Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/24/1995II Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard II Interim Chairman : Gary Carnes Phone: 223-8589 (H) 223-0404 (W) Interim Vice Chairman: Lloyd Walker Phone: 221-0489 (H) 491-6172 (W) The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Member Walker. Roll Call: Bell, Davidson, Mickelson, Walker, Strom, Colton, Carnes. Staff Present: Blanchard, Bracke, Roy, Shepard, Ludwig, Old, Ashbeck, Byrne, Wamhoff, Schlueter, Darnall, Defines. Election of Officers: Member Strom nominated Member Walker to act as Interim Chairman until the regular September Election of Officers. • Member Bell nominated Member Carnes to act as Interim Chairman until the regular September Election of Officers. Upon a vote of 3-4, Member Walker was not nominated to act as Interim Chairman. Upon a vote of 4-3, Member Carnes was elected to act as Interim Chairman. Member Bell nominated Member Walker for Vice -Chairman. Chairman Carnes nominated Member Bell for Vice -Chairman. Upon a vote of 5-2, Member Walker was elected Vice -Chairman. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows: 1. Minutes of the November 14, December 19, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. 2. #10-95A Landings Office Park PUD - Final 3. #13-95A Novovesky Garden Center PUD - Preliminary 4. #48-91 L Paragon Point PUD, Phase 5 - Final 5. #15-95A Prospect Commons PUD - Final Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 2 6. #13-82BP Oakridge Business Park PUD, 19th Filing - Hercules Industries - Amended Final 7. #9-80K The Arena Office Park PUD - Preliminary and Final 8. #137-801 Fazolis @ Arbor Plaza PUD - Preliminary 9. #43-94D Horsetooth East Business Park PUD, 2nd Filing - Final (Carriage Wash) 10. #11-94B Westbury PUD, Filing Two - Final 11. #55-87L The Gates at Woodridge PUD, 4th Filing - Final (Continued) 12. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval 13. Resolution PZ95-19 Easement Vacation (Continued) 14. #19-94D,E Robert Shields 2nd Annexation and Zoning 15. #33-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Section 29-526 of the City Code (Pulled for Discussion) Discussion Agenda: • 16. #19-94C Woodland Park PUD - Final 17. #54-87AE Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont PUD - Preliminary 18. #80-83B West Swallow PUD - Preliminary 19. #28-84A St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church PUD - Referred Administrative Change (Withdrawn) Member Davidson pulled Item 15, Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Section 29-526 of the City Code; for discussion. Member Mickelson moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12 and 14. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion to approved passed 7-0. Member Bell moved to move Item 15 to the end of the Discussion Agenda. Member Davidson seconded the motion. 0 The motion passed 7-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 3 WOODLAND PARK PUD - FINAL - #19-94C City Attorney Steve Roy excused himself from this project due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Attorney John Duvall replaced Mr. Roy. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the condition that the Development Agreement and the utility plans be filed and recorded in a timely fashion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 4 Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design and representative of the applicant, gave a brief history of the PUD and the area. He stated that this proposal meets all the criteria required and achieved a score of 75% on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. CITIZEN INPUT Scott Courtney, 3256 Nite Court, spoke on behalf of the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood Association. The association understood that when this project was given preliminary approval, it was stated that it would not receive final approval unless significant changes were made to the plans. The association reviewed this project and found that there was little or no apparent change from the last proposal. They would like to see the proposed lots on the north, east and south side be increased to one acre lots. They had concerns about the density, being out of character with the surrounding developments, and increased traffic and safety problems. They encouraged the Board to only approve this project with the conditions that the density be lowered and to have • this project create a more pleasing transition into open space. Sandra Thomas, 4104 S. Co. Rd.. 9, spoke on behalf of the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood Association. She, too, believed that the plans have not significantly changed from the preliminary plans. This project would negatively impact the environment from the wildlife to the water to the plant life. There are concerns about stormwater drainage runoff. She stated that Fossil Creek inlet has been running extremely full all spring and summer and the banks are eroding. With the additional stormwater runoff, the banks will erode at a much faster pace. County Road 9 has always been busy and is not a safe street. The association is not opposed to growth but would like to see the growth conform to and fit the area where it takes place. The guidelines and rules of the IGA need to be followed. Martell Nessbaumer, previous homeowner in Fort Collins, was concerned that the City has taken a strong stand to prevent the development of lower density residential areas. In a transitional area, lower density should be considered. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Mr. Shepard responded to citizen concerns by stating that the wildlife concern has always been an issue because of the proximity to the Poudre River bluff and floodplain. The area was subjected to a broad inventory of wildlife in the Poudre River Landscape • Opportunity Study. The Department of Natural Resources has advised Staff that the 35 acres does not contain any significance in wildlife. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Shepard stated that in terms of significant changes between preliminary and final, there was a suggestion that the 35 acres attempt to carry 3 units per acre and there be a sensitive lot sizing along county properties with more dense lofting arrangements along County Road 9 and HP. The majority of the Board members, at preliminary, agreed that this transitioning occurred. In summary, there has been changes since preliminary: the lot sizes along the southeast portion of the site have increased and there has been a reduction of three lots. Glen Schlueter, City Stormwater Department, addressed the water quality concern by stating that presently the City's criteria does not require anything specific for water quality. While this development does have a detention pond proposed, which does have some water quality benefits to it, this was part of the Fox Meadows Master Plan and will outlet into the inlet ditch. He added that the requirement is a two year historic release rate which is a normal afternoon thunderstorm, which will be the release rate of the pond. The erosion of the ditch is the function of the irrigation company. The City has an agreement with them to discharge into it so they are responsible for maintaining the ditch. Don Toronto, TST Consulting Engineers, stated that the Fox Meadows basin restricts the flows to less than what was experienced before the development. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineering Department, stated that County Road 9 is an arterial street. This development will be widening to arterial width, adjacent to the project, their half of the street and provide sidewalks. The impacts of this development to not generate the need for any additional road improvements to County Road 9 but will continue to be widened as other developments occur. As far as speeds on the roadway, there are currently no planned measures being taken at this time, however, Kingsley Drive will eventually loop out of English Ranch and intersect County Road 9 which will show a need for a signal. Member Davidson asked about a public greenbelt or open space area. Mr. Shepard stated that this has always been a central issue discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Preservation of mature trees, the area where the change in grade occurs, and the active open area, which includes clubhouse, day care and swimming pool, are being offered. The trees are in a tract which are not a part of platted lots so the residents who live there have access to them. • Member Colton asked how the criteria from the point charts were awarded and how the dollars are included in the calculations. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Shepard replied that if there were no pool, clubhouse or playground, there would be no need for landscaping. The points were based on the formula in the Residential Uses Point Chart for a total of $275,000 divided out by the total number of units times 1 % which results in 25 points. Mr. Ward stated that the landscaping is that which is beyond the minimum requirements of the Land Development Guidance System. The area around the active center, with a setback of 50 feet around County Road 9, is not a standard City requirement. It does not include the typical arterial streetscape landscaping which is routinely required by all development. Member Mickelson asked for the process evolution that has come from the previous plans. Mr. Ward replied that when this began, the direction they received was that they should be aiming for 5 units per acre. The next version dropped the unit down to 135 lots for a • density of 3.9 units per acre. After the neighborhood meetings, the lots were reduced again to 127 lots, then reduced to 110 lots. The ability to make changes between preliminary and final was within what could be done and still meet City policy and still be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. There was not a specific condition to make significant changes between preliminary and final by the Board. However, they were encouraged by the Board to make this transition, which is the nature of the changes they have made. He added that there is not a City requirement to provide public open space with a PUD. Along with the density, they evolved an amenity package which is directed at the residence. Member Bell asked if the child care center that was awarded points is an existing center or included in the plan. Mr. Ward replied that the child care center is included in the project. Member Bell asked for an interpretation of the transitioning from urban to rural. Mr. Shepard replied that, upon advisement from the City Attorney's office, the land governed by the Intergovernmental Agreement is for land that is located outside the present urban city limit boundary and yet within the Urban Growth Area. This parcel is in the city and not in the area governed by the IGA. The language and guidelines found . in the IGA cannot be used to review this project. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 7 Member Bell asked if there are conflicting policies between the Land Use Policies Plan and the LDGS and what takes precedence. Mr. Shepard replied that what takes precedence would be what is an ordinance form versus what is in policy or guidelines or advisory form. Currently, the Land Use Policies Plan of the Comprehensive Plan is advisory and gives guidance. The LDGS is an ordinance and therefore would take precedence. Member Davidson asked how many acres were designated recreational and how is recreational use defined. Mr. Ward responded that the recreational area is the project is 139,505 square feet. This is a percentage of the total area. The LDGS defines recreational space as partials of not less than 10,000 sf and not less than 50 linear feet in the smallest dimension and that public dedications may not be counted. By ordinance, it is a dimensional calculation. • Member Davidson states that on Page 25 of the LDGS, under Building Placement Orientation, Functional Considerations, the recreational areas are a linear measurement only and should be designed so they are accessible to the area residents they are intended to serve. He had a concern that these trees are so thick in growth that they could not be accessible to anyone. Mr. Shepard commented that the City wanted to preserve these trees and by doing so, the plan meets the public objective. Member Bell noted Page 15 of the LDGS regarding Wildlife Habitat and asked if the Colorado Division of Wildlife has to make a ruling of yes or no on this property. Mr. Shepard replied that they do not have a general listing for all sites that are reviewed by the LDGS. The City's Department of Natural Resources works closely with the State on these areas. When this criterion is used, the Colorado Division of Wildlife can get involved. Member Walker commented that this proposal is a reasonable approach to meet the varied, and sometimes conflicting, policies of the City in terms of urban level densities, mitigation to different densities around the site. 0 Member Walker moved to approve Woodland Park PUD - Final. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 8 Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Mickelson commented that, as she recalls, the Board was wanting to have the orientation and placement look different at final. Mr. Shepard replied that he was under the impression that the Board was divided on what clustering means and whether this project clusters or not. There is an attempt to cluster density in a certain location of the site but there wasn't an attempt to cluster to the extent that you a lot of open space. The transition occurs primarily by the placement of relatively large urban -style lots versus common open space. He was not sure that the Board resolved their differences on clustering. Member Davidson asked for explanation of transitioning of the neighbors on the east other than making larger lots. Mr. Ward replied that the lot size is the key item. They did look at an extreme clustering is receive with small lots and a higher percentage of open space. However, this did not receive a very positive response from the neighbors. Larger lots were more compatible than to add linear activity. Another key element is with the street connections and not introducing outside traffic into the existing street area. Mr. Ward added that it is part of the proposal to add a substantial amount of landscaping in the back of those lots. Sandy Thomas, resident of the area, stated that she was concerned about the streetlights and the traffic sounds which will also affect the neighbors to the north of them. Anything that is bigger on the east and north sides will help ease these concerns. Another concern is that the lots are not very big and there's no place for children to play other than other people's property. This is a safety hazard with the existing ponds and domestic animals such as their horses and peacocks. Mr. Shepard stated that there will be a row of 18 trees along the rear of lots 15 and 16. These trees meet the LDGS requirements for deciduous and evergreen trees. Member Strom commented that this project is on the edge of what will always be much lower density because of the Poudre River floodplain in the area. There has been lengthy discussions on what works best for the neighborhood and the city. Given the piece of ground and the context that it sits in, he believed that this was in compliance . with the preliminary that was approved. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 9 Member Mickelson commented that she was pleased with the transitions changes that have been made and that she would support the project. Chairman Carnes commented that he concurs with the other Board members in that an honest effort has been made by all parties to arrive at a middle ground. The motion to approve passed 7-0. HAMLET CONDOMINIUMS AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - #54-87AE Ted Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval of the preliminary. Mick Aller, Aller-Lingle Architects, gave a brief presentation on the location, parking, street layout and accessibility to and from the proposed site, access and size of driveways, setbacks, density, sidewalks, exterior building materials and design, and site amenities. • Member Walker asked what is the status of the Mail Creek ditch. Mr. Aller replied that it was owned and maintained by the ditch company. Member Colton asked how a synthetic stucco exterior compares to a brick exterior in terms of material and appearance. Mr. Aller replied that synthetic stucco has longevity and is a durable product. He believed that it is compatible with brick. He added that the Marriott Hotel on Horsetooth is made entirely of synthetic stucco. Member Davidson asked if there were perspective drawings of the buildings that will be adjacent to High Castle that the neighborhood will be seeing. Mr. Aller replied that he had elevations. He pointed out that the actual portion of the building that faces High Castle would be one story in appearance with the second story bedroom projecting out to a dormer. The four-plexes be will 6,000 sf, which is two levels, but the scale of the building is not that large. CITIZEN INPUT . Clayton Shureen, 601 Castleridge Court, had concerns that the density was too high which would increase the traffic. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 10 Elizabeth Alexander, 631 Meadowrun Drive, reiterated Mr. Shureen's concerns and the safety issue. Barbara Shureen, 601 Castleridge Court, had concerns with the traffic problem that would be created by this development. This proposal is not compatible with the homes on High Castle Court. Those homes are estate lots and does not believe those residents will want multi -family units in their backyard. She did not agree with the density of this proposal. She asked if there would be a playground or open areas. Bob Wiser, 600 Castleridge Court, had concerns with the density and the transition that is being made on High Castle. Member Walker asked for clarification on the issue of the master plan. Mr. Shepard replied that the master plan describes this area as Parcel E, which is 12.4 acres, and listed as low and/or medium density residential. In the land use breakdown, • Parcel E contains 60 units at a density of 4.84 Du/A. Overall, this is a 271 acre master plan estimated at the time of this ODP which was amended in June 1992, a total of 848 units. He cited the standard note that appears on all ODPs. Member Walker asked what would be considered medium density. He asked if the increase in density would present any infrastructure difficulties. Mr. Shepard responded that, in terms of infrastructure, they have not been advised by any of the utility providers, that the proposed density carries a problem for the ability of the infrastructure to provide services. In terms of the definition of density, there are no parameters in neither the LDGS or the Zoning Code that give specific numbers to equal low, medium or high density. Rather, they are based on minimum lot size, lot width, vulcan are requirements, so that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between the zoning code and the density. He cited the definitions of density as stated in the Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. Member Walker asked how the transition and density are being effectively met. Mr. Shepard replied that the project is served from a collector street (Boardwalk Drive) and does not take access off a local street (High Castle). The project is located only one property away from Lemay Avenue which is an arterial street. Therefore, the • intensity can take it access out to the arterial back and forth without penetrating further into the interior of the section. The parcel is surrounded by natural buffers. This is a logical place to carry these kinds of densities and does not impact the existing single family areas with no direct abutting property. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 11 Member Walker asked for clarification on the traffic impact of this project on the street system and the safety factor of the children going to the Warner school. Eric Bracke, City Transportation Department, stated that the site currently takes access off of Boardwalk with a fire access off of to High Castle and a joint access provided between the property adjacent to the east. The intersection of Boardwalk and Harmony has a high level of traffic. Keenland, Boardwalk and Lemay intersection will be signalized in the future. Boardwalk funnels the traffic from this entire neighborhood out to the arterial system. The intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. Mr. Shepard stated that they are working with the Miramont developers and the principal at Warner Elementary to provide an access point to the school from High Castle which was not originally envisioned when Warner School was built. The Miramont project provided that. The City works with the school district on an annual basis on the safe routes to school program, as does the Transportation Department. • Member Bell asked if the access on High Castle is only walk-through to the school or is there a care drop off. Mr. Shepard replied that there is a drop off although the cars cannot gain access to the school property from this point. Member Bell asked if there are improvements planned for the intersection of Boardwalk and Harmony to assist the level of service. Mr. Bracke responded that this is a continual problem and grows with each new pad site that is developed. The City has modified the signal a number of times in the last few years to accommodate the traffic and probably needs to be reviewed again. He added that more than likely Oakridge and Boardwalk will be signalized in the future. As the area develops, there will be more side street frictions, which will help slow the traffic down. Member Bell asked what is the predominating building materials of the houses that are currently in High Castle. Mr. Shepard replied that there is a mix and not a predominating material. He believed • that there is more of the asphalt/fiberglass shingle roof that is the high profile. There might be a lot of brick and lap siding. Member Bell asked for clarification of the topography. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Shepard stated that Mail Creek Ditch is a ridge line and forms the high point. There is a lot of dramatic sloping to Mail and Fossil Creeks. There is a rise to the property. The height of the structures will be approximately 28 feet, two story with one and one- half story elements. The topography did not dictate anything to cause this project to be disqualified under the criteria. Member Davidson asked if a pattern of traffic flow for residents coming out of the High Castle neighborhood going onto Boardwalk was anticipated. Mr. Bracke stated that there are several factors involved in a traffic study, one of which is trip distribution. For this study, there was an update to the traffic study which showed the difference between the trip generation of the original land use and this. There were 55 additional vehicles placed on the roadway network but the distribution has not changed. Member Davidson believed that the majority of the people would head toward the • Harmony/Boardwalk intersection. Was this an anticipated concern. Mr. Bracke replied that this was anticipated and that the majority of the traffic goes to the west and north. Member Davidson asked how the children would safely access the park once the park goes in. Mr. Bracke stated that Boardwalk is a collector street which can be crossed safely with posted speeds and proper enforcement. Member Davidson believed that this area would not be safe for children without proper enforcement and signalization. Mr. Bracke stated that there are parks in town that have pedestrian access to them, such as Edora Park and the Landings Park, and are used safely. The City is working on this. He stated that there will be a signal at Boardwalk and Lemay. Member Davidson believed that this was a long way from the park and that children would not walk % mile down the road to go to the park. He had major concerns about the high rate of speed and the safety factors involved. • Member Bell had concerns regarding the transitioning and buffering. She asked if there was a possibility of increasing the setback by Bullrush Court off of High Castle. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Aller replied that currently they are 22 feet from the property line and the property line is a bout 10 feet to the curb line. It had been discussed to change the two four- plexes to one six-plex but the long side of the building would face the street which would set it back further from the street. This is an option that the developer is willing to change. Mr. Shepard gave examples of similar buffering of various developments in Fort Collins. Member Davidson asked if the four-plex were swapped for the six-plex, what would be the total surface area facing High Castle versus two four-plexes and what would the difference be in setbacks. Mr. Aller replied that the overall length would not be that much different between the two. The six-plex would be longer by about 16 feet. One section would be setback quite a bit more and the other one would not. Member Mickelson moved to approve Hamlett Condominiums at Miramont PUD Preliminary with the condition that Staff work with the neighborhood on changing the two four-plex units to one six-plex unit. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Walker commented about his concerns with the density, direct access off of Boardwalk, the addressing of traffic concerns and safe access to the park. Member Strom commented that justification for him seconding the motion was the Findings of Fact/Conclusion in the Staff Report. Mr. Roy recommended a condition be placed on the motion along the lines of the Board not vesting to design and layouts with the two four-plexes. He understood that it would be approved subject to the modification of that particular portion of the plan depending upon the information that the Board would receive at final. Member Mickelson amended the motion by adding that approval would be subject to not vesting the design and layout of the project subject to that particular section whether that would be a four or six-plex building based on new information. is Member Strom agreed to the amendment. The motion passed 7-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 14 WEST SWALLOW PUD. LOT E - PRELIMINARY #80-83B Chairman Carnes abstained from discussion and voting of this proposal due to a conflict of interest. Vice -Chairman Walker presided over the meeting at this time. Mike Ludwig gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the condition that the final layout and density are subject to the Stormwater Utility detention requirement that the maximum depth within either detention facility not exceed 12 inches. John Dengler, John Dengler and Associates, stated that the master plan had designated the proposal to be close to 20 units per acre, it rated high on the density chart using only base criteria and the project followed the city directive for higher densities at infills development within the city. They planned the project to be sensitive with the surrounding neighborhood by lessening the density, limited all buildings to a two-story maximum height, limited the size of the largest building to be more in scale with the single family homes, designed hip roofs on the buildings with a two foot • overhang to align with the existing building characters, four elevations of the buildings, added storage units and bike racks, and designed a comprehensive landscape plan. The play areas will be buffered and was moved into a centrally located area away from traffic. The community building will be shared by both phases of the project with a fenced in tot lot area. Member Strom asked if the applicant was aware of the depth requirement of the detention pond. David Frick, Ares Associates, stated that because of the constraints on the site of having the release water from the site into the street, they have changed the depth for this project to 18 inches as maximum depth in the greenspace on the west side of the property. If they would be limited to 12 inches, they would lose about 10-12 parking spaces which would be sufficient. Member Colton asked why there were no bonus points for the community center. Mr. Dengler stated that they could have taken additional points but they had enough points on the density chart. The community building would be a part of Phase 1. Member Davidson had a concern about the proposed parking and believed that there was a lack of spaces that would be available. • Mr. Dengler replied that the housing would be family oriented not student oriented which would cut down on the number of vehicles. At this time, CARE Housing is looking at purchasing the property for family housing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 15 Member Davidson asked if there was a potential for students qualifying for this development even under the possibility of it being purchased by CARE Housing. Mr. Ludwig replied that students do not qualify for housing assistance through the Housing Authority programs because they do not fall under the Federal guidelines based on total income. However, CARE Housing targets between 40% and 60% of the area medium income for housing assistance. Member Davidson asked, in thinking of the high school across the street, if parking would be allowed on the north side of the street adjacent to this development. Eric Bracke, City Streets Department, stated that parking would not be allowed. Vice Chairman Walker had concerns about mitigation with the adjacent single family residences and asked for comments on the placement of the eight-plexes on Swallow • Road. Mr. Dengler responded that they had changed the number of eight-plexes from 5 to 3. The placement was a result in cutting back the number of eight-plexes. However, they could be placed in another location. There are less buildings in number than there are houses in number in that area. There is also buffering on the south side which is an average of 60 feet. Vice Chairman Walker asked what the fencing would be around the play area. Mr. Dengler stated that it would be an open chain link between a top/bottom wood rail post so the children could be watched and see what activity was going on in the play area. The part that backs the neighborhood would be solid wood with chain link as it comes into the project. Vice Chairman Walker asked if the detention area was designed to become an active open space area. Mr. Dengler stated that the detention area on the east side falls within the parking area. The one on the west side is going to be a large grassy area with berm between it and Swallow Road. . Vice Chairman Walker asked if there would covenants to regulate external activities, such as bikes on porches, to maintain appearances. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Dengler replied that there are property management rules and regulations for this development. Vice Chairman Walker had concerns with the detention area being in the parking lot. Glen Schlueter, City Water Utilities Department, stated that the present criteria allows this although it becomes a nuisance in the winter when it becomes iced over. This could be mitigated somewhat. Member Bell asked what kind of storm 10-12 inches is designed to handle. Mr. Schlueter replied that this is designed to the 100 year storm. Member Davidson asked if there will be landscaping on the south side of the development to buffer them against the neighbors to the south. • Mr. Dengler replied that it is a matter of the full mature growth. There are more evergreen trees to the south that don't lose their leaves in the winter. Vice Chairman Walker asked the 25 foot strip of land. Mr. Ludwig replied that this 25 foot strip of land has been purchased by each individual lot owner of the abutting property to the south. CITIZEN INPUT Frank Wilcox, 3001 Bowie Drive, cited the letter that was presented to the Board in opposition of this project. He was concerned that this project earned points on the point chart for being close to a shopping center and other criteria. The neighborhood was concerned that this project was high density and low income. He presented the Board the list of opposing signatures. Eugene Barbazette, President of Victorian Gables Homeowners Association, stated that Victorian Gables was never contacted and were not included in meetings or letters. He had concerns that there were no buffers planned between the development and the single family homes on the west side, current and potential traffic problems, proximity to high school, pedestrian safety of current residents, unsafe access to the park for the • children, and pet waste maintenance. Jane Romero spoke on behalf of the residents of Wagon Wheel stating there were concerns about the traffic density, school crowding, the high school students hanging out on Swallow Road, property value reduction, and the increase in crime. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 17 Tom Potter, 3213 Loredo Lane, represented residents in Wagon Wheel subdivision. He stated that they were concerned about the density of the project, bike and pedestrian safety, traffic problems, loss of privacy to existing homes, potential increase in crime with drug and gang activity, and lack of security. Chris Buchannan, 1524 Sam Houston Circle, commented that in this case, given the location of the project, the point system should not be used and that high density doesn't make sense being directly across the street from Rocky Mountain High School. He urged each Board member to consider if they would like to live across the street from this project. Jim Allen, 2836 Dunbar, reiterated the previous citizens regarding the current traffic problems and the increase of such. Ken Marott, 2956 Telluride Court, stated that he is pro -growth, pro -development and pro -quality of life. He stated that this property developed would be more valuable to the • neighborhood than undeveloped. He commented that this plan shows disregard for the interrelationships between the adjacent land uses. He had concerns with the buffering, density, massing and bulk along the south property line, traffic and parking and this development not adding to the value of the community. Jim Ford, 1723 Deweiss, concurred with Mr. Marott's comments. He had concerns with the ingress and egress of traffic on Swallow and Bowie. Kevin Lawson, 1412 Sioux Blvd., had concerns with the density, traffic on Swallow/Shields, transition of the buffer area on the south side of the proposal, the potential decrease in property values of existing homes and the elements of the point chart. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Mr. Ludwig addressed the issue of the point chart by stating that points were awarded for Base Criterion B, D, E, F and J with a bonus for Criterion V. The point chart does not require that a project acquire obtain points in every category, only whatever category they claim. Mr. Bracke stated that the traffic study for this project indicated that the base data was not available while Rocky Mountain High School was in session. The study done in • 1992 that addressed the expansion of Rocky Mountain High School was used as a base data. There is currently 4,000 vehicles a day on Swallow which is within city standards with 22,000 - 23,000 vehicles a day on Shields which is within standards for an arterial. Intersections are evaluated on the level of service, ranging from A (free • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 18 flow) to F (no movement or traffic jams). The policy for level of service for Fort Collins is D or better at signalized intersections. Shields Street and Swallow intersection currently operates at level of service B and C. The trip generation used in this study were over -estimated. An average trip rate was used between single family and multi family of 800 trips a day, which is high. There is access to the park, most of which will be pedestrian and bicycle activity. Shields and Horsetooth intersection is a problem due to it being an incomplete intersection. Peak hours in the morning will conflict with the peak hour of this development and Wagon Wheel subdivision but the afternoon peak hour does not conflict with the high school. He added that he was not aware that the drives in the Victorian Gable area were private drives. Mr. Barbazette clarified that the ownership of the drives in Victorian Gable are private drives according to the city. These are the drives that connects from Swallow, curves around past Rossborough Park and exits out onto Dunbar. Mr. Ludwig stated that, in regards to school crowding, the P&Z Board work session on • how the PR-1 school district evaluates the school age/population projections for new development. The policy of the school district is that just because a school is adjacent to a new development does not guarantee that those children will go to that school. The district evaluates, on a district -wide basis, their capacity limits. The boundaries and busing can be readjusted. Mr. Ludwig stated that the 25 foot buffer along the south side added to the buffering of the development realizes about 60 feet of buffering. The proposed landscaping and the existing trees at the southwest corner of the property is adequate transition between the existing and proposed developments. Mr. Dengler stated that the dimension of the playground area is approximately 60 feet by 60 feet. The storage units can be provided within the buildings however that increases the sizes of the buildings. The planned storage units can be used as "fencing" around the project or a block for headlights. Member Bell asked what the density is of the apartments east of this property. Mr. Ludwig responded that they are about 8 or 9 DU/a. Member Bell had concerns with the two access points of this proposed project. • Member Davidson asked what is the student population of the school, the development population, existing neighborhood population and the area including this development bounded by Drake, Dunbar, Shields and Swallow. He also asked what was the definition of a major employer. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 19 Mr. Ludwig replied that the population for this development would be about 200-300 persons. The definition in the LDGS for a major employer is 100 or more full time employees during a single 8 hour shift. He did not have the student population available nor the existing neighborhood population. Ruth Claron, representing Matt Dallich, stated that the traffic counts for this area was done during school hours, with morning peak hours from 7:30 am to 8:30 am, and the evening peak hours were 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm. She added that in their report, after both phases of this project are complete, the number of trips was increased by 20% to account for other projects going on in the area. From a traffic standpoint, this project is not going to create unacceptable traffic conditions at the intersection of Swallow and Shields. Member Davidson asked what traffic number was derived from the high school students only. • Ms. Claron replied that she was not sure what Mr. Dallich used for what future student projections were used in his analysis. Vice Chairman Walker had concerns how this site is being maxed out and that sensitivity needs to be taken for the residents to the south. Sixty percent of the units are on the south side and the north side abuts a major street with the high school across the street. He questioned if the best job has been done in providing a buffer. He suggested that a few units be moved from the south side of this project to affect a better mitigation and that the playground area be pulled back and a row of landscaping be placed to provide more mitigation. He had concerns about the storage units placement and would like more data substantiating how Raintree Village and Cimarron Plaza are major employment centers. Member Bell asked if this project could claim other criteria bonus points other than low income points. Mr. Ludwig replied that they could claim Bonus Criterion P, Community building. Member Bell commented that in terms of land use, some sort of multi -residential units may work, however, the problem with this project is the density which creates other problems such as storm drainage, traffic and orientation of the buildings. • Member Strom commented that, in terms of density, there has been a reduction in density from what was originally planned. This project does meet the standards of the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 20 LDGS with their points they were awarded. The traffic also meets the city standards. He had concerns with the proposed development of the site orientations and are such that this project would push up against the single family homes to the south. Member Mickelson concurred with Members Strom and Walker's comments on the placement of the buildings to the south of the property. Member Mickelson moved to deny this project based on neighborhood compatibility, Criteria A 2.2, and A 2.3 Landscaping, and requested that the developer lessen the impact of the number of units to the south and improve the buffering to the south and arrive at some conclusions on the stormwater and parking lot detention. Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that he would not support the motion because he believed • the motion was going to far. The density is workable and the problems can be solved, they have met the point chart requirements and have responded to basic criteria. Member Davidson commented that he would support the motion and suggested that, when the developer comes back with a modified plan, they have more facts regarding ETMs at a variety of peak driving hours from the city be added to the motion. He did not believe that this project does not mitigate the physical density as it impacts the neighbors to the south nor the visible density nor the proximity of human noise. He questioned the pollution levels being increased with more traffic. He asked for information on the human density around Drake, Dunbar, Swallow and Shields. This project adds to that density. Member Bell commented that she would support the motion and added that she was concerned about Criteria A 2.1 and A 2.2. Member Colton commented that he would support the motion but echoed Members Strom, Walker and Mickelson's comments regarding the density and the buffering to the south. Member Davidson commented that he likes the plan itself but had concerns with the context. • The motion to deny passed 5-1 with Member Strom in the negative. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 21 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND SECTION 29-526 OF THE CITY CODE Member Davidson moved to continue this item to the next regular Board meeting so it can be discussed at the Board's work session. Member Bell seconded the motion. City Attorney Roy stated that this motion is acceptable if the intent is to postpone consideration of the item until the next regular meeting and in the interim discuss it at work session. The motion to continue carried 7-0. • Director Blanchard reminded the Board of the Visual Preference Survey Workshop on Friday, 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, at the Marriott Hotel. The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m.