Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/03/1993PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 3, 1993 Continuation of the April 26, 1993 Meeting Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The May 3, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Walker, Laurie O'Dell, Rene Clements -Cooney, Jim K►ntaske, Bernie Strom, and Jan Cottier. Vice Chairman Joe Carroll was absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt and Gcorgiana Taylor. identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since - none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 23 - Fox Creek PUD - Preliminary, #5-93B; and Item 25 - The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD - Preliminary, #146-79N. FOX CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY. #5-93B • Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the Staff report recommending approval with the following condition: 1. Final approval of the Fox Creek P.U.D., Preliminary - #5-93B is conditioned on passage _ -on Second Reading by City Council for the -Manion Annexation, Ordinance #36-93. Chairman Walker asked about the irrigation ditch running through the property. Mr. Olt replied that it was the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, one of the four major ditches in the City. Chairman Walker asked about the green space on the site plan. Mr. Olt replied that part of it was the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal easement, the rights the property owner would have would remain in private ownership and the ditch company as well has rights to an easement through that property. Generally they are about 60 feet wide. Chairman Walker asked what was the width of the greenbelt area. Mr. Olt replied that it was a little wider than the easement. He would let the applicant respond to Oat in their presentation. Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates, representing the owners of the property. It was herX understanding the issue on this property was density. If the density was calculated on a net T area pasis, if they took out all land area that was not developable, this project did meet the I dwelling units per acre. She did understand a variance was needed because the ordinance doe . state that it should be calculated on a gross basis. The client's goal was to get 80 lots on this Planning k Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 3, 1993 Page 2 project, there are 68. Given the product that her client wants to build and the site constraints, it was virtually impossible to get 3 dwelling units per acre calculated on a gross basis. Ms. Ripley stated that the product was not out of the norm, it was not unusual, he was proposing to build homes 1,500 to 2,500 s.f., very similar to the homes in Quail Hollow. The footprints range from 45 feet to 65 feet wide. The difficulty comes down to lot width. Ms. Ripley went through the site and the site constraints, the odd shaped parcel, the existing water main on the property, a sewer main also in existence before this project's development, the McKeag Drive connection into Quail Hollow, and the wetlands and canal. The canal easement was 50 feet up to about 150 feet in some places. It was a very efficient lot lay out in terms of utilizing the streets and the utilities within the street. These constraints did create a hardship. Ms. Ripley stated that this site represented 31.79 acres of land, 8.31 acres of wetland, the canal, the sewer easement and the other undevelopable areas. Another .81 acres represents the right- of-way on Drake Road. If you subtract out those undevelopable pieces of property, what you have left is 22.67, and 68 divided by 22.67 was 3 dwelling units per acre. This site did meet the City's intent in terms of density. Ms. Ripley spoke about the request by the Planning Department for her client to dedicate an access easement for a future City Trail along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal beyond the existing easement of the canal itself. She checked it out with the Parks and Recreation Department and they did not think that they would ever use it as an easement. Given the facts, it was their stance that they did not see any reason to provide that access easement. She stated that if the City was serious about the density issue, her client was prepared to give them the access easement and also prepared to dedicate the wetland area as a natural resource area to the City if the City chooses to have it. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the concern with fencing and the homes having access to the green areas and would fencing prohibit that, did they have certain designs for fencing. Ms. Ripley replied that they did not have final design for fencing, but her client would be willing to have in the covenants a protection that all lots backing onto open space would have open type fencing. Chairman Walker asked about the open space and the wetland. Ms. Ripley replied that the open space was not all wetlands, it all has wildlife habitat value because there was vegetation. Technically, the open space next to the wetland was not a wetland. The only reason they did not have lots in that area, was there was no way to access it in any efficient fashion. Potentially, you could have some sort of recreational thing there, but this client has no plans for that at this time. Chairman Walker asked if there were any plans to add landscaping to it for wildlife values. Ms. Ripley replied none at this time, because they don't believe it needs it. There was a lot of vegetation there. If you wanted to enhance it, you would probably take vegetation out. There are a lot of Russian Olives in the area that should be taken out. Planning k Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 1993 Palle S Ms. Ripley added that another purpose that this greenspace did serve was that it connects into the greenspace of Quail Hollow. Chairman Walker asked about the treatment of the frontage along Drake Road. Ms. Ripley replied that they have a 40 foot width from the property line to the fence line. The fence would be an upgrade from the six foot cedar fence. In addition, there would be either stone or brick entry walls and lots of evergreen plant material for a backdrop and street trees along Drake Road itself. PUBLIC INPUT Laurie Roland, 2757 McKeag Drive, the property to the west side of Fox Creek, supported this project as it is. She was happy with the proposal, and the project was compatible with the homes in Quail Hollow. Steve Holt, 2807 McKeag, supported the project, but asked about the street traffic going east. Was it going to become a 4-lane as a result of this project? Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, replied that it would eventually be a 4-lane arterial street, it would be widened in front of this property and eventually widened all the way down to Taft Hill Road. • Mr. Holt asked what the next phase was, as development happens, or did the City take control after a certain level of traffic was reached. Mr. Herzig replied that it currently was as development occurs. If there were problems, then it could go on a capital improvement program and if funds are available then the City would do it. At this time traffic did not warrant a four -lane, it was still functioning with two lanes. Mr. Holt asked if with this development, would it push it over the limit. Mr. Herzig replied not likely. Mr. Holt asked if there was a specific criteria for vehicles per day or hour. Mr. Herzig replied that it was not an exact number, it was a factor based on how much traffic was entering into the street, how it enters and other things. Mr. Holt stated he was concerned with the density of traffic and with the addition of 68 more homes, 1 or 2 cars per household, that would stand in line at the intersection. A four lane road seemed to be appropriate in the near future and would encourage that to occur. Larry Tipton, 2411 West Drake, stated he was in favor of the project and asked if the open fencing would be around the back of the project and along the sides of the project. Ms. Ripley replied they did provide a greenbelt adjacent to Mr Tipton and they would have open fencing along greenbelt, so it would be along that area, however, if Mr. Tipton would prefer a solid type fence, it could be worked out in that area. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 199a Page 4 Mr. Tipton asked about fencing along the canal. Ms. Ripley replied there was no plan for a fence along the canal. Mr. Tipton stated his concerns about the ditch being deep in that area. Mr. Tipton added that the traffic at the intersection of Drake and Taft Hill Road was going to be a nightmare with the development also occurring by Olander School and that it would be hard for anyone trying to get through that intersection. Mrs. Tipton, 2411 West Drake Road, lives to the east of the development and supported the development. They have enjoyed the open space, and if a development had to come, a development like this with the space provided, mixed well with the environment already there and the development to the south of them also. Mrs. Tipton asked about the sidewalks along Drake. Mr. Olt replied that with this development there would be a detached sidewalk at the standard 10 feet from the street and a five foot sidewalk. Mrs. Tipton asked how far east would it come. Ms. Ripley replied that the sidewalk would only go along their property frontage and there would be a gap until those other properties develop. Mrs. Tipton stated she was concerned about the trash and they would like an open line of communication with the developer about getting construction trash cleaned up after a wind storm. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairman Walker asked if there was any provision by the City for construction debris. Ms. Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, replied that if people did have problems during construction, they can contact the City's Engineering Department. Chairman Walker asked about the improvement of Drake Road and Choices 95 and was there a time schedule. Eric Bracke, Transportation Engineer, replied that Drake was not part of Choices 95 and as it stands now, it was as development occurs. Traffic is backing up at Taft Hill and Drake, especially with northbound left turns. The critical link was the connection of Overland Trail. Mr. Herzig added that the Choices 95 program was planning for the construction and widening of Drake Road between Shields and Taft Hill which also included the Taft Hill intersection. Chairman Walker asked if there was a time table for that. Mr. Herzig replied that it was scheduled for 1994 funding for design and 1995 construction. Planning k Zoning Board Meeting Minutes • May S, 1993 Page b Member O'Dell stated she had a real concern with the lack of density and spent a lot of time looking at this site plan. She has come to the same conclusion, that there were not many options, given the constraints. She thought the variance in this case was reasonable and would support the variance. Member Cottier asked how the definition on the calculation of density in the Guidance System had been applied to the residential portion of the project, and what could be deleted on that basis. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the policy that Staff uses to interpret that was to take out open space areas when they are specifically dedicated for permanent open space for public use. They would also take out a commercial tract of land. Otherwise, from a gross density standpoint, they did include 1/2 the right-of-way and the interior streets and any other residual open space in this particular instance. That was the policy that has been used in the department for a number of years. Member Cottier asked about the water and sewer easements. Ms. Albcrtson-Clark replied that it would also be calculated in the overall gross density. Member Cottier asked if it would be counted as residential. Ms. Albcrtson-Clark replied that it would, the lines did serve the residential development, those • are constraints to development of this site, but they were considered in the overall gross acreage. Member Cottier replied she did not have a problem with those things being taken out when they were looking at density. In a case where it was undevelopable land and whether or not it was open space dedicated to the City, for the Board's purposes, she thought it was legitimate to consider that deleted when computing the density. She thought that this project did come up to the three units an acre that was supposedly required and did meet the intent of the density requirement. Member Strom moved for approval of Fox Creek Preliminary with one condition according to the Staff report and with a variance as requested based on the criterion that the plans submitted were equal to or better than such a plan incorporating the provision for which the variance was requested. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the City Attorney has recommended that there be another condition added. There was a very small piece of property that was needed to connect McKeag Drive with Quail Hollow. That property was off of this site and out of City limits. It was a very small triangular portion. That property needs to be annexed and dedicated to the City so it can become part of the street right-of-way for McKeag Drive. Ms. Albertson -Clark read the condition as follows. "Final approval of the Fox Creek P.U.D., was conditioned upon the annexation to the City of the small triangular portion of McKeag Drive at the western most portion of the development and following annexation, dedication of • said triangular portion of McKeag Drive be dedicated to the City". Planning k Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 1993 Page 6 Member Strom stated that with the permission of the second he would add that to his motion. Member Collier replied it was fine. Member O'Dell asked if the City was interested in acquiring the wetland area corner of this site. Mr. Olt replied that there had been no indication of interest other than the dedication of that to negotiate the density issue. The had not been any interest expressed from Natural Resources or from other departments. Member O'Dell asked about the future City Park to the south and was it adjacent to the wetland area. Mr. Olt replied that it was. Member O'Dell asked about the owner retaining ownership and it being adjacent to a City Park, she assumed that the owner would not put up any barrier or signs What were the advantages or disadvantages of retaining ownership or dedicating it to the City. Member O'Dell asked Ms. Ripley how could they control access into the area if it was adjacent to a City Park. Ms. Ripley replied they had no specific plans to control the access. She did not really have any other things to add to why it would be better as a City owned space versus a privately owned space. It was on the table if for some reason the City has interest in it. Member O'Dell stated that looking into the future, people would not know whether it was a park or not. You would anticipate that people would be walking along there and along the canal and into the greenspace area. She wanted to make sure it had been discussed. Ms. Ripley replied that it would not be their first choice to put a trail through it. She thought that the most reasonable fashion to handle the transition between this area and the park would be a very natural area to a more urban park. The park was not going to be a natural area park, it will be a node park where people play and lots of noise. A natural landscape buffer exists now and she did not see why that would change with the development of the park. Member Strom commented that this site was substantially constrained as the applicant had indicated. He noted that the willingness and enthusiasm for saving the wetland area was a rare and unusual experience for this Board to see. He thought it would add to the amenity to the park to the south and it was a valuable thing to save. Member Strom also commented on density and his concerns with the trend being set to lower densities. Chairman Walker also noted the constraints on this property and how it could not have been done any other way. He also commented on the density issue. The motion passed 6-0. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 1993 Page 7 THE PRESERVE AT FORT COLLINS P U D PRELIMINARY #146-79N Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: I. That detailed landscape plans, showing typical foundation plantings, berming, shrubs, and trees around the buildings to soften the height of the structures be submitted and approved by City Staff prior to final approval. 2. That garage units be provided with architectural elements, such as gabled roofs, faux windows and shutters, trim details, or other elements to add interest to the blank rear walls along Drake Road and Raintree Drive. 3. That final details of the streetscape along Drake Road, including substantial berming, street trees, evergreens, and screening materials (ie. shrubs, trees, and evergreens) for the backs of the garage buildings, and including additional street trees in the parkway strip between the curb and walk, be submitted for City review and approval prior to the Board meeting for the Final PUD. 4. That bicycle parking be provided for each building and for the recreation complex, placed on concrete pads, or within the buildings, so as not to hinder movement on the internal sidewalk system, prior to final approval. Mr. Steve Hegge, Cumberland Development Company, went over the qualifications of the Cumberland Company and his qualifications as a developer of multi -family. Mr. Hegge went over the high -end rental market and the need for that type of rental unit and being an asset to the neighborhood and how this project was designed with the neighborhood in mind. Mr. Doug Wagner, Wagner Architectural Group, went over slides that show other projects that Cumberland Companies have done. He went over landscaping and architectural features of the projects. Mr. Wagner stated that there was an existing PUD on Raintree and they have kept to the 15.18 dwelling units per acre. They have also tried to keep with the existing circulation approved with the current PUD. They would be improving the entire Drake frontage to its full 70 foot arterial curb to curb street width. They also would be doing a 5 foot detached sidewalk all the way across Drake, they would be improving the street for the full frontage and doing extensive landscaping. Mr. Wagner went on to say that they had changed the initial site plan from the conceptual review meeting and the neighborhood meeting. He went over the changes that they had made in the roofing, the downsizing of the buildings to get more open space, the circulation, parking garages, landscaping along Drake Road. Mr. Wagner stated there was a very extensive pathway system that tied all the buildings together, tied back into the sidewalk on Drake and along Raintree Drive. The path will eventually lead into the ground for the Senior Center and tie into a pedestrian bridge that goes over Mercer Canal and into Rolland Moore park. The exact pathway had not been established yet due to further negotiations. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 3, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Wagner stated there would be a security fence along Mercer Canal. They had agreed to participate in the future signal at Raintree and Drake. Warrants were not there yet, but they would be participating when that happens. They have taken their playground spaces, pool, clubhouse and volleyball court internal to the site. Mr. Wagner went over the mass of the structures in comparison to two-story homes to the west of the proposed project. He went over the landscaping of the buildings and their intent to plant 115 deciduous trees on the site, 82 ornamental trees and 48 evergreen trees for a total of 245 trees on the site. In addition to the trees they would be planting 1,489 shrubs and planting beds that cover about 47,000 s.f. of area. Mr. Wagner went over the 4 building types and the architectural features of all of the buildings. Mr. Wagner addressed the Staff conditions, on number one they did not have a problem with. Items two and three, they were not real fond of doing faux windows or details on the garages. Number four, they have already provided bicycle parking for each building and they just did not get it on the preliminary. Mr. Hcggc added that open space was critical to the fulfillment of the overall design, they only have 48% building coverage on this site. They have 52% open space. They have also been working with the Senior Center on a 2 acre site they have put aside for future expansion. He thought it could be used for the seniors to plant gardens and other activities that would benefit the community. Member Clements -Cooney asked about final design of the Mercer Ditch. It stated on the preliminary landscape plan that they would be working in conjunction with the Natural Resources Department. She has received numerous calls that there were concerns that should this plan go forward, that the buildings that border Rolland Moore park would enjoy the view, but persons in Rolland Moore park would not enjoy looking back at the apartments and citizens in the area would like buffering so that the view from Rolland Moore Park up to the three stories would be mitigated and would that be addressed in the final landscape plan. Mr. Wagner replied that all of the landscaping of the site would be addressed. If that was a concern they could look at it. They have indicated a few plantings, not as extensive as the Drake Street access. They would probably be doing some work cleaning up the ditch. The ditch companies don't like you doing too much with their ditches. They would be cleaning it up some for their own benefit. They would be working with Natural Resources for some kind of a wildlife habitat plan in that area. Member Clements -Cooney asked if their landscape architect had anything to add regarding potential buffering of the buildings. Bruce Hendee, Bruce Hendee Associates, clarified that it was not the willingness of the applicants to landscape there, it was the ditch company. Historically, they are very difficult to deal with, with respect to planting, because the trees take water from the canal, so their intent was to meet with the ditch company and do as much landscaping and the best job they could. Member Strom asked for clarification on the location of the Senior Center to this site. Planning k Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 9 Ms. Whetstone replied that the City did own the property that abutts this to the north. The actual Senior Center site was about 2 acres away and that there was no current development plan for the 2 acres. Member Strom asked about the west side and was there anything between the church parking lot and this site. Ms. Whetstone replied that there was about 150 feet of frontage that was the Ross Open Space. Member Strom asked what the Ross Open Space was and was it part of Rolland Moore Park. Ms. Whetstone replied that Rolland Moore was developed as a community park. The Ross Open Space was in addition to the park and was an area that was dedicated to the City to be left in its natural vegetation and does have a trail through it but is not part of Rolland Moore Park. Member Cottier asked if there would be any perimeter fencing Mr. Wagner replied that they were not proposing to do any fencing along Drake or Raintree Drive. The lender would like a split rail fence with a colored fabric adjacent to the canal. Member Clements -Cooney asked where the children in the area would go to school. fhe reply from the audience was Bennett Elementary. Mr. Wagner added that there were 98 one bedrooms, 150 two bedrooms and 24 three bedrooms, they were not anticipating a lot of children. Chairman Walker asked about the frontage on Drake and what would be the height of the garages and would there be a single pitched roof. Mr. Wagner replied that they are looking at a double pitched roof at 5 or 6 foot, slope up to a ridge and down to cover a 9 foot on the other side. The peak would be 13 to 15 feet. Chairman Walker stated this would cause a stockade effect along Drake. What would be the spacing between the garages and what would take place between the garages. Mr. Wagner replied that the minimum space between garages would be 40 feet with plantings. At the ends of some garages, there will be three spaces and those were planned at 9 foot parking spaces. It would be from 40 to 60 feet between garages. Chairman Walker stated that he would like to see on the final more detail on what would be seen from Drake. Member Klataske asked about the island where the mail boxes would be located and did they anticipate any traffic problems with that in that location with traffic coming off of Drake Road. Mr. Wagner replied that when they first submitted they only had one mail box location Staff felt that was not enough and they needed another location. They felt that a central location would be more beneficial. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 1993 Page 10 Member Clements -Cooney asked to hear from Matt Delich on traffic and traffic hazards at Drake and Shields and would Canterbury and Raintree at Drake be signalized. Matt Delich, 3413 Banyon Avenue, Loveland, conducted and prepared the traffic study for The Preserve. He did traffic counts on Drake Road at Canterbury and Raintree. He also did the traffic study for the Senior Center and used the counts at Raintree and Shields. Mr. Delich stated that the numbers indicated that the volume on Drake Road was between 15,000 and 17,000 per day. With the new development and the buildout happening in the next 2 to 3 years, the traffic on Drake would increase to about 17,000 to 19,000 per day. In the long range, the City was anticipating that the traffic volumes along Drake would be somewhere between 21,000 and 23,OOO vehicles per day. Mr. Delich was not anticipating any signals along Drake Road, either at Raintree, or the access to the Preserve. The other intersection to contend with was Canterbury and he would not expect signals to be warranted at that intersection. Signals might be warranted at Raintree and Drake, they were not warranted now and would not be for some time. The level of service would be on the order of D and E. Typically acceptable operation levels would be better than D. Mr. Delich stated that this project would add 2,000 to 2,100 vehicle trips a day to the area. Operation would be generally acceptable, but minor street left turns would see some delay. Member Clements -Cooney asked for a better explanation of service levels D and E and what these designations mean. Mr. Delich replied that the operation of streets and intersections was evaluated by termed levels of service. The level of service was a qualitative measure. They were categorized as A, B, C, D, E, and F. A is excellent and so forth down to E at capacity and F as failure. Member Clements -Cooney asked what were some of the criteria that would warrant a signal to be placed at a particular point. Mr. Delich replied that there were 11 signal warrants. If one signal warrant was met, then a signal would be warranted. Typically the warrants relate to traffic volumes on both streets in question. Member Clements -Cooney asked if with the study he did with this development, it would put it at a level of service D, was this still acceptable. Mr. Delich replied yes. PUBLIC INPUT Sue Renner, lives to the north of the project across Rolland Moore Park, stated she was not notified for any neighborhood meeting and was disappointed because it was frustrating to get involved this late in the game. Ms. Renner had two issues, one was the traffic issue. She would like to have more investigative work and more discussion on this issue. It concerned her that the developer was hiring the traffic study and she would like to see the City involved more in the traffic analysis. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes 18 May a, 1993 Page 11 Ms. Renner went on to say that the second issue was the profile from Rolland Moore Park. She could appreciate the emphasis on Drake Road and the landscaping. The reality was that Rolland Moore Park has been dedicated for multiple recreational uses. She thought it was a good investment in Rolland Moore Park and was looking to the Board to be the stewards of that investment in terms of what was going to border that park. The elevation of the property was quite a bit higher when you are in the play area of the park. It concerned her that they were putting three story structures on the perimeter of the border. She did not think trees or bushes would help the fortress type appearance. She thought that it was a matter of making sure that the profile of the development was harmonious with the area. She thought a good example of this would be the apartment complex at Harmony and Lemay. She would hope that this development would end up like that. Lastly, she would like to say that as a homeowner in this neighborhood, the concern for an upscale development was not hers. She would just as soon see multiple use housing for single mothers who are looking. Rich people can impact the environment just as greatly as poor people can. She wanted to make sure that they were being good stewards of that property and of that portion of that community where the Shields/Drake corridor is already greatly impacted with multiple use housing. Everitt Kohler, sent a letter to the Planning Department. They had no objection for homeownership in that area, but with multi -family units they were extremely concerned about the traffic. They also objected to rental property and were not opposed to homeownership. He was concerned with the amount of shrubs being planted and water conservation. Andy Looney, President of the Kensington South Homeowner's Association, there were about 60 homes in the association. On behalf of the association, he would like to say that this was a pretty nice looking project. They complimented the developer on this project, but did have some questions and concerns that needed to be addressed. Mr. Looney read a petition that was circulated through their neighborhood and there were almost 90 names on it. He also passed out a copy of the concerns with traffic and density in the area. Mr. Looney stated that the traffic study did not address Drake and Shields which was the problem. It did not address the left and right turns and how many people were going through that intersection and that was the problem intersection. Steve Sundberg, 2300 Sheffield Drive, asked why this was called the Preserve. He stated that looking into the future, he was concerned with the effects this project would have on the surrounding area and would ask the Board to oppose the development of this project. His concerns were similar to those previously expressed. This was the world where money talks and money takes precedence over the aesthetic value of an open field. People with dollar signs in their eyes are always blind to over development and envirormental degradation. We call our selves the "Choice City" and should not sell ourselves out to over development and let big money ruin the quality of life. Dave Sawyer, 2436 Newport Court, read a brief petition asking the Board to reject or modify the current proposal and stated they have 137 signatures. A lot of the signatures on the petition were not in the immediate area. This indicated to him that this was not a "not in my backyard" objection to this project. He thought that if the Board were looking at this project going in on top of the hill at City Park, hopefully the Board would deny that proposal. He thought this Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 3, 1993 Page 12 project was similar in nature to what he considered the nicest neighborhood park in our town. He hoped that everyone on the Board would have taken time to walk through Spring Creek Trail that goes through Ross Open Space and visited the park and taken a look at the hillside and what the three story buildings would look like sitting up there. He gathered, from some of Member Strom's questions that he was not familiar with the area and if there were other members of the Board that were in the same state then maybe they did not have enough information for the decision they planned on making tonight. Mary Ellen Keen, 2436 Newport Court was surprised that all the buildings were internal and when they saw this design in February, she preferred the buildings along Drake rather than a battery of garages. She was also disappointed that the three story buildings were the buildings bordering the park. She was also was disappointed that most of the landscaping was concentrated along Drake Road instead of the park. She would like to see the buildings moved back from the ditch so that they comply with the ditch company's rules and regulations about plantings near the ditch. It they were set back further, the buildings could be bermed or camouflaged from the park. Lastly, she was disappointed in the City for this type of development on a park, next to the Senior Center. She would have thought a better use for this property would have been a Civic Center and a more public use of that piece of property would have been more appropriate for a City like Fort Collins. Tony Kavanaugh, 1416 Hastings Drive, stated he voiced the same concerns and disappointment in the Planning Department for recommending this project. He moved here from California and it is a quality of life issue. The open space was for his children to enjoy. He did not see a project like this helping the area, he did not see it being a good neighbor and would like to debate their demographics which claim this was going to be an upscale renter. He did not see a demand for upscale renting in Fort Collins. He sees it as needing 4 or 5 students to cover the rent they are charging. He thought this neighborhood has its share of multi -family, he thought they have taken that burden, he thought they have embraced and taken in the Senior Center and were going to work with them. He did not think this was the project for this property, go with a smaller scale project. Jim Piper, 2424 Newport Court, pointed out that he would like to take issue with the elevation chart. He was that one little guy on the left, the one house ot the two. He was going to guarantee that as he looks across his back yard, the berm was going to a little higher in elevation than he is. He could also guarantee that as he walks through Rolland Moore Park, the elevation was not the same, it was a bluff. Three story units cannot go in there, it will be like a monster looking out at everything. He thought it would ruin the whole neighborhood, the park, and the people to the south. Hal Dean 1318 Hastings Drive, he echoed the same concerns that everyone else had this evening. He asked about the points given and asked what the major employer in the area was. In addition, these apartments were more upscale for the executive type or to seniors that have retired and wanted to live with low maintenance. He was curious what the rent would be and if seniors in this area could even afford the rent to live in such a facility. There was a great deal of existing apartments in the area and thought the area has already had enough multi family. He knew this property was going to be developed and on the surface this was a nice appearing facility but would also like to see something more along the line of a townhome. In addition, with the traffic, he would encourage the City to do their own traffic evaluation and check with the City Traffic Division or the Fort Collins Police Department and find that Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May S, 1993 Page 13 Drake and Shields would be one of the higher intersections for the greatest number and more serious accidents and 257 units would only increase the traffic more and therefore, increase the ability for more accidents in the neighborhood. Gary Turner, 2400 Newport Court, was not opposed to developing this property, it was a natural property to be developed. He commended the developer for the attempts they have made to make it a nice appearing property. He was lead to believe that Drake would not be widened all the way to Taft Hill for sometime. He would like to see the City complete the widening of Drake to Taft Hill and complete the intersection at Taft Hill with this development. He stated that the intersection of Drake and Shields was also a safety hazard and this development would add about 10% more cars to that intersection. Mr. Turner also commented on density and thought that the density should be lowered and that the three story buildings should be two and a high quality townhome project. He stated that there were over 2,000 multi -family dwelling units within a mile of this project. Ron Frank, 3000 Phoenix Drive, partner in Raintree Associates which owns the land that The Preserve was proposed for. His partnership acquired the land 14 years ago. At that time it had a zoning of RH, High Density Residential and RM, Medium Density Residential. This land has been designated for multi -family dwellings for about 20 years. Shortly after they acquired the land, they determined that the site warranted a nice project and went throughout the PUD process and got approval for 448 units and it was a plan that the City has reaffirmed every two years for the last 14 years. He was not sure about the discussion tonight and whether if was . about zoning or about whether apartments can be built on that site. It has been approved for 20 years to build apartments on that site. They are not bringing anything new or a big surprise to the people in Fort Collins or the people in the neighborhood. People purchasing homes, after seeing a vacant field could have called and found out that there were 448 units planned to be built there. There have been real estate signs on that property for most of the 14 years. It has been visible to the public for years and most of the time there are riders on the signs that say "multi -family" project. They have held it for 14 years waiting for the right time for it to be developed for the right project. They are very pleased with the quality of this project. He thought there was a need for multi -family units at all levels, not only low-income and students. They, the landowners were asking for approval of this project. Don Lcibecheck, 1720 Kirkwood Drive, which was in Parkwood East Apartments. He did not prepare a statement for tonight, he heard that this meeting was going on and came here on a whim. He thought that the proposed builders should be congratulated on having the guts to come into Fort Collins and propose such a site. He travels all over the United States and stays in many towns and in doing so he has the opportunity to look at different properties around the country. There are towns with some of the most beautiful apartment complexes that you will see. He thought that the developers were trying to bring that kind of quality to this town. He was just a renter, he has only owned about 25 to 30 homes in his life in different parts of the county. Six or seven years ago they have made Fort Collins their home. They have owned 3 homes in Fort Collins and have decided, because of their travels and their age and lifestyle, they prefer to rent. They were staying in Parkwood right now because that was the best place in town. He did not know whether these gentlemen knew it, but they were the first to sign up in their three bedroom apartment. They were looking for a quality place with no maintenance and that is why they pay the rent they do. Mr. Lcibechcck thought some of the people here tonight thought that when a renter comes to town, he is of a low class. He takes offense to that. He could just look at this project and with Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May a. 1993 Page 11 his travels could tell that this was a very quality project and would probably raise their property value. He asked on behalf of the people who want to rent and have a nice place in town, who are not degenerates and did not come off of the banana boat that the Board approve this project. Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Court, stated concerns with density, height, the fact that this was approved as a multi -family area 20 years ago when most of the properties around it were not there. Most of the apartment complexes in the area were also not there. She would emplore them to look at the whole area, to look at the park and save the park for them, not to be lorded over by high apartment buildings. She has lived there for 10 years and watched heron come every year and other wildlife. She would like to see the whole area considered, not just that one piece of property. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Chairman Walker gave the applicants a rebuttal to the comments made. Mr. Hegge stated there was not a large turnout of neighbors at the neighborhood meeting. He felt that the issues at Drake and Shields and Constitution were longer term issues. He felt that they have done a lot of work on the landscaping along the park. The Ross Open Space was designated as a wildlife preserve and open space, so there were some very long term and long range City issues that goes beyond what they do. When they propose formal gardens that they would install and maintain, similar to those in Washington Park in Denver, there was not a lot of reception to that. This was not a final and they were open to public discussion on this. Who were the major employers in the area was an issue. This is a $17,000,000 project, it was extremely expensive to build. Their proposal was to put the value into the community and it would come back to them long-term. This was not a short-term type development, therefore all the thought that has went into this, the employers in the area was one of the first things they looked at. There are thousands of new people coming to town and they are exactly in this demographic, they are professionals and in the 30-50 year old bracket making good money. There are bio-tech firms going in at the Centre for Advanced Technology. He has back-up for everything he has in reports and would be happy to send any backup to anyone who would like to look at it. They have had people call and want to pre -lease because they were afraid there would not be any available once it was built. The City vacancy in the community right now, City-wide, is less than 1%, and he has done that analysis every month for the last 2-years. He did not take strong issue with any comment that has been made tonight except with the residents that have implied that apartments would ruin the park. They have built thousands of units and never ruined anyone's neighborhood. He would be glad to take the people who feel that way to the neighborhoods that they have built in and show them other projects in neighborhoods they have done. Mr. Wagner stated that on height, the existing toning allows for 40 feet. They have asked for 45, the tallest building is 42 to 43 but would be willing to decrease that back down to 40. He did think that the slopes and the pitches of the buildings added some expensive quality and flat roofs would be a detriment to the quality look of the building and that was why they were slightly over the 40 foot limit. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a request for a variance on building height. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes . May S, 1993 Page 15 Ms. Whetstone replied that was correct. The original plan came in showing 45 feet and Staff informed the applicant that if they intended to go over 40 they would need to submit a height analysis and shadow analysis and all the requirements for going over 40 feet. That information was not part of the preliminary submittal and she was told by the architect that they would then be asking for 40 feet. Staff was under the impression that it would be no more than 40 feet which is the City height limit. Member Clements -Cooney asked it they were going above 40 feet would that come in on final. Ms. Whetstone replied that it would come in with final and they would have to have more information to evaluate that. Member Clements -Cooney asked was there a plan on this property that they could submit and build. Ms. Whetstone replied that there was an approved PUD for a certain number of units. The fact that the City bought some of the land for the Senior Center site forces a reconfiguration of the remaining property. There is a valid plan there, utility plans would have to be brought up to standards but there is a vested right to develop this land at 15.1 dwelling units per acre. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was an apartment complex proposal for this parcel. Ms. Whetstone replied yes there was and it was very similar with three story buildings. • Member Clements -Cooney asked how many units it would be. Ms. Whetstone replied it was about the same as the current proposal, maybe a little less with some commercial property. Member Clements -Cooney asked about if this was part of an Overall Development Plan. Ms. Whetstone replied that was correct, it is part of the Raintree P.U.D. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the traffic study and the fact that the developer hires a traffic engineer to do the study and did the City review that study. Ms. Whetstone replied that the City did review the study, the Transportation Department does review that and reports their findings back to the Planning Department. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a discrepancy was it dealt with at the Department level. Ms. Whetstone replied that was correct. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there were any discrepancies in the traffic study presented. Mr. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied there were not. During the study Mr. Delich called several times to find out background traffic, trip distribution and on this particular traffic study there were no discrepancies. Planning & Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes May a, 1993 Page 16 Member Clements -Cooney asked if there were bicycle lanes. Mr. Bracke replied that Drake Road, when widened to its arterial width, would have on -street bike lanes. Member Clements -Cooney asked when he referred to Drake being built out, was he referring to this development and the 70 foot they were referring to earlier. Mr. Bracke replied that was correct. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the amount of landscaping and was the developer planning on using low-water or xeriscape type of plantings that were adaptable to our community. Mr. Bruce Hendee, Landscape Architect replied that they would be using xeriscape landscaping. The area along the New Mercer ditch would be a non -irrigated landscape. Along Drake and along Raintree, they would be using tallescue turf. On the interior portions of the site they would be using bluegrass turf. It was in conformance with the xeriscape concept. Member O'Dell asked about height and how tall was the Worthington in the area and did this project rise as much above the area to the west as the Worthington did to the north. Ms. Whetstone replied she did not know how high the Worthington was, she believed it was 40 because they did not get a variance. It was a four story building without a roof. Member O'Dell asked if there would be a significant grade change as with the Worthington. Mr. Wagner replied that there was a 16 foot drop off and went over the elevations and the building placements and grading levels. They would be going with the 40 foot height limit. Chairman Walker asked if there would be anything done to improve Drake and Shields and if this project would finish a portion of Drake Road, would the City consider finishing off what was left of Drake Road at an earlier time. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineering Department, stated there was nothing in the Choices 95 project that was scheduled for the intersection of Shields and Drake. The improvements would be to the intersection of Taft and Drake. Chairman Walker asked if the current intersection at Drake and Shields was what there would be for a while. Ms. Ashbeck replied that it would be until traffic warranted additional improvements. Chairman Walker asked about widening Drake and was there any chance the City would work with the developer on this to bump up the Choices 95 schedule. Ms. Ashbeck replied currently it is funded and scheduled for design in 1994 and construction in 1995 and it would take going to City Council to discuss the matter. i 0 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 3, 1993 Page 19 Chairman Walker asked if the south side of Drake would be fixed with this. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the south side of Drake is at its ultimate configuration. Chairman Walker asked about the area just between Raintree and Constitution and that nothing exists there now on the north side that was permanent. Ms. Ashbeck replied that Choices 95 would fill in the gaps on both the north and south side of Drake. Member Klataske asked Mr. Delich about the mail stop coming off of Drake and was there any impact to the traffic on Drake. Mr. Delich replied that he had not looked at that. Member Klataske thought that it might be better to have the mail stop located internally rather than take a chance on traffic backing up on Drake Road. Mr. Delich replied that if Mr. Hegge wanted him to look at that he would. Mr. Wagner stated they made that change without consulting Mr. Delich. It came along in the review process with Staff. Member Clements -Cooney asked Staff about Courtney Park at the corner of Lemay and Harmony. It is made up of 2 and 3 story buildings and those were carefully place at the request of the adjacent homeowners. Were the two story buildings closest to that neighborhood, with the three story buildings closest to Harmony. Ms. Whetstone replied that was correct Member Clements -Cooney asked if Staff gave any consideration in reviewing this to putting the two story buildings facing the park and the three story buildings on the very outer cast/west perimeters or internally. Ms. Whetstone replied that Staff did consider that when looking at the first plan. Single family homes south of the project on Drake were a lot closer to this project and it was more important. The single family homes to the west and north are buffered by the park and open space. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the garages along Drake and what was the rational for the change. Ms. Whetstone replied that it came from the original plan which had all the buildings facing outward around the perimeter of the site and all the garages and parking were internal to the site. Staff felt that they would like to see a lower profile along Drake and there were also some concerns from the fire department with internal circulation and this was a solution that the applicants came up with. Member Strom asked about the Drake and Shields intersection and to what extent it had been analyzed. 0 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May a, 1993 Page 19 Mr. DcIich replied that he did not analyze it as part of this study. He did the traffic study for the Raintree PUD and it did include the 448 units approved for this site. In that study he looked at long-range futures and got acceptable operation at that signalized intersection with specific improvements. The long-range improvements would end up being a number of right turn lanes all around that intersection and the other big consideration would be a southbound double left turn lane on Shields. Member Strom asked if it was part of the Choices 95 projects. Ms. Whetstone replied that it was not. Member Strom asked what would long-term mean. Mr. Delich replied 15. Chairman Walker spoke on alternative modes of transportation and that this project has a lot of advantages of being at the intersection of two arterials, both the arterials will have bike lanes on them and the access to the Spring Creek bike trail could be made straight forward off of the site. There were transit opportunities because of the arterials. We get hung up on the fact that everyone will be driving cars and from a planning perspective in putting land uses in place we try to look at alternatives and this project has a good situation for these alternatives. Member Klataske moved to approve The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD, Preliminary with the Staff conditions *1, *3 and *4. The reason for leaving out *2 was he thought that the fake windows and shutters and trim detail along Drake would add more attention to the garages than the landscaping would. Member O'Dell seconded the motion and stated she thought that this was an ideal location for a medium density residential development because it is along Drake Road. It was close to some existing and future employment centers. She thought that the comments were made by other Board Members about other modes of transportation were really appropriate in this situation and it looked to be a quality development. She requested that the applicant look at the impact of the units along the park a little more closely and see if there was anything that could be done either where or how they were placed that could reduce the impact of the fortress look neighbors seem to be concerned about. Member Clements -Cooney commented on citizen participation on the project and how that makes better projects and also appropriate land uses. She does have some concerns about traffic and with the new Transportation Plan coming on-line, it was very important for people to get out of their cars and bike to work one day a week or use transit or walk. The City is trying to plan for the future and that the Choices 95 will look at Taft and Shields intersections, however, the answer is not widening the roads, that does not solve the traffic problem. She understands the neighborhood's frustration that this has always been open and that they want to preserve open space. This was not open space, this was a property that someone owns that has just not been built on and that was why it was open. The City is not the owner and therefore not the developer. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minute, • May S, 1993 Page 19 Member Klataske stated that he was not pleased with the amount of traffic that was going to be at the intersection of Shields and Drake and felt that it should be addressed before 10 to 15 years from now. He did believe with this type of infill with this density that we have opportunities to use other modes of transportation. He thought that perhaps the developer could have some landscaping that would soften the look of the buildings from the park. Member Cottier stated she would support the motion and agreed that this was an appropriate land use for this site. She stated this has been approved for multi -family for thirteen years and was not incompatible with the park. Member Strom stated that the comments that have been made have been to the point and this was an excellent location for this type of a use and meets the density chart criteria for this type of density. It was within walking distance to the Centre for Advanced Technology. it was within reasonable bicycling distance to the campus. Putting it next to a park was an outstanding relationship and he would also be supporting the motion. Member Clements -Cooney commented that there were people that was upset this evening and she just wanted to say that there were policies and guidelines given to them by City Council that proposals are evaluated on and she also explained the appeal procedure. Chairman Walker commented that they were working from The land Use Policies Plan and that this project meets the fact that it is in proximity to some major employment. Rolland Moore is a City Park, a community park, a park for all citizens and this provides this sort of • buffering. What they had here was a project well defined by the current land use policies that this Board governs its decision making process. It was a land use issue here and a final plan would be more at looking at the specificity of elements in the project. He did have some concerns with the street frontage along Drake Road and the way that the elements of the garages look. He thought they would look a little closer at the landscaping buffering or softening the look from the park. The motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.