Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/24/1994• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 24, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 24, 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 Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda which consisted of: Consent Agenda: Item 1, Approval of December 13 and December 16, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes; Item 2, Johnson Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #83-93; • Item 3, Lopez Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #84-93; Item 4, *East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Final, #58-93A; Item 5, Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #21-92F; Item 6, Harmony Crossing PUD - Final, #65-93B; Item 7, Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Final, #66-93A; Item 8, *Stetson Creek PUD (Formerly Rock Creek) - Final, #16-89F; Item 9, Resolution PZ93-18 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10, Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11, *Total Petroleum West Prospect - Non -Conforming Use Expansion Final, #78-93, and; Item 13, Recommendation to City Council for Fox Hills Annexation and Zoning, #36-93A,B. Discussion Agenda: Item 14, Stonebridge Garden Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #82-93; Item 15, Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary, #81-93, and; Item 16, Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93. Mr. Eckman pointed out Ordinance 151 was passed by Council on final reading in December and now the changes for the Land Development Guidance System are applicable for the first time. Member Cottier requested to pull the December 16, 1993 meeting minutes and suggested to review the wording of the motion for Spring Creek Project. Because of the appeal. Chair Clements asked to pull Item 5 Stoneridge PUD and Item 6 Harmony Crossing PUD because of conflict of interest. 0 It was requested from the audience that Item 7 Windtrail Homes PUD, Final, be pulled. Planning and Zoning Hoard Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 2 Chair Clements announced there was a request by staff to put Item 19 Kenney Rogers Roasters PUD, Preliminary and Final, which was on the discussion agenda, onto the consent agenda. She suggested a motion and a condition regarding the neon lighting to be reviewed by staff. She asked Planner Kirsten Whetstone if this was acceptable. Ms. Whetstone indicated that the condition should be worded such that staff reviews it prior to filing the PUD. If it is found that it needs to be reviewed by the Board, that will be done. Member Cotner moved that Kenney Rogers Roasters PUD on the Consent Agenda with the condition that staff will review the neon lighting prior to filing the plans. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Walker asked about the outcome of the review but is unclear where final jurisdiction lies. Ms. Whetstone replied the neon shown in the Board's packets is something new and was not submitted to the Planning Department for review. Staff needs to look at how that affects the architectural character, compatibility with the Square PUD. Staff can recommend that it goes back to the Board for review. Mr. Eckman stated his concern of the criteria the staff would use to decided whether the neon was acceptable. Would it be possible for the plan to be approved without neon, then the neon be added as an administrative change. If that is the case, is there sufficient criteria to guide staff on decision making on an administrative change to add the neon? Ms. Whetstone replied yes. She recommended that the plan be approved with no neon and if staff wants to submit it as an administrative change, it will be reviewed at that time. Member Collier withdrew her motion to read: "Kenney Roasters PUD be moved to the consent agenda and vote on final as submitted and any neon shall be considered as an administrative change." Member Klataske indicated that was acceptable. Mr. Phillips clarified "as submitted previously without the neon" is that correct? Both Members Collier and Klataske replied yes. Motion carried 7-0. 9 . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 3 Chair Clements requested a motion of the Board for acceptance of Minutes of December 13, 1993 and Items 2, 3, 4, 11, 13 and 19. Member Walker made a motion to that effect to approve the items. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Clements had a conflict of interest over Items 5 and 6 and asked Vice Chair Cottier to preside. Vice Chair Cottier moved approval of Items 5 and 6 of the agenda. Motion seconded by Member Winfree. Motion carried 6-0, with Chair Clements not voting because of conflict of interest. Mr. Shepard read the staff report and recommended approval with conditions that requires the timely filing of the development agreement and the utility plans. The applicant, Kay Force from the firm Jim Sell Design and representing the developer of the project. She referred to the site plan and described its location and density. The plans coordinate for the Center of Advanced Technology. At this stage, there is adequate traffic circulation and showed future plans to Center Drive. CITIZEN INPUT Rick Steadman - resident of and President of Hillpond Homeowners Association - He clarified the reason the item was pulled was not lack of support of the overall project, but rather associated traffic problems and future traffic impacts. Otherwise, no other opposition to the plan. The neighborhood concerns are: 1. He reference to Matt Delich's traffic study to page 1. At the Shields- Hillpond intersection, east leg, there are sight line constraints for vehicles 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 4 entering Shields Street. The median separating the inbound and outbound lanes of Hillpond Road, create a minor sight line constraint to the south. 2. He referred to the Staff report on page 3 that #4 in the report. The stops at the Hillpond/Shields intersection, expected delay ranges from 18 to 34 seconds on Shields during peak hours. He contested that and suggested it was not a true statement. He suggested that is easily 1-3 minutes to turn left onto Shields at peak hours. 3. He also referred to peak trips in and out and said there were significantly more than 15 cars in Mr. Delich's report. Traffic is much worse than the report represents. 4. At Hillpond/Shield he cited a median which allows only 15 feet on either side for one way (each direction), with bike traffic and very large tree trunks, with a left turn lane on Shields into the medical development on the west and Hillpond on the east. He said the traffic lights do not platoon the traffic flow to allow left turn out of the Hillpond area onto Shields. The traffic limits are in excess of 35 mph. He felt there was room for mitigation from the homeowners association's viewpoint regarding existing problems and future plans for the area. He pointed out the City Staff and Planning and Zoning Board need to closely view the impacts of decisions for growth with an eye on solving existing problems as they are realized. Mr. Steadman's concluding remarks were that the purpose for the homeowners attendance at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting was to bring about mitigation of the traffic problems at the Hillpond and Shields intersection, regarding visual obstruction of trees, left turn problems onto Shields, all have existed for a year and a half. Member Klataske asked Mr. Eckman if the Board could put a condition on the motion for approval to mitigate with the City or the developer regarding this traffic problem. Mr. Eckman stated if the problem was in the City right-of-way and the impact was exacerbating a traffic problem, if one of the criteria is not being met, the Board can approve it with a condition, or the Board can choose not to approve the development until the problem is resolved. He was not sure how the City could respond in terms of tree removal on City property and said it is not the responsibility of the developer. The Board can fail to approve the project until the problem is resolved or mitigated. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 5 Mr. Herzig commented that Mr. Rick Ensdorff asked him to say the City is aware that the problem exists. Mr. Ensdorff wanted it stated that it is not a developer problem and the burden is on the City. Chair Clements stated because it is an existing problem of over a year, she asked staff if there could be a way to take some kind of action, as in the form of a memo, to proceed forward to mitigate this problem until the time a traffic light is installed. Mr. Phillips said he would look into the matter and get some action started. Mr. Eckman stated if this is satisfactory to the Board and also that Criteria A2.1 has been met, the Board can go ahead and approve the project. This is the criteria that needs to be addressed under the new guidelines of traffic safety. Member Walker said because the traffic engineer's report suggests this issue needs to be addressed, there is recognition of the problem. If the Board accepts the project, what would be the status of the report relative to approval of the development? If it is approved, is the Board ignoring the recommendations of the traffic engineer? Mr. Eckman said the City does have a duty to ensure it doesn't have dangerous conditions on public streets. It is not so much a concern of the Board to approve a project if the LDGS Criteria has been met, this should be the focus of the Board's concern. He quoted, "Can the additional traffic generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated in the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems?" This is what the Board needs to decide, and the traffic report is prohibitive evidence to consider. Member Walker stated that because a known problem documented in a traffic engineering report, he could, therefore, not ignore the current traffic problem, and had concern that criteria had not been met. Member Klataske indicated that in the overall scope of this project what we are looking at seems rather insignificant, cutting of tree trunks (working with the City), reducing the median to allow for a left turn lane that may involve both the City and the homeowners association; the cost does not seem high, although working through the bureaucracy to accomplish is another question. He wondered if the developer was willing to take on the cost of these improvements, as part of the overall approval of the plan. Mr. Eckman stated that the Board can condition the approval on those things being done; but it if creates a difficulty for the developer, then that is something the developer has to work out. is If your judgment is that this project should not be approved without that being done, because Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 6 this criteria cannot be met without it being done, then there is no legal difficulty in the Board's refusing to approve the project except upon that condition. Mr. Klataske asked the developer if this would be acceptable. Mr. John McCoy, developer, stated if he understood the question, that the developer cut the trees down, fix the median, given the trees are in the City right -of -way --he stated: "I would probably not be interested in doing that." The City has massaged and manicured that area year after year; and if there is a problem, they should have taken care of it. Member Cottier stated she agreed it was not appropriate to condition City responsibilities on this project. Member Fontane stated her concern of tying the City to the responsibility of addressing these problems before the project can go ahead. That would "put the heat in the right place." Mr. Eckman said he didn't think the Board can require the City to do anything. All the Board can do is either approve or not approve the project because of your concerns or in some manner condition your approval on something being done --then let the parties figure out how what should be done. It is a tough decision. If you feel a criteria is not being met, then it is the Board's duty not to approve the project unless you create a condition that would alleviate the problem. Member Fontane said if the condition regarding the trees and the median resolution is placed with the approval of the project, the developer and the City need to work at solving the problem. Member Strom had a question of the legal staff. The preliminary of this project was approved under LDGS criteria without the revised compatibility criteria, the final comes to the Board in conformance to the preliminary, are we now to be applying different standards to the final than we had to the preliminary? Mr. Eckman stated that was addressed in the ordinance that the City Council approved and he read: "The amendments to Section 29.526 Land Development Guidance System, approved by the adoption of this ordinance, shall apply to all new or existing planned unit developments which have not received final approval by the City on or before January 1, 1994." This is the way the ordinance reads. At the first of the year, there is a new way in which these projects are reviewed if they have not received final approval. Member Walker moved approval of the project with the following Staff condition and the condition recognizing the existing traffic problems at Hillpond and Shields, that it be resolved through the efforts of the Hillpond Homeowner's Association, the developer and the City through an agreed upon plan of action, and execution time table. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 7 1. The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D., plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (March 28, 1994 of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall fast find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its • decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made). If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 23, of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that the dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Walker added comments regarding his concern criteria and how we can go about effectively doing this since the City is involved. The intent of the motion is for the three parties of interest, the City, homeowners and developer, be a motivator on to proceed in the process. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 8 ZIP .. 0 Mr. Olt gave the staff report,slides,• • to the Board. Member Walker had a question regarding the location of the access drive. What criteria is used to determine the location? His concern stemmed from the school children and traffic flows in the area. Mr. Olt said that Transportation had indicated there are two points of access being considered: Mid -point between Monte Carlo and Harmony Road. Another consideration is directly across from the intersection of Monte Carlo. The shopping center to the east needs to be considered. At this time, the development plans are not far enough along to know where its access will occur. Distance from Harmony Road is a factor, potential turn lanes must be considered, potential street light at Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive. With the two uses, multi -family and shopping center, it is probable that a stop light would be considered. As it looks presently, the traffic flow would most likely move from the multi -family area to Wheaton to Monte Carlo to McMurray for access eastbound on Harmony. Member Walker said it is unclear about the potential for the light at Wheaton and Harmony. Member Fontane asked about the time frame for the impact analysis of traffic. Mr. Olt said with the shopping center still in the early planning phases, it is difficult to determine what the time frame would be for that impact study. Member Fontane said it was difficult to envision how traffic patterns would develop. Mr. Olt stated under the circumstances, the Transportation Department believes these two projects should be viewed together regarding traffic impacts. Chair Clements said she is trying to recall when deciding access on one site was dependant upon the location of another site access. It somewhat concerns her why the Transportation Division cannot make a decision. Mr. Olt commented said he was not prepared to speak for the Transportation Division at this time in terms of alienating this project from the contextual view in the area, based on the knowledge today that the shopping center will occur in the near future. Chair Clements had some serious concerns regarding this. Jim Youngee, planner for the project, 9630 E. Powers Place in Greenwood Village. Co -planner Linda Ripely, Jim Loftus, traffic planner Matt Delich were all present to make a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that their wish was that the Board approve this application • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 9 with some changes to the staff recommendation. There was a neighborhood meeting prior to submission of any proposal. The intent to build a multi -family project has always been up front to the neighborhood to build out the Courtney Park to the west. The proposed plan has 168- units, 16-units to the acre, and meets the LDGS, with 110% for increased density. The proposal is within the general guidelines of the PUD master plan because there had originally been 154 units planned to the north of the retail site, which has been was built as 54 single-family sites. The current master plan states 20 to 30 units less than had originally been planned. The three issues of the neighborhood were: 1. Traffic. The original PUD had two access points. The neighbors preference was one access from the site. They requested that it not be aligned with Monte Carlo. There was a request for the green space and a one-story clubhouse close to the intersection to give maximum setbacks, open space, and minimal impact of multi- family units. 2. Building Mass. There were changes in the buildings as they front along Wheaton, to include smaller buildings along the border of the site. There was a request for internal parking and landscaping external to the site. All buildings . have no more than two stories adjacent to the street, with three stories to the center of the project. The technical report refines the height of the buildings to be 33 feet in height. 3. Landscaping. The merit of the plan is 50 percent of the site is in green space. This is achieved by 50 garage units being within the buildings, at the ends of them or at the center of the buildings. They are residential in character, with slopped roofs, stone and wood sidings to be compatible with the neighborhood. Off -site landscaping includes 7 existing shade trees and the neighborhood was asked if it would be of assistance to do off -site landscaping and berming. They agreed, and staff has supported it as part of the project. Mr. Youngee stated a concern from the standpoint of density, which leads to traffic. The project is in harmony with the Master Plan of the overall PUD in Phases I, II, and III. He believed the general purpose of a PUD is to have a "give and take" of project amenities versus merit to the neighborhood. He said their changes in the proposal have merit and justifies the PUD. The traffic issue seems to be the obstacle remaining. He felt it unfair that this issue would hold up the project, because his project is a "stand alone project" with an already master PUD. They are simply building out the east half of a project which had already been approved and this request should not be held back because of a proposed shopping center. The location of the driveway to the south of Monte Carlo mitigates the impact the traffic may have on the residential neighborhood. Further, the pedestrian traffic for the school children that are coming • to the school stays to the north side of the street. A peak period for auto traffic, from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. leaving the site and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. returning to the site, is at different times than school hours. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 10 Mr. Youngee further stated that plans, whether signalized or not, have been researched for the Wheaton/Harmony intersection. However, if the proposed location of the access needs to be moved, they are willing to work that out with staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. The plan is clearly considering use of the access of the shopping center with the alignment of the two driveways. The owners are prepared to build this year and would not want the project delayed. Member Walker asked if the location of the access would be the best guess to provide alignment with any future development across the road to the east. Mr. Youngee said he will work with the developers toward an agreement and that he attended the neighborhood meeting of January 27, 1994, where nearly 300 people attended to voice concerns. No accesses would be granted to Monte Carlo, one access to Wheaton Dr. one to the east, and none to the Harmony. The developer stated they were flexible in the location of the access road. Member Strom asked if a traffic study had been conducted. Mr. Matt Delich stated he conducted a traffic study for this site. What the City is asking for now is a comprehensive, impact analysis for the entire area extending to S. Lemay Ave., E. Harmony Road, McMurray Road to the east, Golden Meadows residential area to the north. He stated that this development is not the problem and would also invite a traffic signal there, if necessary. Wheaton Drive has always been designed as a collector street, with no parking allowed. Member Walker understood that this project is to be considered without plans for the shopping center and has the City approved this access point to Wheaton. Mr. Youngee replied yes. He supposed in Mr. Ensdorff's mind will it then work if there is a traffic signal. The designers of this project, respecting neighborhood input, made its location south of Monte Carlo. Mr. Delich conducted the traffic study for this project and the distance between intersections being discussed is 250 feet. The issue considers the Harmony access without the signal. In the traffic study, it shows there would be no left turn at that point to the east. The logical route is through McMurray. If there is a signal proposed, the overlapping left turn lanes would have to be redesigned. Member Walker if the signals are placed, where would the access be moved to? Mr. Delich said it would have to be in compliance with the larger traffic study made. Member Strom asked when the traffic study was made, did you use some kind of traffic generation off the Phase IV site. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 11 Mr. Delich said he did not, because basically there was really nothing intended on the site at the time he did the study. It has always been commercial. He had made contact with the people developing the site and could not get any definitive answers regarding their proposal. Since then, more has developed, specifically the King Soopers site. This site will generate 9,000 daily trip ends at the site. This project will generate 1,000-1,200 daily trip ends, resulting in 10 percent of the new traffic. Member Strom asked if was typical to leave out a site even if it is undeveloped. Mr. Delich said that it was not. The problem was there was no information at the time of the analysis, so he proceeded with the consent of staff, with the Harmony Road access in place. Since the King Soopers site planning is active, Mr. Ensdorff thought there needed to be some adjustments to the Harmony Road access plan. That opens other issues. Member Strom asked for input in terms of range of possibilities. What is the difference from the traffic standpoint if Wheaton is signalized rather than just operating with the existing signal at McMurray? • Mr. Delich said all the traffic to the east, with the shopping site, will put a burden on the McMurray signal, necessitating double -turn lanes in the southbound direction. The Wheaton signal would take some burden off. Member Strom concluded that existing Harmony access plan is based, to a fair degree, to move traffic on Harmony Road. Mr. Delich said there is involvement of a charge of the State of Colorado to move traffic on Harmony. He discussed technical details of State involvement and City. Member Strom asked how much difference is it going to make on Harmony Road with signalization. Mr. Delich stated one-half mile increments along the corridor in the future. There were several areas that will be signalized. There would be extra lanes and a lowering of the speed zones. Member Fontane asked if left turn lights at Wheaton and L.emay were feasible (and a possible cul-de-sac). Why is there concern about access on Harmony from Wheaton. Theoretically, the two developments were considered in these plans. Mr. Delich indicated that the plans did consider this. What is happening now is a sensitivity to the neighbors to the north and try to bring the traffic in and out of the commercial portion of • the Golden Meadows area, rather than filtering through the neighborhood. Member Collier directed her question to staff for answer. Ptanniug and Zoning Hoard Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 12 Ms. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, said what has changed is that the Golden Meadows Master Plan has been built out and people are living there and are being vocal about the additional traffic on Monte Carlo and the school are factors that weren't always in place. The Harmony Road Access Plan should still be valid. She stated the plan is still viable. CITIZEN INPUT Tim Dolan from the Golden Meadows Homeowner's Association - At the meeting last Thursday regarding the Kings Soopers project, Rick Ensdorff made the statement that he would do a traffic study in conjunction with these two projects. The association recognizes that they are separate projects for the most part and accepts the apartment project. There is concern about the traffic and traffic patterns. The association would like this study to take place. The project is being contested because the overall effect of its development in their neighborhood. Bob Penny - 4401 San Remos - His concern was the children from the neighborhood walking down Wheaton to the school. He did not agree that the 1,200 commuter trips generated from the apartment complex were at different times from the school hours. The King Soopers project will increase car trips by 9,000. It is very important that this project be considered with the King Soopers project because of neighborhood concern. Over 300 people were at the neighborhood meeting and desire that the two projects be considered together. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements stated the traffic study and the proposed King Soopers development are generating the concern. She asked Mr. Olt where the potential project stood. Mr. Olt said to date the proposed King Soopers project has been to conceptual review about a month ago, the neighborhood information meeting has been held January 20, and was not sure of the timing for formal submittal of their project. Ted Shepard is the project planner in the City offices for the King Soopers project. Chair Clements said there are many unknowns. Member Strom stated he was surprised that the traffic study was not in the packets. Mr. Olt stated he will refer the questions to Matt Delich who prepared the study. Also, it is rare that the report is included. Member Cottier asked in regard to neighborhood compatibility why the neighborhood meetings notes were not included in the packet, but Mr. Youngee's letter summarized the neighborhood issues were setbacks, building scale, adequate landscaping, and location of the entrance. Mr. Dolan said the neighborhood generally supported this project. Is there any negative issue outside the traffic issue related to King Soopers? • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 13 Mr. Olt said "there is not". The neighborhood information minutes were delivered to the Board this evening. There has not been response since the neighborhood meeting. 19 people out of 300 residents notified attended. The initial neighborhood meeting concluded with acceptance of this project. There have been a few people come in and express a general concern about the area, but generally support of the project, design and accepted as a neighbor to the community. There is follow-up neighborhood meeting January 26 concerning this project. Member Winfree referred to the ODP and the site that was approved having a commercial area. Was there no traffic study done in relation to the ODP approval? Mr. Olt said the ODP was approved on June 27, 1984 that included 209,000 square feet of commercial uses on Phase IV of the neighborhood shopping site and 590 multi -family dwelling units in the surrounding area. He assumed there was one done but he has not seen it. Normally there is one done for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve an Overall Development Plan at that time. Member Klataske questioned the overall height of the buildings, with the minutes indicating 26 feet and the staff report 35 feet. • Mr. Olt said he was unaware of the minutes stating this. Perhaps the end sections are being referred to, being ones that would be facing the residential neighborhoods. There is now an indication that the three story will be a maximum of 33 feet. Member Strom asked if part of the traffic study included Wheaton and Lemay and Harmony intersections? Mr. Olt said that there was not a Transportation representative at the meeting, so that is an assumption. Mr. Delich said the three intersections that were examined in the study were Wheaton/Harmony, Wheaton/Lemay and Harmony/Lemay. At the present time, the only signal is at Harmony and Lemay. The larger context of the traffic report shows there would be a rather insignificant impact of this development on the McMurray intersection because of its proximity. In the short- range future, without the development of the King Soopers shopping center, a signal is not warranted at Wheaton and Lemay. The need for the signal would be solely upon the development of the shopping center, if it occurred. Member Strom commented that the traffic study that was conducted left out a major portion of background traffic impact. He could not understand how this project could ngj include the himpacts of the shopping center. He concluded that a traffic study needs to be conducted before • the project is finalized. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 14 Chair Clements added that the staff recommendation of "comprehensive impact analysis" has left many questions unanswered. She found it frustrating that Mr. Ensdorff of the Transportation Division was present at the work session and did not have answers and is now not present when being asked to approve the preliminary. Member Winfree commented that she agreed with comments made. We cannot consider this project with only a site specific traffic study and ignore the surrounding areas and total impacts. Member Strom moved approval of the preliminary P.U.D. considering the criteria, and reserve the right at the final to disapprove the project. If the traffic study doesn't give the necessary back-up for the traffic safety criteria. This proposal is weak in substantiating this criteria and the rest of the proposal is a very fine project. It has excellent site design, layout, setbacks. The traffic generation from this site cannot be the only consideration for impact. Member Cottier asked for clarification. Is the traffic impact study for a broad scope or just factors neighborhood development on the site to the east? Member Strom said he wasn't sure what was meant by a much broader traffic impact study. It seems that four major intersections need to be looked at in order to evaluate the site. At a minimum, the Wheaton/Lemay, Lemay/Harmony, Wheaton/Harmony and McMurray/Harmony intersections. Chair Clements asked if Member Strom, in his motion, included the condition of the staff report as stated or revision of the condition. Mr. Olt stated that at a work session on Friday, minor changes have been made and there is revised condition before the Board, page 8 and 9 that replaces the original pages in the staff report. He explained how it differs by pointing out "the analysis must assume for purposes of its calculations, the existing proposed land uses in the area, their impacts rather than their effects on the transportation network." He said where the sentence beginning with "Also" should read "This area -wide transportation study will be used to determine whether the Stonebridge access point...." This is part of the overall comprehensive traffic impact analysis. Member Strom said the new wording is fine. He needed clarification as to what the interaction is with the Colorado Department of Transportation and how that impacts traffic studies and, ultimately, the project. Mr. Olt stated the Colorado Department of Transportation will have to review the traffic study if it were to propose an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Access Control Plan. For example, if there were a stop light proposed, or additional access points onto Harmony Road, then the Department would have to review and approve that amendment to the plan. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 15 Member Strom then asked how long that was going to take? Mr. Olt said that will vary. However, the Matterhorn PUD South College Access was a matter of months. It must go to the Department of Transportation in Greeley, then to Denver. It is difficult to predict their review time and approval. Member Strom said he was not willing to make the developer wait a matter of months, but at least have the Colorado Department of Transportation have some sense of what their reaction is to the plan before the final is reviewed. Mr. Olt said that is the staff recommendation, and the City will follow through on this. Member Strom was frustrated that the Transportation staff person was not present at this meeting since this is the major issue of the project. Member Winfree asked for clarification of Member Strom's motion as it is written? Member Strom said the minor amendment to the condition as written, not that it be • formally approved by the Colorado State Transportation Department, but that there be a preliminary reading after their review. The developer then can proceed with work on the final application. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman stated that before this project is approved on final the Board will have an opportunity to look at traffic criteria to see if you still believe criteria has been met and if they have not because of the traffic impact analysis, at that time the project can be rejected. It should be made clear that the traffic impact analysis has nothing to do with layout and densities. The Board may be able to adjust densities because of traffic impact findings. Sometimes these studies overlap especially with regard to layout. Member Collier said she supported the motion but lost sight of the qualities of the project. It is appropriate in its location with higher densities. Her personal feeling regarding the traffic is that the existing street network is adequate to handle the traffic of this proposed project. She had reservations of tying the commercial use to what this site should be allowed to do. She agreed the traffic study should factor in the numbers on the potential commercial development to the east and supported the idea of a more detailed traffic study. Member Walker commended the applicant for responding to the neighborhood concerns and desires and has done a fine job modifying plans. The access onto Wheaton was in response to 40 the neighborhood concerns. The street network can manage the traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 16 Member Fontane said she supports the project because of its quality the multi -family densities, and the developer's flexibility of the traffic access point. She hoped the transportation study doesn't delay the project. Mr. Eckman asked Member Strom for a point of clarification to make sure all board members understand that the condition is such that if, at the time of final, the traffic analysis still shows there is a problem with the layout, that the layout has to be adjusted in order to address any traffic problems. Then there is no vested right at the time of preliminary to the layout that is before the Board presently. Is that a fair statement? Member Strom said yes. Mr. Eckman said the Land Development Guidance System says that layout and densities are established at preliminaries and they can't be changed at final. The Board can make a conditional approval, to hold back that layout question as it specifically relates to traffic, if the Board desires. Was that the intent to layout of the condition to the motion. Because under the LDGS the layout is usually set at Preliminary, the Board needs to consider the question for this particular project to reserve the right to change layout if that is the Board's intention. Member Strom said we have to deal with the ramifications of the traffic study at the time the information is available. Chair Clements said if this project is requested to do a comprehensive impact analysis, what will the King Soopers people have to do ... the same analysis? Mr. Olt said there is really only one that is needed to be done. Chair Clements asked why this project will have to take on the responsibility? The real impact of traffic will be generated from the King Soopers project and she thought the request was backwards and felt it wasn't the developer's responsibility. Member Strom said ordinarily he would say that comment was correct but in this case, it was his opinion that a traffic analysis could not be done without considering the land use next to it. Chair Clements asked if Mr. Delich had taken this impact into account. Mr. Delich clarified that he did not specifically include the King Soopers development because it was not available when the study was conducted, but what he included in the analysis were increases in background traffic commensurate with the overall Golden Meadows and other increases in the area. Therefore, the traffic increases on Harmony Road, on Lemay, and on Wheaton were on the order of the whole development of the area. The increases shown did include order magnitude of those developments. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 17 Member Strom specifically asked Mr. Delich if he evaluated a commercial use on this site? Mr. Delich replied he used the Harmony Road Access plan which included commercial development on the site in 1988. It was his understanding that the number then was even higher than the proposed development. Member Strom asked the impact on McMurray/Harmony access? Mr. Delich said that is the key. In conjunction with this particular development, I did not evaluate that intersection because the amount of traffic generated from the development would probably be less than 3 percent at that intersection and wasn't necessary to evaluate it. Member Strom pointed out that it was the only way to proceed east on Harmony out of this site. Mr. Delich replied that it is most likely but not the only and, again, stated that the impact of the development was so small, that it in his judgment and transportation at the city, the evaluation of the intersections agreed upon were made. Prior to all of this information regarding the King Soopers site, the McMurray intersection with Harmony was not deemed necessary to evaluate at this time. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt asked how King Soopers differed on that site based on the ODP which has always been defined as neighborhood/commercial. Mr. Olt stated that the approved neighborhood shopping center in 1984, took into consideration the standard components of a neighborhood/ supermarket based shopping center with smaller auxiliary uses possibly, some business and office uses, etc. He was unaware of any uses other than the King Soopers Market large store proposal. More information needs to be available to evaluate it. Member Cottier asked Mr. Olt if a traffic study after the King Soopers site development is adequate for the scope of the project. Mr. Olt said he didn't think the Transportation Division would be able to admit that, stating that Mr. Ensdorff has stated a comprehensive traffic impact study is needed for that area, which includes the area from Lemay to McMurray along Harmony and its functioning. Member Strom asked how they could have possibly said that to Mr. Delich, and why wouldn't he have done that study if that was what he was told to do. Mr. Olt said he couldn't answer that question. 40 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 1g Chair Clements stated the Board is very frustrated mainly because there is no one from the Transportation Division, although Mike Herzig was asked to represent the traffic issues. He doesn't have all the answers the Board needs for this particular project. Member Strom said, with the permission of the second, he would withdraw the motion. He further stated that the concern about the traffic study is overstated. He was frustrated as information has come forth, his conclusion has changed. It seems regardless of what the traffic study says, if the only issue the Board is concerned about is where the driveway location is, it is better now than at Monte Carlo. This seems to be the key question in the context of this project and the traffic issues; consequently, regardless of what the traffic study might show, he would be better able to say this is a better location, anyway. He desired to make a second motion without the traffic study condition. Member Winfree seconded. Member Winfree asked Mr. Delich why the traffic study was not submitted. Mr. Delich said it was submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Olt said it was reviewed by Transportation all along, but the traffic study is not normally included in the Board's packets. Member Winfree asked if the comprehensive traffic analysis by the Transportation Division was their recommendation. Mr. Olt said yes. Member Winfree further asked if the location of the access onto Wheaton from the project site would not be in the proper location to use a left turn signal at Wheaton/Harmony. Mr. Delich said it may not, but it would need to be viewed in light of the King Soopers site. Member Strom moved that the project be approved. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker made comment on the condition of the staff report, saying the whole purpose of the comprehensive traffic study was to decide where the access point should be. He believed that where the access has been proposed is appropriate from a planning perspective. The details can be worked through for other traffic patterns and flows. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 19 Mr. Olt reflected that the statement of Mr. Walker, being "the whole purpose of the study is the location of the access point" is true in part. The way it reads was that the area -wide transportation study was not done just to determine the access point. That was only a portion of it. Motion to approve carried 6-1 with. . Ms. Whetstone gave the staff report. [Staff conditions related to: buffer landscaping on the east, west, and south boundaries; drainage; replacement program for trees throughout the whole site; on -street parking site widths. Staff recommended approval of this innovative design.] John Prouty - President of Lagunitas Company, area resident for 7 years and in the construction business for 20 years, gave a presentation of the development proposal. He explained the cottage concept, street layout, and streetscape with parking, and other site plan elements. . (1) The cottage concept started about 50 years ago. It is characterized by parking at the rear and used by alleys. It has received nation-wide interest because of the pedestrian nature, neighborhood scale and re -definition of rear access. He cited locations in Seattle, Washington where this concept has been used lately. The layout and scale of streets is more attractive because of the elimination of garages facing the street. Street trees, short lawn, gables and front porches contribute to the pedestrian scale. Space and windows are used to give a more open space feeling. He had good and poor examples of developments using this concept. (2) The 43 foot right-of-way, with parking offsets to the right and left, provide parking in front of every unit. There is also on -site parking at the rear for two cars. Functionally, the street will look much smaller in scale because of the landscape offsets. In the Board's packet there is a variance on street standards, reducing parking space from 8-foot to 7-foot parking spaces. He outlined some technical aspects of the variance request and showed slides examples of parking. Sidewalks are on both sides of the project street. Offsets for the parking are concrete, with a rolled curb. (3) He reviewed the drainage plan and discussed flow lines. There is a 100-year flood line over one comer of the property. Setbacks to existing houses are of concern at three points, and range from 37 to 48 feet. The setbacks and landscape buffer were positively placed on site with the existing houses in mind. (4) There are 11 significant living trees on the site, 5-6 will be saved. The consensus of • opinion, for the Chinese elm is to prune thin and replace them rather than eliminate them Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 20 entirely at construction time. Evergreens, maples and ash are the trees recommended to replace the elms. Mr. Prouty further stated the covenants (will be honored) that have been used for the townhouses. There will be a provision for rental of entire units only or to single -families only. The primary markets to empty nesters and retirees, but 25-45 percent of the market could be sold to single parents or professional couples. The market will determine how that occurs. The units will be sold for $150,0004200,000. There is a concern about lighting for the record, that developer said he would like to provide lighting in as creative a way as possible, staying away from the large residential light lamps. Traffic considerations were outlined. There have been meetings with the Planning Department and the homeowners associations and he has tried to respond to their needs. Other technical points were covered in his presentation. He requested favorable consideration of the project. Chair Clements asked about the concerns about lighting, yet there were no conditions in the staff report regarding this. Ms. Whetstone said lighting issues are not typically addressed by Planning, but are the purview of the City Light and Power Utility, but staff will work with them to work out a solution within the standards. CMZEN INPUT Hari Iyer - 1840 Bush Ct., resides west of the proposed development - He represented homeowners on Bush Court. The main concern is how will this project affect the traffic patterns. He mentioned public facilities along the surrounding arterial as well as the Spring Creek Trail. This needs to be studied for any potential problems. Mr. Iyer mentioned that many of the homes in the surrounding area have problems with basements flooding. This needs careful study by all parties involved especially, the water table. Mr. Iyer mentioned other concerns: He questioned the artists conception of the location of the trees if there realistically is not room for them. There doesn't seem to be enough green space. Two -car garages not too far from neighbors back fences is a concern. The number of parking spaces are a concern (41 proposed), during the day there will be street parking and the concern is overflow parking on Stuart Street. CffIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements mentioned the concerns of drainage, traffic patterns, landscaping, parking spaces and overflow parking on Stuart Street. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 21 Ms. Whetstone said the Transportation Division has reviewed this proposal. Parking is adequate and is actually more than the existing townhouses in the area. There could be overflow parking on Stuart which is a collector street, a public street. Transportation Division has not expressed concerns with this proposal. She referred to the landscape plan and stated it was a preliminary plan and the Planning Department will continue working with the applicant and Engineering on the final details for the plan. She further added that the drainage issue will be addressed with the final drainage plans. The Transforation Department has reviewed a traffic analysis and believes that the project is feasible, recognizing that Stuart Street is a collector street. Member Walker asked Ms. Whetstone about the Replacement Schedule for the existing landscaping, on the east and west borders. He asked if this is to be completed at the time of the development of the project or if it is something that is going to take place over time. Ms. Whetstone understood that the replacement schedule would occur for 5 to 10 years. Initial pruning and planting would be done by the developer. As the area gets built out, the replacement schedule would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. She said at this time this is not in writing. Member Strom had a question about the southeast comer for lots 12, 13 and 14, usually requires a cul-de-sac, where none is present in this proposal. Why is it acceptable here and not in other areas of the city. Ms. Whetstone said these interior streets are no longer public right-of-way. The local access street is private and the City doesn't require cul-de-sacs for private streets. Mr. Prouty said it was his understanding that local access streets were public and that is certainly the basis on which they've planned. Mr. Herzig said City interpretation was that they were not public but private. Engineering is working on the final details such as entry and parking, but support the concept of the plan in a - preliminary mode. Chair Clements asked for elaboration of the entry work needed to be done. Mr. Herzig said that there is an island proposed, the City requires 20 feet on each side. The City hasn't looked at the details of radius and design speed on the entrance, it looks tight. These will be dealt with a variance to the plan. Chair Clements asked if conditions were required. 0 Mr. Herzig said these are issues normally done during final. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 22 Member Walker asked if these are private streets, would they be maintained by the homeowner's association. Mr. Herzig said yes, but the development could be a mix of private and public. There could be a public turn -around, to be determined at final. Member Collier asked if there was a potential problem of parking in the wrong direction on the street. Mr. Herzig said that it is a small number that chose to park that way throughout the city. Perhaps a distinct design of the travelways and widths, will discourage or prohibit this reverse parking. He felt the answer is no. Mr. Prouty said these parking slots will be concrete as opposed to asphalt and well delineated with plantings. The parking should be self -enforcing. Member Winfree asked the developer about the island plantings. Mr. Prouty said the landscaping would include a major street in every yard and parking/landscape offsets will have shade trees. Utilities will be located in front freeing up private drives for ornamental or small shade trees to be planted. Member Strom asked Ms. Whetstone about the open space aspect and what were her comments. Ms. Whetstone said it was a different kind of product than a townhouse where there is a tighter cluster of units with common open space around it. The open space in the proposed development is more private. There is some common open space on Stuart Street, but mainly private open spaces is in the front and side yard areas. This development is considered a single-family project, which usually has private open space compared townhouse, multi -family where there is common open space. The staff feels there is adequate open space for the project. Recreational opportunities are available in the surrounding areas. There is also a half acre adjacent off -site and the developer is working with the adjacent homeowners association on the potential of improving the area, adding a gazebo, and sharing maintenance with the Indian Hills Townhouses. For Fort Collins, this is an experimental concept. Member Colder referred to the Planning Objectives submitted by the Developer, there is reference to the east property line and a 10-foot city -owned easement. There is a suggestion that this could possibly be deeded as open space. Has there been response to this idea? Ms. Whetstone said the research has shown that it is owned by the City and it is not used for any particular purposes at this time. The City will consider vacating it. Typically when . Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 23 property is vacated, taken out of both sides, it goes back half and half. Details are still being worked out. Member Colder asked the location of the trees in relation to the 10-foot city -owned easement, east or west. Mr. Prouty said there are 8 feet inside the development property line and up to 10 into the 10- foot city -owned right-of-way, with a random pattern. Member Strom asked if the development is phased. Mr. Prouty said it was one -phase project. The economics dictate it. Chair Clements asked why the parking space width are an issue and how that would be resolved? Mr. Herzig said the City standards say 8 feet, where the developer is proposing 7 feet. He said staff is aware that other communities do have 7 foot wide parking spaces. The Poudre Fire Authority finds that more recreational vehicles tend to be residential areas and they require more • space. The issues is unresolved. The City tries to discourage it. It has been requested and there will be analysis for recommendation of the final proposal. Member Klataske asked if these were attached or detached sidewalks. Mr. Herzig said there are both, detached with some landscaped areas and attached at parking areas. Member Klataske discussed some ideas about a drive over to the sidewalk area without a vertical curb. Mr. Herzig said this would need to be reviewed. Chair Clements asked if this project needs a variance from the solar orientation and street standard regarding right-of-way. Ms. Whetstone said that is correct and the variances are spelled out in the Staff Report for reference. Member Fontane recommended approval of the Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary with the variance for the solar -orientation ordinance, street standards right-of-way and the three following conditions as stated in the staff report: • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 24 1. That a replacement schedule for existing landscaping be submitted and approved by the City Natural Resources Department and the City Forester. 2. That an agreement with the Indian Hills Townhouses HOA, regarding off -site landscaping be submitted and approved by the Planning Department, or that the landscaped buffer along the south boundary be provided on the Indian Hills Village FUD property. 3. That the on -street parking width issue of 7' versus 8' be resolved prior to submittal of final plans. Motion seconded by Member Strom. Chair Clements said she was intrigued by the proposal. It begins to push the city "standards" and this is a healthy direction. She would like to see more 28' wide streets in the city. She believes that always adhering to standards does not always lend to creativity. She hoped that the applicants and architects begin. to bring more creative proposals that make the Board look at the City standards and re-evaluate them for the good of the community. She supported the motion. Member Walker said he agreed with her comments but had a concern for the intersection with Stuart Street and stated the need to maintain "safety" as a standard. Member Strom said he supported the motion and the findings in the staff report and the LDGS are his reasons. Member Winfree will support the motion and is excited to see this project presented and carried out. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Clements stated that the Planning & Zoning Board does not usually hear proposals passed 11:00 p.m. to offer clarity of thought and objectivity for decisions. There are three more items on the agenda. She suggested that the meeting be continued to Monday, January 31, 1994. Member Winfree made the motion to postpone the remaining agenda items until the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of Monday, January 31. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1, with Member Fontane voting in the negative. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.