory Review, Case #48-93; Item 4 - Falrbrooke PUD, 7th Filing - Final, Case #65-82Y; Item 5 -Cobblestone Corners PUD - Final, Case #55-87F; Item 6 - Oakridge PUD, Block 3, Lot 1 - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82E; Item 7 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval for 12 PUDs; Item 8 - Resolution PZ93-8 - Vacation of Easement; Item 9 - Resolution PZ93-7 - Vacation of Easement; and Recommendation Items - Item 10 - Brookside Village at Rock Creek PUD - Rezoning, Case #16-89D; Item 11 - IMU-Tek Annexation and Zoning, Case #55-93,A; Item 12 - Fossil Creek Annexation and Zoning, Case #50-92B,C; and Item 13 - Kirschner Annexation and Zoning, Case #53-93,A. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 14 - Spring Creek Village - Amended Preliminary, Case #2-87M; Recommendation Item #15 - Planning Fees, Case #62-92; Item 16 - Hampshire Pond PUD - Final, Case 044-93A; Item 17 - Provincetowne PUD - Second Amendment to the Overall Development Plan - Case 073-82P; and Item 18 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary, Case #73-82Q. Member Klataske moved for approval of Items 2-13 with the addition of the condition added by staff to Item 5, which states "that the dedication for Wabash Street and the off -site utility easement for the water line that serves the site be submitted to .the City prior to the second monthly meeting (November 15, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this PUD was conditionally approved. The terms of this second condition of Final Approval are the same as stated in the first condition." Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICER Member Fontane moved to nominate Member Clements -Cooney as Chairman. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The nomination was confirmed 7-0. Member Fontane moved to nominate Member Cotner as Vice -Chairman. Member Strom seconded the motion. The nomination was confirmed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 2 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE - AMENDED PRELIMINARYCASE #2 87M Ted Shepard gave the staff report, recommending approval with conditions. Member Strom asked if this case required a motion for reconsideration since this PUD had been considered at an earlier meeting and the four -bedroom units decided at that time. Mr. Eckman replied no because the plan presented in July was different than this application and the July discussion of what constituted a family applied to that plan. Mr. Eckman recommended that the two issues be voted on separately. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, gave a presentation, representing Mr. Ron Gray of Topanga Enterprises. He stated that the month postponement was to give staff adequate time to review the changes associated with the plan. Mr. Vaught stated that he would like to incorporate all of the July 26 meeting testimony as part of the record for this evening and would not present that information at this time. He stated that he met with neighborhood representatives on August 12 and presented two options. One option presented 216 two -and three -bedroom units for a total of 608 bedrooms. This plan was in reaction to the potential elimination of the four -bedroom units but still achieved approximately the same total number of bedrooms. The second plan included an option - contract on the Young property to be used as an open park or open space to be added to the proposal and mitigate the impact of the original four -bedroom proposal. In lieu of option one, the applicant would like to return to the four -bedroom request that included the 3.1 acres of open -space. Mr. Vaught commented that he was disappointed that their efforts to add the 3.1 acres was not well received at that meeting. He stated that in 1985, he was involved with the Courtney Park project, which faced similar objections and is now considered successful. He believed that they have responded to the neighborhood concerns with the apartments catering to a student population by dealing with buffering, open space, building placement, building design, and traffic. Mr. Vaught noted that Steve Roy; the City Attorney, had stated that the Planning and Zoning Board needed to review the project and accept or reject it based on its merit regardless of who may occupy it. The user was not a criterion of the LDGS. Mr. Vaught stated that 7 major changes have been made to the plan. He believed that the most significant one was the addition of the 3.1 acres of the Young Pasture as. open space. Furthermore, as part of committing that this property won't develop, they are required to put in a cul-de-sac at the end of now dead-end Hobbitt Street. He added that the applicant was also proposing to extend the importation channel bike and pedestrian trail with the existing bridge crossing over from Wallenberg up through the Young Property and connecting through to the sidewalk to be constructed around the cul-de-sac. The trail will be outside the fence which encloses the property at the northeast corner and will be eight feet wide, with no access other than at the cul-de-sac point. The pool, clubhouse, and office complex have been relocated to the western side in response to concerns brought up about noise, as well as having the office near the entrance. Several 12-plex buildings have been replaced along the creek with two 6-plexes and a 10-plex for a 14 unit reduction. The 6- plexes will have the smallest footprint and the 10-plex features a lower end of the building. The setbacks have been increased by providing smaller buildings to 200 feet from the nearest Hillpond townhouse over to the 6-plex in the west corner. Berms and evergreen Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 3 landscaping have been added, similar to what is on the eastside of the property. In response to a neighborhood request, they have oriented the buildings so no balconies or patios face the creek. Staff made a condition that the building in the northeast corner change'from a 12-plex to a 10-plex, which is in this plan. A 2-plex to a 6-plex has been changed and located on a diagonal to relate better and soften the corner into the open space. Mr. Vaught believed that the inclusion of the Young property was significant because it precluded any further proposals for additional density on the 3.1 acres. This reduced the overall density from 10 to 9 per acre. On a 24 acre proposal for 3 apartment units, this would translate into the 66 bedrooms associated with the 66 four -bedroom units. The 3.1 acre open space has been discussed with the Parks and Recreation and Natural Resources departments. Natural Resources was negotiating for 15 acres nearby and believed that adding the 3.1 acres to the importation channel and trail would benefit the neighborhood. Matt Delich, traffic consultant for this project, proposed the traffic analysis for Spring Creek Village and other proposals associated with this property. He discussed level of service as it related to traffic operations. He stated that the level of service was a qualitative measure of how well an intersection, street or highway functioned. The measure was based on delay of service and was divided into six categories, A through F. Level of service A was 0-5 seconds delay, B was 5-15 seconds, C was 15-25 seconds, D was 25-40 seconds, E was 40-60 seconds and F was anything greater than 60 seconds for a vehicle entering the intersection from any direction. Acceptable level of service is termed D or better. He gave some examples of levels of service elsewhere. The Shields and Prospect Intersection had the following operational characteristics: Level B at morning peak hour; Level D at evening peak hour. The coming improvements in the intersection include two west -bound turn lanes and an additional south -bound right turn lane on Shields. The level of service will improve if the same traffic volume is used. By adding the Spring Creek traffic, the morning peak would go to Level C and the evening peak hour would stay at Level C, although the time was negligible. He added that there would be little change in the level of service with the addition of the Spring Creek traffic. Mr. Delich stated that this analysis assumed that 50% of the students would use an auto for school commuting. 81% of the students at Ram's Village commute to school without an auto and he expected similar traffic patterns at Spring Creek. Therefore, it was possible that the delays at the intersection would be less. He expected that conventional apartments generate 30% more trips than student apartments. The morning peak hour traffic generated by conventional apartments would be 22% more and the evening peak hour would be 59%. Therefore, student oriented apartments would have less impact than conventional apartments. Furthermore, if student apartments are located further from CSU, than private auto use would likely increase and would have a higher negative impact on Shields and other intersections. It would also increase auto pollution due to the increased trips. Natural Resources has indicated that student housing within 1 mile of CSU provides an opportunity for alternative modes of transportation and is desirable. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification on the conventional apartments' data. Mr. Delich replied that the 22% and 59% figures mentioned above would also apply to the same number of student apartments. Planning. and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Vaught presented the request to allow four unrelated persons to reside together in the four -bedroom units. Of the total 218 units, 66 would be four -bedroom, 30% of the units and 10% of the total 614 bedrooms. The bedrooms require 52 parking spaces, 10% of the total 516 parking. He stated that this was not a variance request, which was an unforseen variation to the LDGS which must prove hardship to or better than the criteria established. An ordinance provides specific criteria to review and judge its acceptance. Therefore, he believed four -bedrooms were appropriate if they met the criteria and were no different from the other bedrooms because they have the same lease, the same parking requirements and abide by the same rules that govern the other units. The four -bedroom was a townhouse unit, with the living quarters downstairs and the bedrooms upstairs, totalling 1418 square feet. The two -bedroom unit was 816 square feet and two 2-bedrooms together would be 1,632 square feet. If the total project were 2,-bedroom units, much more mass would be built. He then showed slides of similar units at Ram's Village and compared the two developments, noting that it met the ordinance and has not created any special problems. Mr. Vaught stated that there were a number of primary requirements of the ordinance. First, was to provide adequate open space. 68% of the development is open space, or 16.54 acres of 24 total. They provide on -site recreational facilities to meet the recreational requirements as well as being close to the bike trail and Rolland Moore Park. The Zoning Code would require 432 parking spaces and they are providing 516 spaces to keep traffic from spilling into the adjacent neighborhood. For public facilities, a Transfort bus stop will be constructed at the entrance off of Shields and Stuart with a shelter. An internal 8 foot bike path will be constructed internally, along with improvements to Shields. There will be an extension of the importation canal bike trail and the bike trail spur across to Center Avenue. Staff explained how this project met neighborhood compatibility, the first requirement being to identify the impacts which the four neighborhood meetings have done. Second, the applicant has provided transitional areas, lowered the building height, created additional setbacks, buffer zones and landscaping. Third, they believed they have mitigated the land use conflicts. Fourth, the traffic impacts would minimal. Mr. Vaught believed that density has always been an issue and that the 618 was an improvement over 720 units requested for College Park development on this site. Density has been lowered from 10 to 9 units per acre with the addition of the Young property. Building height and mass has been reduced to 33 feet maximum. Three building types are four unit types as proposed. The bulk of the density is in the northwestern quadrant. Buffering on the south side of the site has been improved by positioning smaller. buildings and more landscaping. The residential uses points chart of the LDGS supports the proposed use and density, scoring 97 points. The 1587 ordinance regarding four -bedrooms anticipated projects of this nature, especially near CSU. He stated they have successfully addressed the concerns expressed in the last few months. Member Walker asked if impoundments created on the Young property had been cleared by Storm Drainage. Mr. Vaught said that this was one of the conditions identified by staff prior to final. Member Winfree asked about the decision to not include fire sprinklers in the apartments. E S Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Vaught stated they were still working out the exact fire requirements with Mr. Ron Jones of the Poudre Fire Authority and did not want to take the 10 points for sprinklers if they were ultimately not used since they do not need the points. They felt confident that this will be worked out prior to final and is related to the size of access drives and access around the buildings and do not anticipate problems. Member Winfree asked if some buildings were three stories. Mr. Vaught answered that technically, they are two and a half stories because of the berming, which constitutes the difference between building code and fire code. Member Winfree said it was her understanding that stories are figured from the grade of the parking lot. Mr. Vaught concurred. He stated that in order for the sprinkler requirement to be waived, the fire code would require 30 feet of access drives and every building needed to be within 150 feet from the curb at the parking lot to all sides of the building. Member Cottier asked if the Poudre Fire Authority would have final say. on whether or not fire sprinklers were installed. Mr. Shepard agreed. He explained that the Planning Department was involved only if the applicant was taking points to meet the requirements, which would then be noted on the PUD and the applicant would then be required to install them. Member Walker noted that the Young property was part of a larger parcel including the Young residence and he was concerned that this may create the potential for the area fronting Prospect to require access and would like to know about the planning for that. He stated that the City would prefer not to have individual curb cuts on Prospect, and asked what the position of the City on the access to that site was. He stated that staff had eliminated any reference to the two potential lots as being any part of this proposal. Approximately 120 feet of property remains between the open space and Prospect which could be used for two duplexes and he believed that the best place to gain access is off the existing driveway from Sheely to Prospect. Future development would require going through the PUD process. Mr. Shepard stated that since the Youngs have never taken access off Prospect, there was no historical precedent, and did not feel obligated to grant one. Member Walker had concerns that City would be forced to grant access if the Young residence were bought and no easement was granted to the two lots through it. Mr. Shepard stated that since that situation would be created by the owner, any hardship would not be the City's responsibility and the burden of proof would fall upon the applicant. Member Walker asked if a property owner could pursue legal recourse against the City for not granting access. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Eckman agreed that Planning must be careful not to create a landlocked area and that the City could possibly be forced to give access. Mr. Peterson stated that the Young property itself abuts Hobbitt Street, but the two lots would only front on Prospect. Mr. Shepard stated there was no potential for building permit or duplexes unless it comes into Planning for a PUD for multi -family housing in a residential zone and would have to go through the neighborhood meeting process and come before the Board. Member Cottier asked if the proposal was to purchase the pasture and the two lots as well Mr. Vaught said the option was for the entire area, including the residence and the two lots. The Young house will be parcelled out separately and if they can take it through the planning process, will create the two duplex lots. He suggested adding a condition regarding the access to the two lots as a possible solution. Member Cottier clarified that nothing would prevent the two lots from being added to the open space or the Young residence. Mr. Vaught confirmed the clarification. PUBLIC INPUT. Mr. John Roehrig, vice-president of the Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association, enumerated points of disagreement about the proposed development. The Association strongly opposed this PUD and the developer's request to increase the number of unrelated persons living in a dwelling unit. He addressed Ordinance 142, which requires that the Planning and Zoning Board not increase the number of people in a residence unless certain requirements are satisfied and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. The Association believed that although the development has numerous features for the occupants, the adjacent neighborhood was not adequately protected. They believed the addition of the Young property did not affect the open space requirement because Ordinance 142 referred to open space within the development and the Young property was not an integral part of the development. They also believed it was an appendage because of location and timing of adding the property. He stated that at the time Ram's Village was approved, statements by the Board indicated that it was not to be a precedent for other developments. This was the first major development requesting an increase under the ordinance and believed that precedence should be established by handling of this application. He stated that the project was monolithic and therefore not compatible. He stated that although they have been unfairly characterized as anti -student and do not object to the students themselves, but rather to the homogenous nature of the population whose routes will be through their neighborhood. He urged the Board to focus on the proposal as presented rather than consider whether or not the open space might be developed in the future and therefore this proposal is better. Regarding the statement that conventional apartments would generate more traffic than student oriented apartments, he noted that no proposal for conventional apartments exists. He was troubled that their group was perceived as being uncooperative while the developer was presenting plans that were essentially unchanged as far as density from the plan rejected in July. They would prefer to see a better project proposed for this core area. He believed it would be appropriate for low -density and single-family homes, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1903 Page 7 especially as a transition to the areas to the east and south. He stated that one of the goals adopted by the Fort Collins City Council in its 1993-94 agenda was "to preserve and enhance the City's core areas." The Association requested consistency in the Board's review process by rejecting this version of the earlier proposal and work with the neighborhood to develop a neighborhood plan. Mr. Vic Koelzer, civil engineer and resident of the Sheely neighborhood, presented further information about why they believed that little has changed in the proposal but the staff's position has changed. He presented a slide on the LDGS criteria and noted that all 46 criteria must be met. He believed that numbers 2, 3, 4, and 40 have not been met. Mr. Koelzer stated that Number 2 concerned compatibility with architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, identity, historical character, disposition, and visual integrity. He stated that the buildings were still objectionable since the earlier staff report found that the three neighborhoods were well -established, small-scale and awkward. He presented a slide showing current population of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has one of the most heterogeneous populations and is vulnerable to the cumulative affects of individual land - use decisions. He stated that they were at the point where higher density will lead to abandonment of neighborhood quality. He stated that in 1992, staff said that the development would be an intrusive element. The current total of residents is about 1,072 and the new proposal will increase population by 57%. Before the project, there were 22% in apartments and with the project there would be 51%. Densities of apartments in the general neighborhood are all above 10 and in the Sheely-Wallenberg area 3.6, 3.5 at Hilipond and at Sunderling, density is 4.6. He believed that the density of 9 was gained by including the open space and importation canal and visually, the project measures 13 density at the center. He asked if it was fair to add a high density project to an area that already has one of the highest densities in the city. Mr. Koelzer stated that Criteria 3 was effective mitigation of the conflicting elements between the proposed development and the surrounding land uses. The 1992 staff report said that the total impact of the density of the site created a conflict between the development and the surrounding neighborhoods. He believed that the existing proposal was not enough different to be acceptable. Transitional land use are those that act as buffers between incompatible land uses. Traditionally, this has run from high to medium and low uses. Spring Creek was high density and was therefore not transitional. Mr. Koelzer continued that Criteria 4 dealt with designing the project so that traffic generated didn't have significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He estimated 545 daily trips to CSU. Of the 4 possible routes to CSU, the route through Sheely was the shortest, flattest, safest, most popular and most direct and would therefore attract 90% of traffic. Mr. Koelzer stated that Criteria 40 asked if the pedestrian circulation system was designed so that pedestrians could move safely both on and off the site. There were hazards to the safety of children and senior citizens due to the project. Schoolchildren walk to Bennett School via the bridge over the importation canal and through the neighboring apartments. There was a potential for accidents while approaching and crossing the bridge. L L Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Koelzer, concluded by saying that although the developer has been cooperative, the project remained the same as earlier proposals. If denied, the consequences would be fair to the landowners, the developer and the neighborhood. He believed the Board should look to values for both the developer and the homeowners. If denied, other and better projects would follow. Mr. Gene Woolrich, Wallenberg Drive and Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, asked if an air quality analysis had been completed. Mr. Delich answered by saying he talked about increasing the vehicle miles of travel if this type of development was in a location that was further away from CSU. He did not do an air quality analysis. Mr. Woolrich said this would have no bearing on the air quality in this location. He does not believe that Mr. Delich made an adequate analysis. Mr. Scott Townsend, Sheely Drive, stated he appreciated that the public would have a chance to speak in answer to the developer. He described the diversity of the neighborhood and said that he liked being close to campus and in town. He stated that when an earlier, different developer was asked about putting in townhomes next to apartments, the developer stated he would be unable to sell townhomes next to apartments. He noted that 4- bedroom units would increase the density per acre. He stated that this level of density did not currently exist along Shields and Prospect. He stated that the neighborhood meeting of September 12, Council Member Gerry Horak mentioned that the Planning Dept. would be asked to develop a master plan for the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood. He stated that Council Member Alan Apt was unhappy with the level of monitoring of air quality for the basin area around Spring Creek. He believed the intersection was too dangerous for riding bikes with children. He stated that Member Horak had indicated that traffic volume would increase and therefore the traffic projections for the intersection are invalid. Mr. Joe Landowski, Sundering Townhomes, stated that he supported the position of the Shields -Prospect Neighborhood Association, although he believed that this was a proper place for higher density student development, which is needed near the campus. He did not believe that bicycles were a safety problem, since both he and his son ride there and he would like to encourage more bicycle use. He stated that most of the Shields traffic comes from further south and not the Landmark Apartment buildings. Mr. Rick Steadman, a homeowner at Hillpond and President of the Hillpond Homeowner's Association, agreed with the other association. They appreciated the improvements that have been made, but believed the project needed further work. City Council recently adopted 12 goals, one of which was to review and revise the land use planning process and policy framework to strengthen the elements which were consistent with community and neighborhood values. He stated that this development did not meet their neighborhood needs and values. He noted that the City Council would also like to enhance core and close - in neighborhoods. Don Cruse, resident of the Wallenberg area, believed that the addition of the 3 acres was a surprise, having first noticed it on a letter he received from Mr. Shepard ten days ago. In Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 9 the previous meeting with Mr. Vaught, he was vague about the Young property. He believed that it was the price of the 21 acres that mandated the density of 618 units and believed that less density was more appropriate. He stated that the price of the land was too high. He believed the price of land should not be the sole. dictator of density. He questioned why the developer wanted the 66 4-bedroom apartments, if they represent only 10% of the total. He said that he has been actively involved in planning in Fort Collins for the past 25 years and believed that the procedures in this process have involved favoritism. This proposal was voted down two months ago and should not be reconsidered but the rules were changed to allow it to be presented again. He commented that if this PUD was approved, it could be appealed to City Council on the grounds of the unorthodox way it has moved through the system. He urged members to vote no again. Richard Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive, spoke about the density chart. He asked why the project got 8 out of 10 points for being 650 feet from a transit stop. He asked why it could get 10 points for being 4000 feet from an established shopping center because it is 5280 feet from Shields to College. He asked why it received 3 points and believed it should not get any points. He stated that the project was assigned too many points for having 30% contiguity with an existing urban development. This would make about 84-87 points which would make it fail on the density. He noted that the mid -lake and mid -channel belongs to the Wallenberg Homeowners Association and felt that these green spaces shouldn't be on the map. He believed that there was a variance in.question to be voted on and should not be passed. He stated that there was little chance of a family moving into the project. Charley Peterson, 1645 Sheely Drive, a temporary faculty member at CSU, stated that the Board had asked the neighborhood for ideas and therefore they had suggested the Young property to the developer and asked the developer to make the project more diverse and feel the developer has not improved diversity. Doug Edgerton, 1645 Sheely Drive, believed the project hadn't really changed, though he agreed that there was a need for this type of housing. He believed it was not compatible with this area, He recounted that his car had been hit by a speeding car at this intersection and the police agreed with the motorist who left the scene that it was too dangerous to stop there. He noted a series of bike, auto and pedestrian accidents in the immediate area. He agreed that adding more lanes of traffic to the intersection would speed traffic flow but also make it more risky for pedestrians and bicyclists. He noted that the creek area is susceptible to air pollution and is opposed to the project. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED. Mr. Delich responded to questions about air quality. He said he did not do an air quality analysis although he was familiar with the subject. He said that carbon monoxide was a site -specific pollutant caused by cars in the particular area and will increase as more cars come through the area from distant student housing. Also, oxides and nitrogen pollutants are added to the system as more cars come through and that these cause "brown cloud". Chair Clements -Cooney asked if this was considered a high- or medium -density project. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Shepard said 4-6 per acre goes from single-family homes to the duplexes, 6-8 adds on to the townhome density, 9 and up is apartments and higher density. Chair Clements -Cooney asked if this was considered a core -area. Mr. Shepard responded that it was a sensitive infill project in a mature older neighborhood community. Core was used to designate the Old Town area and the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. This area was close to the core. Chair Clements -Cooney asked about the points the project received. Mr. Shepard stated that the transit credit of 8 out of 10 means that approximately 80% of the units are within 650 feet of a transit stop. The regional shopping area referred to is the area between Harmony and Prospect Roads, on both sides of College Avenue, known as the HB Zone District and 30% of the units are within that distance. The site was almost entirely surrounded by existing urban development and therefore received the maximum of 30 points credit. Member Winfree asked if an air quality study had been done on the Spring Creek Basin. Mr. Shepard said that it had not been done. Mr. Eric Bracke, City of Fort Collins Transportation Department, was available and could speak about integrating the goals of the Transportation Dept. with the goals of Air Quality Plan as adopted earlier this year by the Planning and Zoning Board as well as City Council. He said that this project met with those policies. Member Winfree asked if there was any count of the Ram's Village students trips away from CSU. Mr. Delich said there was not. Member Winfree asked about the basis of the study on student trips. Mr. Delich mentioned a study done by Louis Keifer and Dave Witherford from Yale that studied university travel patterns from the late 1960s as well as his own thesis. This was a mix of on -campus and off -campus students in larger and smaller universities and didn't know if today's travel patterns might differ from those from the '60s. Member Walker said that one of the mitigations for meeting Ordinance 142 is the issue of the Arthur Ditch Bike Path Spur. The developer had agreed to participate in 20% of that development and what did that mean. Mr. Peterson said that the funding for this project appeared to be sufficient and the funding analysis was based onestimates of the impact on traffic on Spring Creek Trail and 20% was estimated to be a fair share. Member Walker asked if the one bridge will work to the City's satisfaction as far as safety. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Shepard said that the two bridge idea was not well received at the August 12 meeting. He believed that one bridge will work because the connection is not a straight shot into the cul-de-sac and involves two 90 degree turns which will slow down traffic. Member Fontane asked if anything could be done to ensure that bicyclists would dismount. Mr. Shepard said there are figure-8 configurations that can be designed. Member Strom asked why the two bridges idea was dismissed. Mr. Peterson said that the idea didn't make sense based on traffic patterns. Member Cottier said her recollection was that two bridges wouldn't work because it wouldn't be possible to bar the bicyclists from both bridges. Member Walker said that the user issue was confusing because on July 26 the user was not be considered yet everyone discusses student's as users and the student traffic patterns as relevant. Another example is the.student management issue and if it should be considered. He asked why student housing isn't provided by the university if it is needed in relation to the need for the city to provide services in ways that the city finds acceptable. He also would like to encourage the city plan to consider the student housing in the area to meet neighborhood, city, and university goals. He raised questions about a large group population of one sort and its affect on the surrounding area. He was concerned about those needs being met and feels the developer has gone quite a ways to see that those needs are met. He was concerned about adding the Young's property and if it will work to achieve the mitigation. It does begin to tie green spaces together and that is an important consideration. He was still concerned about the parcel of land fronting on Prospect. Member Winfree asked about the contiguity around Ram's Village. Mr. Shepard answered that CSU owns the married student housing to the north, there is single family development to the north, Skyline development to the west and some commercial to the east. CSU retained the northwest corner of the property. Member Fontane asked if the proposal should be looked at on it's own merits or compare it. Mr. Eckman replied that it was to be looked at on its own merits and compliance with the Land Development Guidance System. It should not be compared with other projects. Member Walker spoke about the context of the area and, although the project has many good features, he was concerned with the larger area and the population mix. He questioned if the intensity of the project was effectively mitigated. Member Cottier said that the project has many high -quality design aspects and achieve transition through greenbelt, creek and bike trail and feels the buffering is exceptionally good when compared to other areas. Although the density of this development is greater than the Sheely, Hillpond and Sundering developments, it is less than the other apartment projects in the area. She is not clear about a student population that needs to be protected against. She was considering factors such as pollution and traffic. It is unfortunate that • 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 12 the ordinance does not offer more specific numbers about what constitutes mitigation but believed that no threat has been defined. Member Winfree asked if it was appropriate to incorporate the minutes and/or video from the July 26 meeting into this meeting because of issues raised by the neighborhood. Mr. Eckman responded that it would be appropriate because this item was requested by the Board to be postponed tothis meeting and it gives a historical background for City Council to consider. He recommended a motion from the Board as the best way to include the. July 26 information. Member Winfree moved that the record of the July 26 Planning and Zoning meeting be Incorporated into the record for this meeting. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Walker moved to deny the request for four residents per unit in the exact wording of 142 on the grounds that he doesn't feel that adequate mitigation measures have been taken to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Winfree for clarification and Mr. Shepard said this is In reference to Section E 6 of the LDGS. The project must meet the all development criteria and the residential uses of the point chart as well as the developer must provide additional open space, recreational areas, and parking facilities as are adequate to serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Walker noted that he is concerned with the mitigation issues Member Strom said this is not a variance and disagrees. He believed that adequate facilities are provided, as well as mitigation measures to protect the neighborhood. MemberCottier said she is considered the significant physical barriers. Member Klataske opposed the motion since the developer has changed the units at the edge of the property and turned the activity to the center of the property and feels there is adequate mitigation. Member Fontane agrees that the existing barrier combined with the added measures are adequate. She also believed that students are environmentally conscious and will be riding bikes instead of driving cars whereas single family homes would generate more trips and therefore more air pollution. Member Winfree supports the motion because she feels not all the needs are met and the adjacent neighborhood is not protected. She also doesn't feel that this PUD meets the all development criteria #4, and the bicycle traffic pattern, #40 relating to pedestrian safety or #1 regarding the social criteria. She agrees that the neighborhood may be confused for good reason, especially regarding the four -bedroom units and the letters from Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 13 Chairman Clements -Cooney noted that in the past she felt the project was lacking a neighborhood element. She felt that denying the four -bedrooms was a compromise. She feels that looking at the modifications caused some of the confusion. She is pleased with the open space, moving of the clubhouse, participation in the Arthur Spur Connection, and additional buffering to the south and east. Mr. Hank Hosely of 1909 Wallenberg asked when would be the chance for citizen rebuttal. Mr. Eckman said that Chair Clements -Cooney had closed citizen input earlier. The motion on the floor must be voted on and then citizen input could be reopened, as well as allowing the applicant to speak. Chair Clements -Cooney said the Board would vote and then allow further discussion. The motion for denial failed 2-5 with Members Walker and Winfree in the affirmative. Member Strom moved to approve the four -bedrooms as requested. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Winfree In the negative. Mr. Hosely of 1909 Wallenberg questioned procedure and feels that the neighborhood has been unfairly treated and that from the last two letters, four -bedroom units were no longer being considered. He felt that if this was a new application, the applicant should have been required to pay the new application fees. He had expected this opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Vaught said that he did discuss the two options at the neighborhood meeting on August 12 and that this is a very organized neighborhood. He recalls that on September 9 he met with neighborhood representatives and presented the plan with the four -bedroom units. Chairman Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of procedure. Mr. Eckman responded that there was an August 3 letter that was corrected with an August 4 letter which said there would be no further consideration of the four -bedrooms. An August 17 letter does mention the Young property and the four -bedroom request. Another letter was sent on September 15 which did not mention bedrooms and gave notice of the meeting. Mr. Peterson added that there was a neighborhood meeting on August 12 and mentioned the Young property and the four -bedroom units. The process has been treated as an amended application, based on the Board's request for consideration. Chair Clements -Cooney noted that there is an appeal process through City Council. Member Winfree noted the August 3 and 4 letters were not included in the packet and requested that they be included as part of the record. Member Strom moved approval of Spring Creek Village Preliminary PUD with two conditions: 1) At the time of consideration of Final PUD, the PUD shall indicate graphically, and the developer shall indicate in writing, a commitment to financially participate in design and construction of the "Arthur Spur" to mitigate the impact of bicycle traffic generated by the PUD; and 2) At the time of consideration for the Final PUD, the landscape design for the Young Pasture shall be reviewed and accepted by the Stormwater Utility. Member Collier seconded the motion with the friendly addition of a third condition: Young Pasture is part and parcel of the proposal and shall not be deleted. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 14 Member Walker would like to add a condition having to do with the access the the Prospect Property be through the Young Property, possibly added as an easement. Members Strom and Cottier both accepted this as a friendly amendment. Member Foutane wanted to add a condition that the bikepath through the area be constructed to force a stop and walk in the vicinity of the bridge. Members Strom and Cottler accepted the condition. Member Walker said that due to the flaws in the project and the process, he doesn't feel that it meets all the criteria of the LDGS, especially item #3. Member Strom spoke about . item #40 and feels that it does meet the criteria especially by permitting and encouraging bicycles to go through the area. He feels that adequate safeguards will protect elementary students and the bicycle lane will encourage bike traffic to go north on Shields. He feels that #1 is satisfied. Regarding #3, he thinks it is exceptionally good. Member Cottier also feels the criteria have been met and also feels that this is an appropriate location for higher density development and meets all the criteria for location. She feels more could be done at the bridge to slow bicycles, such as speed bumps and bollards. She encourages the management to participate in the Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association and student participation as well. Member Fontane is concerned about the community value of air quality as expressed by City Council Member Walker said that the area is suffering from too much density, especially being used by one type of occupant.. Member Fontane said that this property use may change in the future. Member Winfree said that although students will bicycle to school, they will take their cars for other shopping in the city. Member Strom feels that the cars will not be used as much as could be used in other locations. He feels that students are not by definition monolithic except possibly by age group. Students will be beneficial for the traffic patterns. Member Cottier expressed concern the area being past capacity but Is considering the community as a whole and feels that other locations would be no better. Member Winfree noted that community is made up of groups of neighborhoods. Member Clements -Cooney said that City Council goal that Prospect -Shields have a neighborhood plan came about as a suggestion from the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board is concerned with the area and must consider this project on its own merits. Seniors will use the complex in the summer and students can do some shopping by bicycle. She also suggested contacting members of City Council, the Board and Planning Dept. with any Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 15 suggestions for improvement. She suggested that the applicant look into ways of reducing light pollution for the neighborhood. She feels that the applicant has done an excellent job of addressing the neighborhood concerns. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Winfree in the negative. Mr. Peterson suggested postponement of the discussion on planning fees and said that a motion was not required. Chair Clements -Cooney stated that they would move the recommendation on a new Planning Fees Schedule to the next Board meeting. HAMPSHIRE POND PUD - FINALCASE #44-9 A Mr. Steve Olt gave the staff report for the Hampshire Pond PUD Final, recommending approval. Mr. Storck, the applicant, stated that they have incorporated the Board's suggestions for redevelopment. They read the minutes from the last meeting as a menu of items to be considered. They looked at the street and Mr. Mike Jones, the project engineer from Northern Engineering, could speak about that. They eliminated a lot and provided buffering and so addressed 2 of 3 considerations. He felt that the 72 foot lots were most in keeping with the other 60 foot lots. He met with Dr. Kieft and Mr. Jones to discuss other options. No final agreement was reached, although Dr. Kieft later called to state that he preferred 90 foot lots and the plan was resubmitted with the larger lots. Mr. Storck asked Dr. Kieft for landscaping suggestions. Dr. Kieft did give spacing and planting suggestions, which were incorporated. He feels they have been cooperative and are willing to continue working with him. Dr. Kieft has since indicated that he prefers tri-levels. Linda Ripley, a local planning consultant, presented further information relating to this development and the guidance system. She stated that Dr. Kieft's letter to the Board mentions that he believes the Board's recommendations to the developer were meant to improve the quality of the development and not appease an adjacent owner. They agree and find that urban development meeting rural development is always difficult. This project has a low density of 3.9. She feels it is appropriate to situate this density next to the one home on 11 acres. The guidance system states that in developments happening at the same time, the larger one provides the buffering, whereas in developments which come after another, the first user has the responsibility to provide buffering and Dr. Kieft has. Mr. Storck has provided buffering and larger lots. Regarding conflicts that need to be mitigated, she said that both properties are low -density residential and therefore do not present conflict. Urban level densities exist in the area and is incorporated in the city. One acre lots would be too costly. She would like to know what the requirements are for developing urban properties adjacent to rural developments. She compared this development to Patio Homes project, which was approved earlier this evening. She agrees that there are opportunities to design the project differently within constraints. The developer is proposing a traditional design of straight streets. It is more efficient. Planning and Zoning. Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 16 Member Strom said he doesn't have a problem with the density but wants to know why the smallest lots, except for the one 9,000 foot one, are next to the rural development. Ms. Ripley replied that the different lot sizes are insignificant when compared to an 11 acre lot. Also, the access point on Drake Avenue and City Engineering standards dictate that the curve couldn't start until 240 feet into the development and the curve would then take up a lot of land. Mr. Strom felt that extra depth would give more choice in how the yard would relate to the neighbor. Member Fontane was disappointed that the directions were unclear since she wanted to see a curvilinear street and feels they could do better. PUBLIC INPUT Dr. Larry Kieft, 2333 West Drake, said that when he sends a letter to the Board and the Planner and the developer gets copies but he is then unable to respond to the response. In the first discussion with Mr. Storck and Mr. Jones, they proposed eliminating one lot and increasing the size to 72 feet. He felt the Board wanted more buffering and larger lots. Lots 2, 3, and 4 have been combined for two 90 foot lots, the other lots are all still 60 feet. The first seven lots to the property line are 72 feet. This is only along his property. He is disappointed in the process and doesn't see much change except for making the two lots out of three, adding trees on the first three lots only instead of all six. He feels the plan is still unimaginative and noted that this is a permanent development. Member Winfree asked what he would consider to mitigate the PUD to his benefit. Dr. Kieft said that if Featherstar cannot be changed and the lots will be 100 feet deep, he would like to use 90 foot wide lots along the whole western boundary. He would like to see some coordinated landscaping planning so new trees will not interfere with the established trees on the boundary. He would like the new owners to also be happy with the planting plan. He feels that the increased width would not devalue any possible future development. Member Klataske asked if it would be possible to realign Featherstar Way to increase the depth of the lots. Mr.Herzig said the Transportation Dept. does not believe the two accesses should move any closer together than they are since it would cause more interference with left turn lanes. The street would need to curve to the east to move it. Mr. Klataske asked at what point the street could curve. Mr. Herzig said it could start at 100 feet off the intersection. That would put it back one lot. Mr. Mike Jones of Northern Engineering, the civil engineers for the project, said that meeting the city standards for the design speed of 30 mph would allow the curve to start at 100 feet and the tightest curve allowed would be a 240 foot radius. They would be pulling about 15 feet away from Dr. Kieft's home and then heading east. They used a 90 degree Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 17 intersection rather than being off 10 degrees. That would make the curve 20 feet off from where Dr. Kieft's driveway is. Mr. Herzig said they would want a 30 mph design speed. They could concede part of the 100 foot straightaway and look at variances in the degree of curve to achieve greater depth. Chair Clements -Cooney commented that process has been an issue and is being addressed through a neighborhood, compatibility study looking into making the process more inviting and allowing citizen input at an earlier stage. Member Walker asked staff about mitigation and if there is an obligation for the developer to plan for possible future development. Mr. Olt said that the building on the other piece of property is not near the property line and that rural density for the future is an open question. Member Collier agreed that density is not the issue but rather lack of creativity. She thinks that swinging the street in and getting deeper lots would be preferable. She feels extensive planting is not necessary. Member Winfree asked if Marshwood Drive must continue as a deadend. Mr. Olt said they have asked the developer to accommodate a future connection to the west for a connector street just west of this site. He said it is not desirable to isolate a development. Member Winfree asked if Marshwood could be moved. Mr. Olt said it is making a continuous loop. Moving it to the north would create a cumbersome offset and could possibly be better done elsewhere. Member Fontane would still like to see alternative routes, such as bending streets or a variance for more depth on the lots. Member Walker said there are some engineering constraints. Featherstar Way must intersect Drake in the way it does. Curving the road is also limited. He feels that Dr. Keift's suggestion of 90 foot lots is reasonable. Member Strom moved that the Board postpone consideration until the October meeting with specific direction to the developer that the buffering be addressed between the west tier of lots and the adjacent property preferably by a combination of additional depth and additional landscaping. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minute@ September 27, 1993 Page IS PROVINCETOWNE PUD - SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CASE #73-82P Mr Olt presented for this PUD and the Provincetowne PUD Preliminary concurrently and recommended approval. Mr. Jim Gefroh presented for the applicant, Edgemont Inc. Also present were Ken Dueck, Don Parsons, and Matt Delich. He reviewed the various tracts in the development and noted that a portion of an existing drainage way along Lemay Avenue is incorporated into the multi -family land area and would be maintained by the multi -family association. Tract A will be maintained by the single-family association, the 93 lots. An existing buffer on the southside of the large lots with existing medians will be landscaped along Province Road and Brittany up to the church site. The project will maintain the landscaping in the medians. The multi -family units are two types --two-story and three story. Garage units around the perimeter will be used to buffer the area, as well as 20 feet of slope. The units will step down to Trilby.Road to maintain views. The two story is 1 and one half stories in the back. The three stories are located near the project amenities. They would like to attract families. 212 parking spaces are provided. The multi -family units are brick and stucco with shingles. Berming and patios are around the spaces. Landscaping is used to blend the structures into the landscape. They have provided a connection from the multi- family area through the single-family area to future open space that may develop for pedestrian and bicycle use. Member Strom asked for an estimate of when phase five might be developed: Mr. Gefroh replied that it depended on the overall buildout of the first four phases although it could supersede some of the other four phases. It depends on how well the first four phases move. The owners are committed to building a multi -family project on that corner. Mr. Ken Dueck said that the main constraint was financing and that the market situation has been improving. Member Strom asked staff about approving residential density within the city of less than one per acre. Mr. Peterson answered that Greenstone has some lots of one acre, about one mile south and east of this site. This is at the southern boundary of the urban growth area. Preliminaries and finals were approved. Member Strom was concerned about setting precedence in that area and that the large lots are phase one and the density is only achieved in phase.five. Member Winfree said she was concerned about striving to comply with elements of the Land Use Policies Plan. #12 says that three or more should be encouraged and #13 says one or less should not be allowed. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 19 - Member Cottier said that issues falling below three per acre are generally judged by the overall PUD. No direction is provided as to whether three per acre is too low and is therefore concerned about consistency. She felt that having the fifth phase earlier would be better. Member Fontane said she would prefer to see it earlier because developers have been saying that the market will not support the higher density when the time for that phase arrives. Member Strom asked if phasing could be specified, Mr. Eckman said they are limited to approving or disproving the plan before them. Member Fontane asked if this could be addressed in the Planning Dept. in the way they look at applications. Mr. Peterson said that this question of large single-family homes in this area has gone to City Council from the Planning and.Zoning Board and to the Board from the Planning Dept. His concern is that it is not building a community but they must follow what is in the LDGS. Member Strom asked what planning considerations support this density at this location. Mr. Olt replied that 85 units are one per acre and is on the south boundary of the UGA. Recent history is indicating that there is a direction to concept of one dwelling per acre, for example Greenstone. The city is looking to go to lots that will be a transition to the church site. It is small parcel of ground. This location is a blend of residential and two types of multi -family transitioning to two large intersections and is an appropriate land use at this location at this time. Phase five could be developed at any time. It enables the property to the west which is in foreclosure to transition the large acre properties because the large lots are on the southern edge and the standard size lots are to the north. Member Fontane moved approval of .the Provincetowne PUD - Second Amendment to the Overall Plan. Member Winfree seconded the motion Member Cottter said that she did not want the developers to return with a request to change the multi -family to single-family. Member Klataske suggested that the developer post signs stating what phase is happening at that time. He would not like to see a discussion in which the single-family residents do not want multi -family. Member Fontane said she is happy to see the conversion from single-family to multi -family. The motion passed 7-0. Mr. Peterson mentioned that the street variance needed to be included in the preliminary. :1 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 20 Member Winfree said she is concerned about ODP's with small initial lots using later phases to carry the density for the entire OW and then it comes back in for a modification to change the multi -family to single-family and then the density no longer makes the specifications. She will look critically at ODP's when they have used the later phases to carry the whole project. Member Klataske moved approval of the. Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary with the variance to from the normal street design standards to allow 28' wide cul-de-sac streets in the large lots areas. Member Colder seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that he Is not convinced that this is a good spot for a small island of large acreage housing. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Strom, Walker and Clements -Cooney in the negative. The meeting adjourned at 12:25 am.