Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/13/19930 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES December 13, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Sherry Albertson -Clark, Staff Support Liaison The December 13, 1993, 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 Chairperson Rene' Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, James Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the consent agenda for the meeting which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes of the October 25, November 1, and November 15, 1993, Planning and Zoning meetings; Item 2 - South Glen PUD, 4th Filing - Preliminary, #110-79J; Item 3 - Evangelical Covenant Church PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary & Final, #9-85C; Item 4 - Rose Tree Village ® Cunningham Corners PUD - Final, #4-83P; Item 5 - The Market at Horsetooth Commons, Lot 1, Amended Preliminary and Final PUD, #58-91D; Item 6 - Four Seasons PUD, 9th Filing - Preliminary, #112-79P; Item 7 - CAT PUD, 16th Filing, Cinema Savers - Final, #53-5AG; Item 8 - Matterhorn PUD, Final, #49-93A; Item 10 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11 - First Christian Church PUD, Phase IV - Preliminary and Final, #51-93; Item 12 - Housekeeping Changes to Sections 29-304 and 29- 342 of the City Code, #77-93. Ms. Clark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 13 -Arapahoe Farm Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #55-87G; Item 16 - Huntington Hills PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary - #11-81I; Item 18 - Spring Creek Village PUD - Amended Preliminary, #2- 87M. Chair Clements requested that Item 8 be pulled from the Consent Agenda to the Discussion Agenda, there was a request of the audience to pull Item 5, and Item 11. Member Strom moved to approve Consent Agenda Items except Items 1, 29 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the staff report stating that the required minimum of Criteria points was achieved and Staff was recommending approval. Chair Clements questioned the car wash component to the Circle K convenience store. The company has a vested right to build the Circle K as it stands. 9 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 2 Mr. Shepard replied that there was a PUD on the project that was approved in 1987 for a Circle K, however, the Circle K is not the applicant but Schrader Country Stores. That PUD carries a vested right because public services were installed, inspected and accepted by the City. The PUD did not contain a car wash, therefore, this amendment is to add the car wash, the trigger mechanism by which it comes before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Robert Gustafson - Wickham Gustafson Architects representing Schrader Oil Company and Circle K Convenience Stores - The PUD was approved for Circle K for a convenience store as part of a larger neighborhood convenience center which includes retail space to the north and west. The developer installed the proposed improvements, Circle K never went through with their convenience store. Schrader Oil has an option to purchase the property. As part of their business and how they do their business and be competitive in the community and with other convenience stores in the area, they feel they need to have the car wash as one of the items to offer to their customers. The developer was requesting to amend the PUD to allow the car wash. As part of the amended PUD, the exterior of the building appears to now have a residential character. He gave a detailed presentation of the project site. As part of the amendment for the car wash, Schrader Oil has a policy will operate only in a "closed door" position. This will cut down on noise generated. Steve Birdsall - 3821 Richmond Drive - Reflected two concerns: (1) the traffic access, additional traffic using Richmond as an outlet which is a dead-end and the condition of the street. There is no maintenance of existing street and, (2) there are 19 lots, 18 of which have private shallow wells used for home use and livestock and there is a need for underground gasoline tanks of the proposed station. Mr. Gustafson indicated, because of the medians that have been constructed on Shields and Horsetooth, this is primarily a site for southbound Shields traffic and westbound Horsetooth traffic. He went into detail about the traffic flows of the site. He addressed the environmental impact of underground tanks. The new tanks will be fitted with the most current EPA approved monitoring devices. The underground piping will be a enviro-flex (double walled, flexible piping system that contains any type of a spill in it). Daily monitoring will take place with strict EPA guidelines. Member Walker asked if there was a "no outlet" sign at Richmond Drive. Mr. Shepard replied there is an existing "no outlet" sign. Chair Clements asked about the condition of Richmond Drive and its annexation. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 3 Mr. Shepard indicated it was annexed in the 1980s, developed, platted in the county, and the street was not built to City of Fort Collins' standards. Therefore, there is a street now in the City but not constructed to City standards. The issue is to bring it up to standard and is currently unresolved. Discussions have only been conceptual about getting the improvement underway. It is estimated that there are only a few more seasons of use. There have been meetings with the residents with the Cobblestone Comer PUD and only discussions has occurred. There is a lack of interest by the City of Fort Collins to go into private streets to take on the burden to maintain them. There are similar situations all over the community. The response of the Engineering Department at this time is not to start improvements without a funding mechanism to repair these streets. Chair Clements requested the name of a contact person from the City for the residents to contact on this process. Mr. Shepard said Gary Diede, Director of Engineering, would be the contact person. There has been communication in the past, but the residents did not receive the reply desired. The discussion needs to be carried forward. Chair Clements recommended that Staff work with the neighborhood to facilitate communication regarding this. Member Strom moved for approval of the Market at Horsetooth Commons, Lot It Amended Preliminary and Final PUD with the Staff conditions. Chair Clements stated that she would not be supporting the motion because a car wash at a convenience store changes the nature intended for the convenience shopping guidelines. Motion passes 6-1, with Chair Clements in the negative. Steve Olt, project planner, gave the staff report with the following conditions: 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 PUD plans fore the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (February 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 first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 4 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 is made 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 2, Article II,k Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of the time for the filing of an appeal of such"final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Bard's decision resolving such dispute. 2. No Matterhorn PUD documents (including the development agreement, final utility plans, final PUD plans, and the subdivision plat) will be recorded nor shall any bolding permits be issued until the amendment to the South College Avenue Access Control Plan is completed and approved by both the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado Department of Transportation as having similar traffic characteristics to those created by the uses proposed for this development. No work may be done in the South College Avenue right-of-way until such time as the access permit, along with a variance to the State Highway Code, has been approved. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, represented W. J. Enterprises and was available for questions of the Board. Chair Clements indicated the awnings proposed were reviewed in a work session and indicated that the colors were bold. She asked if there would be a way they could be modified to provide more cohesiveness to the other buildings in the development. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 5 Mr. Vaught said there have been modifications already to the awnings between preliminary and final, making the two buildings more compatible to one another. He said the shape has been changed as well as the mass. They are not identical, but compatible. Kay Collins - part owner of Archer's, a business located next to the development stated she had a concern regarding the internal traffic pattern. She needed clarification of the dedicated easement north to Monroe Street and a dedicated easement to Mason. She understood that there is a common bridge to cover both easements. She has seen an agreement by the owner on the building that stated he is giving a dedicated easement to Monroe Street, but the easement dedication to Mason is omitted. She requested that this be a requirement. Chair Clements asked for clarification of traffic patterns and dedicated easements. Mr. Olt stated that a connection must be made to Mason Street to the west to provide good recirculation pattern from College Avenue and Horsetooth so that there isn't the entire volume of traffic through the site back to the west. He showed this traffic pattern with a slide presentation. An agreement is in process for this access to Monroe. The third condition states a sign agreement granting a dedicated easement for recirculation of traffic in the PUD. He said that the plans Mr. Saltz reviewed show driveways to Monroe and Mason. That will be reviewed upon completion before the PUD is recorded. This is in process and a condition of acceptance. Mr. Eckman mentioned a memorandum dated December 10, 1993, it states "submitted". He recommended that after the word "city" the following words be added, "providing access to both to West Monroe Street and to South Mason Street" for clarification. The condition does indicate that there needs to be negotiations with the owners of property at the southwest comer of West Monroe and South Mason Street, but it doesn't expressly state that the cross access easements provide access to both Monroe Street and South Mason Street. Member Corder asked for clarification of the purpose of the recirculation to get to Mason rather than direct access. She believed it was preferable to proceed north between businesses and go right to Monroe Street, then turn left to get to Mason. She asked why that was not acceptable. Mr. Vaught said that is exactly what is being proposed. Mr. Saltz will agree to an access easement through his property to Monroe and he wants to discourage any access through the parking lot of Pelican Fish building back to Mason Street. There was a meeting with Steve Olt and Eric Bracke concerning this. There was agreement that this was a good access plan as you described. Mr. Saltz indicated he would like to see a "no left turn" sign northbound. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 6 Mr. Olt said there needs to be rewording in the motion for the third condition. Mr. Bracke responded to the access issue. The left turn back to Mason street in the plans is discouraged but not eliminated. The traffic study showed access back to Mason and Monroe and the circulation to Horsetooth and College. That is how the amendment to the access plan was going to be considered. Member Cottier asked why the developer doesn't want vehicles turning left onto Monroe, heading west to get to Mason? Mr. Bracke said there is nothing wrong with it, however, there would be delays and sometimes stacking. This plan distributes the traffic better. Four access points improves the traffic flow through the site. He stated that left turns onto Mason would be discouraged but not prohibited. Mr. Eckman said the third condition needs clarification and he said his earlier statement would clarify the needed change. Mr. Vaught asked Mr. Eckman if the wording was "The access easement is granted to Monroe and access to Mason," although discouraged, would be allowed to happen, the easement would not be associated with such access. The owner will not grant an easement for recirculation back through the parking lot west to Mason Street, but will grant an easement north to Monroe. Mr. Eckman said that unless it is an easement, it can be revoked. Any kind of a permit or license would not be of sufficient legal permanence as to give the City any long or short term basis. It should be provided by easement. If Staff doesn't feel it is important, it could be eliminated completely. Just to say, the City will give an easement to Monroe and allow the developer to go to Mason doesn't clarify the issue. Mr. Vaught said that is what the property owner is willing to accept. Chair Clements proposed that condition #3 stated that a signed access agreement needs to occur between all parties involved. She asked Mr. Eckman if that would work or would the wording need to be more specific at final. Mr. Eckman said that it would need to be more specific otherwise, Staff would not know how to negotiate the easement. It is possible for the Board to decide if it wants both accesses or one access and include that in the condition. Member Walker asked for clarification understanding that, without a clear easement through to Mason, that property owner could block off the road and would have the right to do that, therefore, if the wording is allowed to remain as it is, this could occur. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 7 Mr. Eckman replied that this was correct. Mr. Olt said Staff s position needs an absolute cross -access easement from the driveway north to Monroe. The City can live with physically providing access into the parking lot to the west through that property directly to Mason, but do not have to have an easement on that portion of it. Member Walker summarized the access north to Monroe is sufficient to make this work, through the parking lot is for convenience but not essential. Ms. Clark said that by allowing the access to occur by virtue of the driveway to Mason Street existing and not having an easement, is fairly common. There are many areas in Fort Collins where there were parking lots platted and developed under previous City regulations that did not require any access easements. She believed by allowing access, there is a routine matter and would imagine the owner would continue to leave it open because it is an existing access and closing it off would have a negative effect on the current tenants. She recommended to proceed with just the easement guarantee to West Monroe to the north. Mr. Eckman stated the documentation needed is the condition before the plans could be filed and building permits pulled, and add the words he suggested before regarding Monroe Street. It is the only easement_ document needed. Member Walker asked, in regard to the issue of the awning, if the color of the awning on the Boston Chicken has anything to do with a corporate identity. Is that why there are two different colors of awning. Mr. Olt said that was his understanding. Mr. Vaught said that was correct. They are standard awning colors. Member Walker asked if the awning was considered in calculating the sign allowance. Mr. Olt said that was correct. He had conferred with Peter Barnes, City Zoning Administrator, who stated that the awning is not considered signage. One has to look that at that as an architectural element in terms of the Board's decision. Member Walker referred to Amigo's roof color and asked if the awnings are not a part of the sign, then the visual integrity of the development is considered. It has been pointed out that several of the building elements are the same in terms of the height of the building, the way the signage is placed, the lighting, and the type of block that is used on it. The biggest aspect of continuity is color and yet, it is a very striking element. He is not particularly concerned about what specific colors are used, but that there would be unity on the site. He was opposed to bold Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 8 stripes of black and white or blue and was concerned if it is an architectural element to provide some unity. He had reservations because of the differences in the awning colors. Member Strom commented that there may be middle ground on the awnings and that he would prefer the awnings to match but the City does not have a policy and that needs to be developed in this regard. He suggested what was disconcerting was the boldness of pattern of the red and white awning. If, as Mr. Vaught indicated, the developer were to make some modifications to the buildings and to the awning shapes to make them more compatible, simply the colors that are used were not such a bold and contrasting pattern, red, white and black chicken awning. Mr. Vaught referred to the Chili's Restaurant across the street where the awnings are an integral part of the architecture of the building. There are a variety of stripes and colors incorporated into those awnings. Likewise, if you look at Nate's Restaurant, there is a variety of awnings. It is not to say there might be some medium ground that would be reached where the colors may be similar but more muted. Member Strom said that was what he was attempting to express. When this was discussed at the work session, his recollection of the Chili's awning was that it wasn't such a strong contrast, in fact, he noticed the color contrast was there, but the boldness wasn't as great. He suggested that instead of a piano -key contrast, something be done with smaller bands of color and subtler pattern. Mr. Vaught asked the representative of Boston Chicken just exactly what their colors were. Mark indicated that they are a maroon, black and white and stated if they can keep those colors, maybe even a grey or lighter shade of the black color would be acceptable. Member Strom stated that would be an improvement. Member Fontane said that she was not opposed to the variety and urged Boardmembers to remember that the Blockbuster Video signage was on the awning and it provided the white on blue variety that we are not seeing the lettering on it. She thought the variety was fine with toning it down. Member Cottier moved for approval of Matterhorn FUD Final with the three Staff conditions. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Cottier said she was not making a condition of the awning. She personally believed it is not attractive and would like to see it toned down, but she believed the buildings are similar that meets the criteria of having a unified center. She did hope the awnings would get changed but she did not make it a condition. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 9 Member Walker said he could not support the motion because he believed that a statement should be included regarding the awnings. He thinks it is a corporate identity, an architectural consideration and that there should be a better blend between the two buildings on the site since they are trying to create a sense of unity in the center. Member Strom moved to amendment the motion to the effect that the awning on the chicken building pattern be toned down, not necessarily that the colors be the same as the Blockbuster, that the pattern and contrast be toned down on the awning. Member Cottier said that was acceptable. Member Fontane said that was acceptable as a second. Motion carried 7-0. 11' ' - U Gm. MFWMMCIUI =_51 4ICT Steve Olt, project planner, gave the staff report recommending approval. Member Strom asked for clarification for a driveway on the east boundary. Mr. Olt said the applicant will address the issue. The site plan does not show a driveway at this time but they were in previous plans. It has been eliminated. There is now an open area for recreational uses and a detention area in the southeast corner of the property. The recorded plan does not show a driveway along these property lines (referring to a map). Mr. Carl Glaser - Glaser Associates Architects, representing First Christian Church - He stated there is a proposed driveway included in the master plan that was submitted and approved in 1979. The implementation of that driveway would coincide with the further expansion of the church sanctuary. That is not for discussion at this time. The next phase that would follow Phase IV would be a sanctuary to seat 3,000 people. That was the design, whether it would fulfill that size, would have to be determined at the time of the development. With the construction of the sanctuary, the applicant would have to expand the seating and the parking capacity of the site. With the expansion of the parking lot, there would have to be additional egress and that would be the point the property on the east line would be implemented. When this project was originally discussed and approved in 1979. There was a considerable amount of discussion about that driveway and design submittals showed how it would be buffered from adjoining residences and was approved. Mr. Glaser commented on the staff report presentation by stating that (1) the administration wing will be to the north in location. Recently Phase III has been completed and he described in detail the design of the building; (2) He presented slides of the two parts of Phase IV, • 1 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 10 incorporating specific design criteria, with the connecting point to the future sanctuary. He showed the administration and classroom wing. He stated similar construction materials are being used and would be compatible. Dan Grider - 2707 Brookwood Dr. - represented a group of homeowners in the area and stated his concern were with the plans of the First Christian Church to build a tower in a future phase of construction. This tower is not in keeping with the surrounding community. He requested to meet with the church administration to discuss it further. The homeowners plan to make concerns known again at the time the formal request is made by the church to construct such a tower. Andy Cornedi - 2812 Fairbrook Ct. - He has been a resident in the Eastborough area for the past 12 years. The plans that were submitted in 1979 did not show the future buildings close to the property line. He mentioned evening meals in the summertime in his backyard would significantly be interrupted by the structures proposed, especially a 103 foot tower. He requested to work with the church body concerning future plans to ensure neighborhood compatibility. There were no other houses on his cul-de-sac until 1983-1984. Fran Ward - 1024 Oxford Lane #45 - She read a statement asking why these public hearings concerning the future building plans of the First Christian Church continue being held. The first time she heard of these plans was July 7, 1993 meeting. This was held in the church building. At that time, the neighborhood understood, regardless of the feelings of the residents, the deed was done, no amount of objection could sway the powers that be. In 1979, she was aware that Drake Road and Lemay were virtually non-existent. The landowners at that time didn't object to plans, the owners were farmers or realtors. She wondered if the omission of the overall plan slide was deliberate because the 103-foot tower, when presented, was a "done deal" with permission to exceed the normal height in 1979. She believed it was 70 feet from Lemay and found the idea objectionable. Vicki Kirchner - 2606 Dorado Ct. - She agreed with previous comments made concerning the tower by. She had a concern regarding the safety of the driveway. It is increasingly busy on a curve and an added driveway would pose more safety considerations. Chair Clements asked for clarification on the issue of the tower. Mr. Glaser stated, on behalf of the Church, that they would be glad to meet with the neighbors. He said they have established a good neighbor policy from the onset of this project and went beyond what was required in terms of the master planning. He detailed the amount of energy, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 11 time, consideration of planning for a 20 year phase project, not only for the benefit to the church and for the neighbors adjoining the property affected. The master plan includes a sanctuary for 3,000 people. This is what was envisioned for this site. He was unsure if the sanctuary would be for 3,000 people but would like to reserve the right that it could be. The tower could be 105 feet high, established in the drawings in 1979. With regard to some comments about the tower, the Church would be happy to meet with the neighbors when the time comes. He stated that the applicant understands the concerns of the neighborhood. He mentioned the considerable buffer between the tower and adjoining residences. The benefit of soccer and baseball fields that are there takes away the intrusion. Mr. Olt said there will be a public meeting for residents to discuss the phases and come back to the Board for approval. The overall master plan preliminary in 1979 has been approved, but the ability for vested right to construct any additional phases would have to come back to the Board. At that time the design of the structure associated with that phase would be evaluated. Chair Clements suggested that the individuals who addressed the Board get together with the applicant to address concerns. An active involvement early in the process might help create positive outcomes. Chair Clements asked about the driveway being a safety issue. She pointed out that the Board is very educated regarding the site plans and the slide was not omitted purposely. She asked Staff to address any issues concerning this. Mr. Olt said there was not much detail but at the present time, all the parking exists at the south of the church off of Lemay, with the opposite entry point to Scotch Pines Shopping Center, and continues south of the church, turns 90 degrees and proceeds due north to east Drake Road. It was his understanding that the driveway would tie into Drake Road. Member Klataske moved for approval of the Fuss Christian Church PUD Phase IV Preliminary and Final. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that the motion does not include the enlarged sanctuary or a tower or a driveway at this point. He encouraged those with concerns to contact the church early rather than later to which Mr. Glaser was agreeable. There will be other hearings to discuss those issues. Member Winfree agreed with Member Strom and stated the concern of the neighborhood input stating it is ineffective for them to participate and that it is a "done deal." She further said the Board has a set of criteria to weigh decisions against those that are evaluated. Citizen Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 12 participation is viable to the process and suggested awareness of the LDGS to guide the objections to PUDs presented to the Board. The Board is very interested in citizen input. The motion carried 7-0. Ted Shepard, project planner, gave the staff report recommending approval with Staff conditions. Eldon Ward - Cityscape Urban Design the consultant represented the applicant, James Company. The proposed project is supported by the Land Use Policies Plan with the criteria in the LDGS and is consistent with recent discussion and decisions by the Board has made a mix of housing types in residential areas. He discussed the density, mix, location, the 7-units per acre and presented slides. There have been two neighborhood meetings where the issue of neighborhood compatibility was discussed. The architecture has many elements in common with the neighborhood. He gave several examples giving detail to the placement of the garages and other design elements. He illustrated compatibility of townhomes with single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Ward addressed roof materials of shake shingle or similar uses which is compatible with the neighborhood. There is an upgrade of asphalt that create shadow lines and appear natural. He stated that he has met with the Poudre Fire Authority and addressed their comments against wood shingles. He stated that cost is a factor, but the safety is an issue and cedar is a limited resource. Both roof materials are found in the immediate neighborhood. The Woodridge Development is using similar roofing to what is proposed. The insurance companies are becoming increasing restrictive to insure multi -family projects with wood shingles. Mr. Ward responded to neighborhood concerns of placement of garages and lowering the density of units. There are now 72 units proposed. Units closest to Regency Park were changed from 6 to 5 units to decrease the scale. He clarified the Woodridge traffic study concerning traffic flows in and out of the project site. The traffic studies will be completed in the current phase at Woodridge. The Taft Hill connection will be made this spring. He stated that Hillbum Drive is proposed to remove the existing street. He is not aware of another example where that has been required of an adjacent property developer. He would like to keep the street as currently constructed and accepted for maintenance for the City of Fort Collins. He requested direction from the Board to treat the applicant according to the same rules that other projects have been. Mr. Ward addressed staff conditions. The area between the townhomes and Regency Park have been the focus of most of the discussion and the applicant is in agreement to Staff conditions 2, 3 and 4. The first condition is to increase a setback. The minimum setback is over 46-1/2 feet at one building and 47 feet at the other. With the angle of the building, the average is 70 feet across the face to the adjacent property. He stated that extensive berming and landscaping has Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993.Minutes Page 13 been added in response to the condition and believed this was adequate. The number of units have been reduced, landscaping has been added, with an average of 70 feet. In similar situations, 35 feet is a more common number. In the recent Summerhill Townhome project, it was 30 feet from the adjacent single-family area. The proposed site is arranged so that three- quarters of the open space has been shifted to the property line. Rather than have centrally located open space, it has been moved to buffer the project. Condition 1 requires reduction to 4-unit buildings near Regency Park which will be replaced in other areas near Arapahoe Townhomes. The developer wants to remain sensitive to the neighbors' needs. He requested a change to Condition #1. Steve Gottschalk - resident of Regency Park on Hillburn Court - He stated that since October 10, there has been meetings and a 246-resident petition from the Johnson -Webber Neighborhood Group regarding this issue. There would be more if the neighborhood is continued to be canvased. The immediate areas are the Regency Park, the Gates and the Overlook, other areas are Westbrook, Wagon Wheel, Imperial Estates, Rossborough, The Ridge and Chaparral and all have an involvement. Mr. Gottschalk said the neighborhood group had five major concerns: (1) zone change, (2) transitions, (3) traffic, (4) greenbelt and (5) school. Kevin Walker - Regency Park area - complemented Member Walker on his article regarding neighborhood involvement and how to go about it. He addressed: (1) Compatibility. He referred to the LDGS and neighborhood involvement and compatibility. Zoning for patio homes was originally stated in the project plans. He asked if there has been citizen input, partnership and cooperative effort. The developer was very agreeable in regards to fencing and berming but, as it related to other issues, there was an effort to obtain partial interaction of the developer by staff. (a) a request for 4-units along Regency Park (b) address Hillburn Drive - was a cul-de-sac and a developer came in and made it a dead-end street with barricades (c) a request for original plans for patio homes Mr. Walker said the developer has not been at any neighborhood meetings. He believed that Mr. Ward has been vague in communication. Mr. Walker made comments on details of the project. He stated the neighborhoods closest to the development are the Ridge, Regency Park and the Overlook and indicated they all have wood roofs. Composition shingles are not compatible. The neighborhood differs with the developer's Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 14 position for roofing, stating the Poudre Fire Authority accepts wood shingles buildings. Perhaps there is a philosophical difference, but wood is allowed. The alternatives are cement and wood fiber composition shingles. He stated that the newer developments are using the shingles. The City of Fort Collins allows wood shingles through their codes. The neighborhood is opposed to composition shingles and have given alternatives and requests that alternatives be used. He addressed the brick and lapsiding, other exterior plans and lighting issues. He requested a detailed materials list be reviewed and discussed with the neighborhood by a project person in authority to make decisions at neighborhood meetings. The developer to date has remained vague on all issues. The neighborhood wants more variety in design of the exterior of the buildings and color variation for diversity. The neighborhood desires answers to issues of landscaping: sprinkler systems (if they are self -maintained, will the green areas or portions of it be watered), will there be sod, what are the plans for landscaping along the greenbelt, the lighting on the streets, grading and elevation, drainage. These are issues of great concern to the neighbors. The neighborhood does not want this project to become a "test case" for the builder who has never built in Fort Collins. He pointed out that the sale of some homes adjacent to the project site have fallen through because of the unknowns of the project plans. (2) Process. The process is the biggest issue of the neighborhood. He stated if the patio home use was in the plans, the concern would be less. There was attendance of the February 19, 1993 meeting by the neighborhood who gave input. The neighborhood embraced the concept of patio homes and was surprised with the new townhome plans. The second meeting spent an hour of discussion on townhomes and the petition speaks to the interest of the surrounding neighbors in the project development. He read the letter of announcement which stated: "The applicant is requesting to amend the original 224.4 acre plan for a mixed use development located at the northeast corner of Harmony and Taft Hill Roads." He believed this was an inadequate notification. From the notice, there was no further information given to the neighbors regarding the 10-acre parcel. There was only one person, who was not living in Regency Park at the time, who went to the meeting and raised the question about the patio homes. Mr. Ward responded at the public meeting that "if anything happens there in the next three years, it will be patio homes, retirement housing, 4 to 6 units per acre type project." later in the meeting he was asked if it would be 10-units per acre and Mr. Ward responded yes --inconsistency in the answers given to the neighbors. The Gates Subdivision neighborhood was told this project would be patio homes. He stated that no one, he believed, was trying to mislead the neighbors, but information was not adequate to give a clear picture of future development. He respectfully requested the Board take an active part in correction of the process. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 15 Jack McClurg - 4412 Seneca Street - He spoke to the issue of the impact on school, which he believed was not addressed by the process. The two school in the area have not been in the process and have received no notification to date of the proceedings and not in 1991 as well. The two school are already over capacity. The project would have a negative impact on the schools. There is a overcapacity at Weber Junior High at 976, with 900 the maximum for functional operation. The development would increase that number. Mr. McClurg addressed some traffic concerns. The traffic study was conducted by the developer and was requested to perform specific things. The neighborhood felt that the traffic impact on the area was inadequately reported. The peak hours did not reflect the major traffic generators for the neighborhood, specifically the schools. He detailed the traffic flows and stated the grading of C and the development will further degrade the rating, although the traffic engineer did seem to indicate that it would be acceptable for some time. It is the lowest acceptable rating allowed. The 3 percent annual growth rate is not reflected in the reports. The population from the proposed project would add the degrading of the intersection. The impact was examined for Seneca Street and there were unknowns. There was a written report submitted to the Board with a correction of an error stating "Horsetooth and Harmony" rather than "Seneca and Harmony." Dean Hoag - 4517 Hillburn Ct. - He stated his home is located to the back of the proposed project and expressed concerns with the greenbelt issue. He detailed the location and requested a sufficient greenbelt to provide a smooth transition. The details of the request were submitted to the Board. Chair Clements asked if the grading and drainage issues had been addressed. Mr. Ward replied there is a plan and is confident it will meet in the final plan. Mr. Herzig, City Engineer, said that the utility and drainage plans will be addressed at time of final submittal. Chair Clements asked for the records with regard to Hillburn Drive. Mr. Shepard stated the fundamental issue was a land use and compatibility issue. There needs to be more neighborhood meetings, Staff and time to address all the concerns. There is no resolution to this specific issue at this time. Chair Clements commented to the neighbors that these issues will be address and are typically addressed later in the process. She asked about the water system to maintain the landscaping. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 16 Mr. Ward said there will be an underground watering system and will cover all landscaped areas on the site. This will include all the common elements, everything outside the small patio areas for the units. Chair Clements asked about on -street lighting. Mr. Shepard replied that they are private streets and not under the Light and Power requirements. He stated the details of lighting requirements, pollution, etc., and indicated they would be reviewed before final. Because this was raised as an issue, it could be added as a condition for approval. Chair Clements asked about school issues commenting there was information given to the Board regarding this. Mr. Shepard explained the process of the school involvement. The school gives statistical information to arrive to projected numbers of student population. The school district is given overall development plans to review. There is a school district master plan to guide the staff. There is, however, no on -site meeting with school principals at the neighborhood level. It was alluded to that this needed to be done for the neighborhood. Traditionally, the communication is at the district level. He felt it was a good suggestion to involve the school principals in planning. Chair Clements asked for clarification that the district has been informed of the development and that criteria has been met. Mr. Shepard stated they plan for long-term periods of projections. Chair Clements turned attention to the traffic study and the time and accuracy of that study. Matt Delich, traffic consultant for the project, replied that the study was conducted on typical peak hours and use of the street -- 7:30-8:30 a.m. overlapping into some school hours and afternoons between 4:30-5:30 p.m. for this area. The peak of the school use occurs somewhere between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. He stated that the intersection flows at this time are better than the evening peak times. The selected areas are the Harmony and New Harmony intersection and the Seneca and New Harmony Road intersection. The 1991 studies were conducted on more intersections. Level of Service D and better is acceptable in the City of Fort Collins, as well as other cities in Colorado and the United States. The 3 percent growth rate is per year and is typical. In addition to the 3 percent per year growth rate, on top of that is the continuing growth of Arapahoe Farm. Chair Clements addressed the wood shingles issue and asked for clarification. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 17 Mr. Ward clarified that it was PFA preference not to have wood shingles but not the position of excluding them. There are extreme concern for wood shingles. Member Strom asked for clarification on enforcing standards for exterior materials. Mr. Shepard indicated that there would be more specifics and detail of the exterior plans. Member Fontane had a concern about the dead-end street. She asked if it would be the responsibility of this project to address the dead-end street. Mr. Herzig said it is the responsibility of the developer to address this issue. The street was provided as an access point to the property and has to be a proper cul-de-sac or approved by another plan. It is a precedent in other locations for the developer to remove sections of streets, such as Windmill Drive adjacent to Cunningham Corners. Member Winfree asked about the street lighting. Mr. Ward indicated there is not presently a specific lighting plan. This is a requirement of the LDGS at the time of final, the intent would be lower level than standard. Safety and security issues will be reviewed at final. Member Walker asked for further design on exterior design and unit density. Mr. Ward said the design will have architectural consistency in the project. The color variations can be opened to neighborhood comment. Member Walker asked about the process of changing the patio home plan to higher density. Mr. Shepard said that in 1987, Parcel 1C was designated on the ODP with estimated density of 6 dwelling units per acre. In 1991, the patio designation was kept with an addition of multi- family, with estimated density from 6 to 10. At the time of P & Z Board hearing, there was a third, the convenience site. The amendment was dominated by the Woodridge PUD, the developer was at the neighborhood meetings, and concerns were the house design, density for part of the April 1991 record. Member Walker said there were mixed uses for this area. Mr. Shepard said that the amendment was for 40 acres that had been previously multi -family, the Woodridge property, be amended to single-family. Member Cottier asked if Building G and J should be four units rather than five. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 18 Mr. Shepard said that is correct based on interdepartmental review. The units were reduced from six to four for the benefit of the greenbelt area. Member Cottier said the buildings were 37 feet from the property line. The staff memo states they are 45 feet. The closest corner between the project and the houses is 100 feet. She asked how this measurement compares to normal projects for single family abutting multi -family. Mr. Shepard said the issue for staff is that there are no good comparisons. It is difficult to find comparisons. The issue needs to judged by the particular design and application. Members Walker and Strom had question regarding the reduction of density to four on the greenbelt and understood they be moved rather than deleted. Mr. Shepard said it probably would be a benefit to neighborhood compatibility and a critical area is the on east along the Buildings G and J and if there is a relocation there that can be mitigation in other areas of the site. The project needs to perform on the eastside. Member Strom asked what setbacks would be gained on each of the buildings. Mr. Shepard guessed it would be 10-20 feet. Member Strom asked if the berming and landscaping is sufficient to screen. Mr. Shepard said that it is sufficient. Member Strom said that the Board received school projections for the proposed project and is under 9 elementary students out of the entire development, 4 junior high and under 4 senior high students. The patio development, on the other hand, would project up to 2 fewer students. There is a proposed expansion underway at Weber Junior High, Rocky Mountain High and a new elementary school being constructed in the area. Hopefully that will provide relief to overcrowding in the schools. Member Winfree addressed the type of water to be used for sprinkling. Mr. Shepard said it would be an automatic irrigation system. Member Walker commented on the streetscape improvement to help buffer to the existing neighborhood. He agreed with staff on the plans for the eastside of the project. He wanted the bulk and mass of building scale to be considered for reduction. He commended the neighbors for their participation and felt the issues raised were important for continued planning of the project. The project needs to resolve the Hillburn Drive issue and may need to be a condition of approval. Compatibility of materials used needs consideration. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 19 Chair Clements asked if another neighborhood meeting would occur before final. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Ward both replied yes. Member Walker moved for approval of the Arapahoe Townhomes Preliminary and included the following conditions: 1. At the time of Final PUD, the size and extent of the greenbelt area between Buildings G and J shall be increased so as to further promote the buffering between Arapahoe Farm Townhomes and Regency Park, 2nd Filing. 2. At the time of Final PUD, the area between Building F and the easterly property line shall be enhanced with a landscaped berm in order to promote visual and acoustical screening. 3. At the time of Final PUD, the two parking bays that face east, between Buildings G and J, shall be screened by any combination of additional plant material and berming that effectively blocks headlight illumination and vehicle glare on a year-round basis. 4. At the time of Final PUD, the size of the evergreen plant material, located between Buildings G and J and the easterly property line, shall be increased over and above the specified minimum of 6 to 8 feet in height to eight to ten feet in height. 5. At the time of Final PUD, the Hillburn Drive issue be resolved. 6. At the time of Final PUD, that the materials used on the structures be made compatible with the surroundings. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier requested the addition to Condition 1 that Buildings G and J be four units agreeing with Member Walker that the size and bulk of the buildings next to the neighborhood be smaller. Member Walker and Member Strom said the condition would be acceptable. Member Kiataske asked for clarification that the remaining units be relocated. Mr. Shepard said yes. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1993 Minutes Page 20 The motion passed 7-0. Chair Clements requested, due to the hour, that the Spring Creek PUD be continued to the December 16 P&Z Board Meeting. Member Fontane moved to postpone the Spring Creek PUD until December 16, 1"3. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Mrs. Clark responded to a comment Mr. Klataske made to reconsider the order of the items for the December 16 meeting. The proposed order would be Sign Code, Fossil Creek and Spring Creek Village. Mr. Eckman said there needed to be consensus. Member Winfree asked for the reasoning behind the order. Member Klataske said the shorter order of the other two items and allow remaining time to be given to Spring Creek. Member Fontane made a motion that Spring Creek be located at the end of the agenda. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.