Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/22/1996• 0 Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3416 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (VV) The meting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Davidson, Strom, Mickelsen, Colton, Bell. Member Gaveldon was absent. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Haas, Olt, Wray, Ashbeck, Schlueter and Deines. Pete Wray from Advanced Planning gave an update on City Plan. Election of Vice Chairman: Member Davidson nominated Member Colton for Vice -Chair. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Agenda Review: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. Minutes of the November 13, 1995, March 4, 6, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. (Continued) 2. #11-810 Huntington Hills Village PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary (Continued) 3. #72-M Community Healthcare Center PUD (Lot 3 of Replat No. 1 of Country Club Comers, Third Filing) - Preliminary and Final 4. #72-841 Country Club Comers PUD - Big "0" Tire Store - Preliminary and Final 5. #54-87AG Harmony Market PUD, 12th Filing - Preliminary and Final 6. #45-83F Third Amendment to Troutman PUD, Second Filing, Lots One through Five, (Highline Autos PUD), Preliminary and Final 7, Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 8. #33-94A Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD - Preliminary 9. #3-96 Scenic Views PUD - Preliminary Member Mickelsen moved for approval of items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: At the time of Final PUD, additional landscaping shall be provided within the 80 foot buffer along Harmony Road. 2. At the time of submittal for a Final PUD, the applicant shall have obtained a State Highway Access Permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation in order to allow the access from Harmony Road. If a permit is not granted, then the access must be deleted and the Site Plan amended accordingly. Katie Press, area Real Estate Manager for Safeway Stores, 6900 S. Yosemite, Englewood gave a brief history of the project. She spoke on working on with the neighborhood and introduced other speakers on the project. Dennis Wyatt, Wyatt and Associates, planners and architects on the project gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Wyatt spoke on their planning effort, the location of the project and the surrounding transportation system, neighborhood issues, the site plan, orientation and size of the buildings, pedestrian traffic, landscaping, parking lot layout, internal traffic, service and truck loading areas and access, screening to the residential area, pedestrian plazas, architectural elevations and design, and building materials. Kathleen Creger, Creger and Associates, 1390 Stuart Street, stated she was the Transportation Engineer on the project and conducted the traffic impact study on the site. Ms. Creger stated that they spent a great deal of time with the neighborhood, trying to address neighborhood concerns. Ms. Creger reviewed the traffic impact study and level of service at surrounding intersections. Ms. Creger spoke on the • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 3 neighborhood concerns about impacts within their neighborhood from this center, specifically cut -through traffic on Monte Carlo and Ticonderoga. Ms. Creger stated they were recommending several improvements that would provide traffic calming and a more pleasant neighborhood to live in. The majority of the improvements were on Monte Carlo, a narrowing of the street configuration to 24 feet, a two-lane street with no parking on either side, and the extra room from removing the pavement will be dedicated to an extra -wide trail along the north side of Monte Carlo, which will be used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. There would also be additional landscaped areas with trees lining both sides of the street. Ms. Creger stated that this route was widely used by children walking and riding their bikes to the Elementary School and that they were able to separate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from street traffic and keep them on the other side from the retail development. Monte Carlo will also have bulb outs at the intersections with McMurry and partially at Wheaton. This will create a larger pedestrian area at the comer and narrow the street at the intersection. This will have a traffic calming effect by slowing traffic through the intersection and it also makes the actual street cross-section narrower so pedestrians and bicyclist have an easier time crossing the street. The City will be installing 4-way stop signs at McMurry and Monte Carlo so it will also aide the pedestrian traffic in that intersection. Ms. Creger stated that Safeway had agreed to other neighborhood improvements that would or could include the same sort of pedestrian bulbs at the intersection of Ticonderoga and Lemay, a traffic circle on Ticonderoga, and speed humps where appropriate throughout the neighborhood. City Staff is reviewing the recommendations, and Safeway has agreed to fund these improvements. Safeway feels that with these traffic calming improvements, impacts in the neighborhood for traffic will be minimal. PUBLIC INPUT Tim Dolan, 4212 New Hampton Court representing the Golden Meadows Home Owners, stated that he and his neighbors would be voicing their opinions regarding this development. Mr. Dolan stated that there was disagreement within their neighborhood regarding what was acceptable for this site. After much discussion and debate, they are prepared to move forward in an attempt to secure an asset to their neighborhood; specifically a shopping center adjacent to their neighborhood that will hopefully prove to be an enhancement to their surroundings. Mr. Dolan stated their concerns were the increased traffic that will surely ensue. Mr. . Dolan asked for the Board to hear their requests and consider them carefully. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 4 Kenneth Allen, 1719 Ticonderoga Drive, member of the Golden Meadows Home Owners Association spoke on concerns with traffic. He stated that it was important to realize that their neighborhood was fully built out and any increase in neighborhood traffic would not originate from the residents, but rather to and from traffic from the proposed shopping center. Mr. Allen stated that both Safeway and the City feel that the shopping center traffic originating from the north end and the northwest would choose South Lemay and Wheaton Drive route to access this center. However, the Wheaton Drive and South Lemay intersection does not have a left turn lane for access to Wheaton by southbound traffic on Lemay. South Lemay Avenue has become a very busy thoroughfare as development has grown south of Harmony Road. Mr. Allen spoke about the traffic engineers reporting that the south bound Lemay and east bound Wheaton turn is a Level of Service A at that intersection, and that the City concurs with that analysis. However, the traffic consultant for the previously proposed King Soopers felt that this intersection without a left turn lane was a potential safety concern and would need a traffic signal in the future to accommodate the increased traffic turning left (east) onto Wheaton Drive. In contrast to this intersection, the Lemay/Ticonderoga Drive intersection does have a left turn lane for access to Ticonderoga from southbound traffic on Lemay. The neighborhood is concerned with the traffic back -log at Lemay/Wheaton intersection resulting from the, lack of a left turn lane will inevitably leave traffic choosing the Ticonderoga/McMurry route through their neighborhood to access the shopping center. He also emphasized that Ticonderoga and McMurry are just a single street with two different names, and that drivers focus on drive time and not on distance when choosing a route. Mr. Allen stated that in view of these concerns, the neighborhood association requests that the City install a left turn lane at Lemay and Wheaton and that measures be taken to insure that the Golden Meadows residential streets do not become thoroufares for shopping center traffic. Julie Beta, 4427 Monaco Place, Golden Meadows resident who lives along Monte Carlo Drive addressed the neighborhood traffic concerns for the road when the Safeway and the Rockbridge Condo projects are completed. Ms. Beta reported that currently Wheaton and Monte Carlo roads are used for a cut -through passage. Car traffic uses Monte Carlo to access Kruse Elementary School by residents on the western and southern halves of Golden Meadows and all of the Landings area. Car traffic also accesses the stop light on Harmony and McMurry in order to go east on Harmony where they could easily access it if there were a light at Wheaton and Harmony. Currently they must cut through Monte Carlo to access the stop light at Harmony and McMurry. Ms. Beta also reported that business traffic from Innovation Drive just east of Kruse School uses the cut -through of Monte Carlo to go both west and back again to the businesses. 10 • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Beta stated that pedestrian traffic uses Monte Carlo on school days, a large number of children use the route to access the school by means of bikes, roller blades, walking and skateboards. Many of the children prefer riding in the street and some use the entire street to avoid the congestion of the children walking on the sidewalks. Ms. Beta reported that the problem with Monte Carlo is the amount of car traffic and the speed of cars using Monte Carlo in relation to the pedestrian traffic. Monte Carlo is a narrower street than Wheaton and does not have a bike lane, although traffic usage on both of these streets is about the same. The majority of traffic on Monte Carlo does not obey the 25 mph speed limit, as the road does not appear to be a normal residential street. The reason is that homes do not have drive way access off of Monte Carlo and rarely do cars park on Monte Carlo. Therefore, Monte Carlo seem to be a wide open, uninhibited street for easy pass through and speeding. Often cars will race at high speeds down this curvy road just for the thrill of it and not slow much at the stop sign. Golden Meadows feels these problems will only increase when the Safeway and the Rockbridge projects are completed. The neighborhood and Safeway have come up . with some solutions to these concerns and Safeway has acknowledged their concerns on Monte Carlo and it is Golden Meadows understanding that they have agreed to the following solutions: 1. Monte Carlo will be redesigned to a 24 foot wide street. The narrow street will give the drivers the impression the street is more residential. 2. The south side of Monte Carlo will have a landscape buffer with a sidewalk and the north side of Monte Carlo will also have a landscape buffer with an 8 foot or wider sidewalk. The wider sidewalk will hopefully encourage children to stay by the road when riding their bike or roller-bladeing to and from the school. 3. Snow clearing of the sidewalks and maintenance of the landscape buffers will be worked out with Safeway, the School District and the City. Golden Meadows would like to have the sidewalks cleaned before the start of the school day for the children's safety. 4. No parking of any kind be allowed along Monte Carlo, and Monte Carlo/McMurry intersections will be redesigned to have chokers at each end of the intersections and four stop signs. The chokers will be landscaped, possibly with 2 foot high conifers so they are visible to snow plows. 5. The chokers and stop signs at McMury and Monte Carlo will give drivers the impression that they are entering into a residential and school area. They will deter non -neighborhood traffic and force drivers to stop and evaluate the • conditions of children who may be in the vicinity. 6. Golden Meadows also requests the installation of speed undulations to be implemented on Monte Carlo. The number to be determined by a traffic engineer. Speed undulations will discourage unnecessary traffic on the street, Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 6 promoting the use of collector streets instead, and will greatly reduce the speed of traffic at all time of the day or night to the 25 mph speed limit. Ms. Beta closed by stating that by narrowing the width of Monte Carlo and adding landscape buffers and wider sidewalks, installing chokers and additional stop signs, and implementing speed undulations, residents of Golden Meadows feel that these measures will create a much safer route for the children to travel on, decrease the amount of traffic and become a more peaceful road to live on. Dave Graff, lives at 4118 Waynesboro Court, at the intersection of Ticonderoga and Waynesboro. Mr. Graff was concerned that there were no left hand turn lanes and no traffic lights are planned at Wheaton and Lemay to serve the Safeway Center and Rockbridge Condominiums. For this reason, the intersection of Ticonderoga and Lemay with a left hand turn pocket will become a very attractive alternative route for those seeking the Safeway Shopping Center. Mr. Graff was concerned with excessive cut - through traffic in the Golden Meadows neighborhood and that the traffic will use Ticonderoga to McMurry and Ticonderoga to New Bedford as a cut -through to the new center. Mr. Graff discussed the chokers being installed on Ticonderoga and also a median. Mr. Graff also asked for a traffic rotary to be placed at the intersection of New Bedford and Ticonderoga. He felt that it would further slow the traffic entering the neighborhood. Mr. Graff pointed out the differences between a speed bump and the proposed speed undulations, and the findings from other cities using them. Kevin Keen, member of the Golden Meadows Association, and lives at 4106 Attleboro Court. Mr. Keen spoke on the impact the Safeway will have on traffic patterns. Mr. Keen stated problems being that no improvements are planned for the intersection of Lemay and Wheaton Drive, and that a full -service all directions entrance to the Safeway Center is planned for McMurry Avenue. Mr. Keen felt this was a safety concern being so close in proximity to the school. Mr. Keen felt that together they would encourage a significant increase in traffic on Ticonderoga and McMurry. Absence of a left hand turn bay from Lemay onto Wheaton will clog the southbound left lane with traffic for the new center. Mr. Keen thought there would be an increase in traffic accidents and a lot of inconvenience, and that the right southbound lane would also be affected. Mr. Keen spoke of other traffic pattern problems in the area. In summary, the failure to improve the intersection of Lemay and Wheaton together with the unnecessary access on McMurry Drive will create a severe traffic problem in their neighborhood and endanger the neighborhood's children. Mr. Keen asked that the intersection of Lemay and Wheaton be made safe for the Safeway Center and Rockbridge traffic, and for traffic going south and east of the Lemay/Harmony intersection. Second, that access to McMurry be limited to traffic exiting the center southbound. They take it as a given for a right tum-out only at Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board • April 22, 1996 Page 7 McMurry and the Safeway Center. They take it as a given that westbound/right in -out access to the Safeway Center from Harmony Road is absolutely essential. Mr. Keen stated neighborhood wishes for the record. That it urges the City of Fort Collins in the strongest possible terms that the Department of Transportation insures this access before final approval of the center and before any construction begins. It is also extremely important if they are to gauge the traffic impact of the Safeway Center in their neighborhood, that a detailed and accurate baseline for neighborhood traffic patterns be established before any construction begins on the Safeway Center. Mr. Keen stated they provided copies with an attached map of how they think the measurements should be made. These measurements should be made on all days of the week including both school and non -school days, and cover all hours of the day. Mr. Keen stated that they prefer that there be no shopping access to McMurry, in addition to averting traffic problems, this would help insulate Kruse Elementary School and its neighborhood park from shopping center problems. In the absence of a light at Wheaton and Harmony, they recognize that some provision must be made for eastbound traffic leaving the Safeway Center. In the spirit of cooperation, therefore, • they are agreeable to a right -turn only exit, with no entrance from the Safeway Center to McMurry. They are willing to do more than that, Safeway, their traffic consultant and City traffic staff have told them on the record that there will not likely be much, if any, cut -through traffic entering or leaving the Safeway Center via Ticonderoga/McMurry. They are agreeable to providing both right -in and right -out access on McMurry Drive, provided that they have a written guarantee from both the City and Safeway as follows: If both right -in and right -out access at McMurry Drive is provided for the Safeway Center, and either•Ticonderoga/McMurry or New Bedford Drives experience a traffic increase of more than 10% from the baseline numbers established before construction on any day of the week, the right-tum in access on McMurry will be closed. Mr. Keen gave a few additional points. A traffic signal at Lemay and Wheaton along with left turn bays have already been suggested by City staff as a means of reducing the shopping center's impact on Golden Meadows streets. They are convinced that this is necessary now. They feel that three accesses might be excessive and that two entrances should be effective. They are simply asking the City of Fort Collins to take them seriously. They do not object to the Safeway Center and look forward to it being a good neighbor, but it cannot be a good neighbor if it contributes to traffic and traffic pattern destructive of their neighborhoods integrity and tranquillity or dangers to them and their children. They believe their requests are reasonable and essential if the Safeway Center at Golden Meadows is to be as it ought to be, a model of good urban planning. One they in the neighborhood, Safeway, and Fort Collins can all be proud of. Mr. Keen thanked Safeway for discussing this over with them over the last months. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 8 Janice Anderson, lives at 1207 Standish Court and is speaking for her family. She stated that they had no idea when they bought their house in 1988 that a shopping center site would be generating traffic through their neighborhood. She felt the City should take steps to minimize traffic on New Bedford Drive before this shopping center is approved. Ms. Anderson felt that southbound traffic on will seek a shortcut to the new shopping center to avoid two slow left turns onto and across Harmony. Because the intersection of Lemay and Wheaton is dangerous, the shortcut traffic will turn off of Lemay at Ticonderoga where there is a turn lane and a traffic light, and proceed down New Bedford Drive. A direct and relatively straight path to Wheaton Drive. Ms. Anderson had concerns with the safety of children in the neighborhood and urged the Board to make the intersection at Lemay and Wheaton safer and more attractive to Safeway short cutters by installing at a minimum left turn lanes and ideally a traffic light. Ms. Anderson also asked for the same traffic deterrents that have previously been spoken about. Ms. Anderson also asked that the proposed 8 foot sidewalk on the north side of Monte Carlo be kept, so the children would not have to cross traffic. They have proposed moving the sidewalk to the south side and thought that would be a bad idea. Ms. Anderson felt if the traffic and safety issues on New Bedford could be solved, then they feel that Safeway could fit into their neighborhood without too great an impact. Ray Suns, neighbor of previous speakers endorsed what has been said tonight by his neighbors and stressed the need to avoid a left turn exit onto McMurry out of the center; unless it is determined through early use that it does not present a problem. He also wanted to endorse the chokers of traffic leading into Ticonderoga from Lemay. Kathleen Cregar, applicant representative gave their rebuttal. She stated that the majority of traffic improvements that have been discussed tonight by the Home Owners Association are improvements that Safeway has agreed to do. Ms. Cregar discussed other traffic concerns the neighborhood voiced during citizen participation. She also discussed the disagreements Safeway still has with the neighborhood regarding traffic. Dave Graff, representing the Homeowners, gave a rebuttal to Ms. Cregar's comments regarding traffic on New Bedford and Ticonderoga and signalization of Lemay and Wheaton. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Mickelsen asked why the left turn lane at Wheaton and Lemay was not a good idea and when would it be more plausible. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department responded that the intersection currently meets warrants now, its in a good location for a traffic signal. However, in order to signalize it, Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 9 it does need left turn pockets and in order to construct those pockets, we need to go about 1,000 feet in each direction. It does take out the bike lanes, mature landscaping, including large trees. His reasons for not wanting to signalize it at this time has to do with the issues we have on Whalers Way. The City is currently working with the neighborhood in conjunction with Rafferty's to try to calm some traffic. There is a problem on Whalers Way and this traffic signal will just draw more people to it. He is not, at this time, in a position to say that signalization is an option at this intersection. Member Mickelsen asked if signalization is driven by the ability to put in the turn lanes. Mr. Bracke responded it was. Member Mickelsen asked if the big issue here was the installation of the left turn lanes and the expense and landscape removal. Mr. Bracke replied that it was also the impacts to the neighborhood. Member Mickelsen asked if the left turn lanes were installed, the impacts to the • neighborhood to the west would not be as great as if signalization would occur. Mr. Bracke replied that there would be no impact at all. It still would be extremely difficult to make a left turn. East and West bound left turns would still be difficult with the turn pocket. Maybe even more with the pocket because there would be more space to cross. Mr. Bracke added that one of the things the City is working with in conjunction with the neighborhood is that the City is participating with the neighborhood and Rafferty's (a development approved a year ago) putting in some large landscaped medians, and also some possible speed humps in that neighborhood. Member Mickelsen asked Mr. Bracke what his thoughts were on the undulations. Mr. Bracke replied he thought they were a good idea and fully supports that on Ticonderoga and New Bedford. Mr. Bracke explained the problems with New Bedford in finding locations for the undulations. Member Mickelsen was worried about the City making a guarantee to the neighborhood that they will not be impacted short of making it a gated community. Mr. Bracke responded that he was not making any guarantees. His name was not going on — he is trying his best to find a way to mitigate the impacts. He differs somewhat with the neighborhood in terms of the bulbs and some of the things that have Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 10 been proposed. Mr. Bracke shared with the board his disagreements with the neighborhood in that the bulbs and roundabouts they are proposing will not fit and would not be able to accommodate a 16 foot drive isle for the fire department. He thought it would be extremely difficult to retro-fit and would be ineffective. Also, the chokers make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street. The City installed bulbs on Laurel Street and they have not worked for calming speeds on that street. He is not advocating them in any way. Member Colton asked what the major concern was with building the left turn lane going south of Ticonderoga onto Wheaton. Mr. Bracke stated it was cost and the trees along Lemay. From recent experience, taking down the trees would be politically controversial. Member Colton thought that if it was a mitigating need and maybe the developer should have to do it later on it there is a need. He suggested maybe escrowing funds or putting in the approval that if the need is warranted a year or two down the road, that the developer would provide that. He wondered if that was an option. Mr. Bracke responded that there is no doubt a left turn lane would deter some collisions, but we have this condition all over the City. Mr. Bracke stated that in the traffic analysis he conducted he agreed with the traffic consultant and the previous traffic study done that the intersection will operate at a level of service A. There will be some delays, but the inconvenience and safety issues may not all be for the left turning vehicle as the vehicles behind them. Member Colton asked what Mr. Bracke's opinion was regarding the no left turn on McMurry proposal by the neighborhoods. Mr. Bracke replied he did not think it was a very good idea. He thought that most of the traffic destined for the center would come from the neighborhood, it was one of the purposes of it. It would just send the traffic back onto Monte Carlo or up New Bedford. He sees no benefit for a right-in/right-out, it should be full movement. Member Bell asked someone from Engineering to speak to the escrow issue. Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department responded that to have the developer escrow funds on an improvement like that would be difficult. It would be difficult to establish a time -line in which that project might take place. In addition, trying to relate this projects impact to that improvement, since there is an established problem at that intersection. It would be difficult to determine what share this development is creating. She was not sure the City would be able to find the impacts directly to this development, and in turn • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 11 come up with an appropriate share that they would pay. Another problem with escrow is that they run out at some point in time. There is no scheduled capital project for their participation at this time. John Duvall, City Attorney responded that they would have to show a cause and effect between the impacts of this development on that intersection and relate those to some cost figure that is proportionate. Member Davidson suggested that since we have some foresight, we could plant some trees now because somewhere down the line, it will be inevitable that there will be a left turn lane there. If some trees were planted further back now, then when the other trees have to be taken out, it won't be such a drastic change in the area. Member Davidson asked if the left turn lane would be inevitable. Mr. Bracke replied he was not sure. If it is signalized at some point in time it will be. Mr. Bracke stated that there is no room to plat with. There are four travel lanes and two bike lanes; and, in order to accommodate the left turn lanes it would have to come from • the bike lanes, and he is not prepared to do that either. Member Davidson did not agree with staff on the traffic rotaries. He has seen some in Boulder on about the same size street and felt they worked very effectively. Mr. Bracke stated that he did not believe in the chokers, but was a firm believer in rotaries. The Traffic Department currently has a proposal into City Council to build four or five of them throughout the community. He is willing to sit down and discuss on Ticonderoga and New Bedford, but the comers will have to be cut, and that will take some more negotiation. As the intersection exists today, it will not fit. Member Colton asked about the roundabout on Ticonderoga and Lemay and with the curbcuts, he has a concern that the island would stick out and that left hand turns would not see bikes coming. Mr. Bracke responded that his concern was that they would not fit in the existing width, and the City would not allow landscaping that would cause a site distance problem. Member Strom moved for approval of the Harmony Safeway Market, Preliminary PUD with the two conditions recommended by Staff. 0 Member Colton seconded the motion. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 12 Member Strom commented that he is not one to encourage traffic through residential neighborhoods from commercial development, but that the evidence indicates here that the likelihood of substantial increases in traffic is minimal; and, the applicant has gone above and beyond the usual in terms of attempting to mitigate whatever traffic there might be. Member Mickelsen foresees a lot of foot traffic and a lot of people using this center and that it will be an asset to their neighborhood. Member Colton commented that he used to live on Ticonderoga and hoped the speeds would be reduced. He has a concern with not having a left out of this site on McMurry north. Outside the traffic issues, he hoped this would be an addition to the community. Member Davidson applauded Safeway for creating a community area plaza in this shopping mall, giving access to the neighborhood and the shopping mall itself. Member Davidson likes the intense landscaping on Monte Carlo as a buffer and the berming up against Safeway. Member Mickelsen commented that she hoped that when the safety becomes more important than the cost of the left turn lane, it will be seriously considered. The motion was approved ". Member Davidson excused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. City Planner Mitch Haas gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: The P.U.D. is approved subject to the proposed "twenty foot emergency access" changing, at final, to a permanent roadway connection, of at least twenty-four (24') feet in width, between the duplex and multi -family portions of this development. Bill Veio, applicant gave a presentation on the project. He gave a slide presentation speaking on design objectives, they were: To create a mix of housing types that meet the long-term needs of residents in Fort Collins. Condominiums, single family attached housing and single family homes. . Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 13 2. To try and utilize the natural terrain to complement the homes in the neighborhood. To open up the canal to public use. 3. To encourage neighborhood diversity and inter -action by putting in picnic benches, lighted walk -ways, parks, public biking and jogging trail system. Also, to introduce a bridge concept to walk and ride across the canal to enjoy it as a park and trail system. 4. To get the trail system identified as part of the city's official bike system. Mr. Vieo stated that Elizabeth and Overland Trail would be improved and bike lanes would be on both sides of Elizabeth. Mr. Vieo also showed slides and spoke about detached sidewalks, the intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street, landscaping along the street frontage on Overland Trail. 5. To create a neighborhood plan that complements the existing neighborhood. To expand the amount of park and public space so the neighbors could use it. 6. To emphasize the human scale of neighborhoods. Mr. Vieo showed slides and spoke about the trees that would be destroyed if Elizabeth Street that would be destroyed if Elizabeth is expanded to three or four lanes in the future. 7. To maintain the country rural feel of the property. Mr. Vieo spoke about the widening of Elizabeth and Overland Trail, fencing, and the extension of Orchard Place. 6. Pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. To minimize the circulation of automobiles it the subdivision. He feels each neighborhood should be self-contained with limited access. No through traffic and no cross streets. Connect neighborhoods with bike trails and open space, but not automobiles unless absolutely necessary. Member Colton asked about the plans for development shown on the site plan that is not part of this PUD, on the east side of the canal. He was wondering why the Board was not looking at an ODP as opposed to a PUD? Mr. Vieo replied that was the original intent. There was some contractual breakdowns and they did not have ownership so they were not able to include that portion of the • property. They hope to come back in and show the other piece when they have it all figured out. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 14 Planner Haas added that the piece on the east side of the canal was seen at the neighborhood meeting when they thought they would have all the land and had planned to develop it as part of this proposal. That is not the situation now, and the plan does not contain the single family portion east of the canal. Member Colton asked if they now have ownership of the property. Mr. Vieo replied a portion of the property, not all of it. Member Colton still thought the Board should be seeing an ODP on the property and asked for legal advise. City Attorney John Duvall replied he would look into the LDGS and get back to the Board. PUBLIC INPUT Doug Kindsfather, 2706 Jaeger Court, stated that there was a lot of concern about what is going on on the other side of the canal. He thought there was a lot of reason why the land did not go under contract. It was the landowners conscious decision to wait and see how this was accepted at the neighborhood meeting. The response was not favorable. Mr. Kindsfather stated his concerns about the property on the east side of the canal and the traffic it would cause on Orchard Place. Mr. Kindsfather stated that he did not feel the density of the plan was conducive with the rural atmosphere. He also has concerns with the foot -traffic going through the canal, which now has wildlife. Mr. Kindsfather's concerns were with density and the traffic it will generate; and, felt the surrounding neighborhoods could not handle the changes in the traffic. Dennis Stinson, Happy Heart Farm stated that the first thing extracted from this site would be the "scenic views". He felt that citizens can do little and say little short of expensive litigation to influence the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Stinson spoke about the wildlife lost in the area and the visions and views they would be loosing. Mr. Stinson had concerns with the traffic in the area and suggested that Elizabeth be "downsized" for calming and quieting effect and it be designated as a main easttwest alternative transportation prioritized route. The neighbors have suggested to the developer that a substantial wall be built between their properties before the project excavation starts, which might mitigate some of the noise, the blowing of dust and debris, and the heart break of having to watch it as it happens. He did not feel the two - foot plastic debris fence would not stop the wind erosion of the denuded 23 acres from winds that we have seen 100 mph. • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Stinson also spoke on storm drainage on the project. In summary, he was sad about the loss of the parts of their lifestyle that cannot be replaced for all the money in the world. The open views of the beauty to the foothills, the wild creatures who's homes and families will be sacrificed for more people and the money made from the sacrifice, the peace and the peace of mind that will forever be gone as the dust and debris, stress and noise rise with the level of traffic and level of the roofline. Bill Roberts, 2922 West Elizabeth stated he was the most impacted of any of the neighbors by this development. Mr. Roberts has some of the same concerns as Mr. Stinson. He has seen tremendous amounts of debris blow across that field. Mr. Roberts realized development would occur, but would like to lessen the impact of the development on their neighborhood. Mr. Roberts main concern is the multi -family section of the project. He agreed and wanted to express his concerns with widening Elizabeth. He did not see that much traffic on Elizabeth, but does see excessive high speeds on Elizabeth starting at the point where there is no more development. He suggested trying to minimize the traffic on Elizabeth and to try to slow the traffic down. Mr. Roberts respectively asked that the Board follow Mr. Vieo's recommendations that two lanes and bike lanes be sufficient. • PUBLIC INPUT Eldon Ward, Architect for the applicant clarified the question on the ownership and the lack of an Overall Development Plan. Mr. Ward stated that at the time of the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Vieo was trying to assemble various properties, including three properties on the other side of the ditch. That was not accomplished before the time of submittal, and therefore legally they could not submit for any properties, except what was previously approved as the Scenic Views PUD (which was approved in 1985), with the intent of following up with the other properties as they become assembled; and, have another neighborhood meeting at that time. City Attorney John Duvall stated that it would be helpful if Mr. Vieo would come forward and state for the record some questions on the ownership situation. Mr. Duvall asked Mr. Vieo with respect to the property that is now under consideration, has that historically been owned in separate ownership from the adjacent properties, which he is considering purchasing, or may have a contract on now. Mr. Vieo responded separate ownership. Mr. Duvall asked what were his rights to the adjacent property as of now. Does he • have it under contract, or own a title. Mr. Vieo replied there were two contracts, but he does not own it in fee title. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Vieo stated the contracts were with separate owners than for this piece. Mr. Duvall asked if they simply had not closed on the contracts. Mr. Vieo replied they could not close until the third owner is part of the assembledge. Mr. Duvall asked if the other two contracts were contingent upon the third owner agreeing to sell. Mr. Vieo replied they were not contingent on that but certainly have a bearing on it. Mr. Duvall stated that the LDGS stated that an OOP is required for any property which is intended to be developed overtime in two or more separate preliminary plan submittals. What we have here according to Mr. Vieo's testimony is a situation where he owns a property and fee title, and has contract rights to other properties but does not own them in fee title. The LDGS does not indicate any requirement that even if he owned the property adjacent — in fee title, there is no requirement that he bring them as an ODP unless development would occur in phases. He is under no legal requirement to bring forward any other properties that he either has contract rights on or owns if he does not wish to develop that property. Member Strom asked for clarification on what is proposed to happen to Elizabeth, and what is proposed for the developer to do regarding Elizabeth. Also, how does this mesh with the neighborhood's concern with Elizabeth. Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department replied that she had prepared a handout for the Board on arterial street section and the minor arterial street section. Ms. Ashbeck reviewed a larger drawing stating that Elizabeth is currently on the Master Street Plan adopted by City Council as an arterial street; which is a 100 foot right-of-way. Ms. Ashbeck stated that would include four travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes, parkway strip, and sidewalk. She stated that Elizabeth, near the end of Taft Hill Road is being built out to this standard, along by the King Soopers store, where there are more intense land uses that require the turn lanes and the additional travel lanes. Ms. Ashbeck explained that as new development occurs to the west, they are still requiring dedication of the full right-of-way in anticipation of potentially widening the roadway and to be in conformance with what the current Master Street Plan shows. But, in re evaluating the Master Street Plan and some of the work that is to go to Council later this summer. There is the potential that West Elizabeth Street going west beyond Taft Hill Road, could be downsized to a minor arterial, which is a 50 foot roadway with 2 travel lanes, a center left turn lane, 2 bike lanes, a smaller landscape strip, and a 4ft. walk. However, because we are requiring the right-of-way for the full • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 17 arterial, the developments going in on West Elizabeth have had the sidewalks located at the very back of the 100 foot right-of-way. The sidewalks are being built in the ultimate location, and the improvements along the developing sites will put the curb in for the minor arterial, so what we end up with is a wider parkway strip. Ms. Ashbeck stated that this project did not have the conflict with trees as others did further east on Elizabeth, and sidewalks may have to be put behind existing trees in locations where we can. There is still some question regarding how the improvements will be transitioned between Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail, in addition, when that will occur. It may require cutting down trees, and purchasing properties for right-of-way from adjacent owners if they are not developing properties. Ms. Ashbeck gave a visual explanation of what is occurring on West Elizabeth from Taft Hill to Overland with development and what portions would be improved by development and what would not. Member Strom asked what cross-section would be built with the Siena Development. Ms. Ashbeck replied a minor arterial. There would be pieces that would need to fit . together in the future, but that would take a capital improvement project. Member Colton asked if traffic from this site would contribute to making it a three instead of a two lane. Ms. Ashbeck stated that the improvements from this development, along with the improvements from the Laurie Ann Estates Development would accommodate a left turn lane. Member Colton stated he was more sensitive to will the traffic, because of density, cause the other stretch to have to be widened at some point in time, as opposed to if it was less dense, it would not have to be. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the proposed development was not triggering widening other portions at this time. The remainder that they have talked about developing on the other side of the canal does not have any frontage on the other side of the street and may not even be widened with that project unless they had frontage. They are not having enough impact to warrant widening off -site. Ms. Ashbeck cited the City Code requirement that developments that are on undeveloped property, adjacent to a street that is slated for either a collector, or minor arterial, the standard is that they improve the street along the frontage of their property to the ultimate width. That they dedicate • the right-of-way, and they build the improvement. There are cases where money is collected is escrow, but the City's preference is to get the improvements built. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 18 Particularly with this development, that the extra width out there would accommodate turns in and out of the site, and again the left turn lane at Overland and Elizabeth. The City feels that it is an appropriate site to actually get the improvements constructed rather than escrow. Member Cotton's concern is that the trees would be lost, and was it likely that would happen if we allow not only this density at this site, but also other sites with corresponding densities. Ms. Ashbeck replied that when there are significant trees to save, they try to realign the roadway with a capital improvement project in the future. Member Mickelsen asked if the largest intent of the build out on Elizabeth, the minor arterial. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the minor arterial is what they anticipate the street to be down- graded to with the revisions to the Master Street Plan this summer. We are keeping the right-of-way for the arterial street for the time being, and that is what we are getting for dedication on other properties that are developing, because that is what the current Master Street Plan asks for, but we are not widening to the arterial width . Member Mickelsen asked if the 100 foot arterial were to happen, would they take right- of-way from peoples yards. Ms. Ashbeck replied that would have to be determined at the time we actually had a capital project, or some project to look at for widening and how we would transition whether we would put the walk back with the areas that are developing. If the street does get down -graded and we have the opportunity to just swing the sidewalk back and keep it from impacting properties. There are other capital improvement projects where we have had to go as far as to attach the sidewalk in some areas. We don't like to do it, but if it means saving trees, there is any number of alternatives that we would look at. for trying to connect the out parcels that lie in between improved areas. Chairman Bell asked how many other undeveloped parcels would contribute to the traffic on Elizabeth? Ms. Ashbeck reviewed the other undeveloped parcels in the area. Chairman Bell asked what would trigger the need to make the improvements on Elizabeth. • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 19 Ms. Ashbeck stated it would be similar to any of the other Capital Improvement programs. It would not be a specific development project, it would be the cumulative effect that would eventually warrant Elizabeth to be widened to the full minor arterial standard. It would occur much like Prospect Road between Shields and Taft Hill when it was widened, where it made it to the top of the capital improvement list. Member Colton asked about the properties north of this project, located out of the Urban Growth Area, but someday might develop. Planner Haas replied it was all CSU and State property all the way to LaPorte Avenue. Chairman Bell asked for clarification on the roadway in the condition of approval recommended by staff. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the condition that staff was asking for was because the applicant was asking for an emergency access only. Staff feels that there should be opportunities for re -circulation on this site out to the arterial street system. • Planner Haas added that the traffic study has indicated that 65% of the traffic out of this site will be going eastbound, so the concept of the homeowners of the multi -family portion running through the duplex portion would be quite the minority compared to the duplexes running through the multi -family to get to Elizabeth. Ms. Ashbeck added that staff agreed with the developer as far as providing pedestrian connections between the two developments, and that has been done. But, there would be vehicular trips going down Elizabeth or other trips north on Overland. That circulation can be accommodated on -site and staff is not asking for connections through other neighborhoods. It is a better circulation pattern, and would be helpful to not force people to make a left hand turn across the arterial and go through the intersection every time you want to go east on Elizabeth. Member Colton asked if Natural Resources had any concerns with the wildlife in the area. Planner Haas stated that the Natural Resources Department did review it, and did not have any concerns. There is a small wetland on -site, and would be left undisturbed, any parts that would be disturbed would be mitigated in the open space area. • Member Strom asked for the storm drainage questions be responded to. Basil Hamdan, Storm water Utility, addressed the storm drainage issues and that the developer would need a drainage easement from the Happy Heart Farm to drain across Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 20 their property. Or, from a property owner further to the east, which would require the developer to pipe the water down the West Plum channel to the property further to the east. Member Strom asked if there was any reason to believe that this project would adversely affect the neighboring properties in terms of drainage. Mr. Hamdan replied that all they require is that they don't increase the runoff. From what the developer has shown them, is that he could go around the Happy Heart property by going in the right-of-way and then to the property further to the east. There will be more drainage definitely down stream of the Happy Heart Farm. Member Strom asked if it would meet City standards. Mr. Hamdan replied it would. Chairman Bell asked if the proposed Park is really the detention pond area. She asked. if there would just be a bikeway around it. Was this really a park? Mr. Hamdan replied that most of the time the detention areas are dry and only operate during larger storms. It should be called a dry basin, and not a detention pond. You can use it as a multi -functional open space, which is often what you see used. Chairman Bell asked for clarification on the affordability issue. There were points taken. Planner Haas replied that on the site plan there is a note that at least 15% of all units will be dedicated to affordable housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Standards. Chairman Bell asked how many units 15% would be. Planner Haas replied 34 or 35. Member Colton asked where the transit stop would be. Planner Haas located the Transfort stops and future shelters in the area. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Scenic Views P.U.D., Preliminary with the recommendation from staff to put through the connection between the two neighborhoods. Member Strom seconded the motion. 0 • Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 21 Member Strom cited the Findings of Fact from the staff report and the point totals from the LDGS point chart. The motion passed 4-0, with Member Davidson having a conflict of interest. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 0 0