Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/19/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Roll Call: Smith, Schmidt, Stockover, Rollins, Lingle. Members Meyer and Fries were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Jon, Sommer, Maizland, Virata, Bracke, Langenberger, Jackson, Moore and Dairies Citizen Participation: None. Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning hearings 2. Resolution PZ06-12 — Easement Dedication for the Arcadia Development Discussion Items: 3. #58-86J Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Project Development Plan 4. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board to City Council — Adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan 5. #26-06 Review of The Pads at Harmony — Project Development Plan Chairman Lingle completed conflict of interest disclosure statement for the above review Project: Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Project Development Plan, #58-86J Project Description: This is a request for a total of 394 dwelling units (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi -family) on 108.45 gross acres. The proposed buildings will be 2 to 2.5 stories in height. Access to the project will be from Turnberry Road (County Road 11), Brightwater Drive in the Richard's Lake Development, and Hearthfire Drive in the Hearthfire development. This project is located at the northwest corner of Turnberry Road and Brightwater Drive. The property is zoned UE — Urban Estate and LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The allowable minimum net and maximum gross densities in these zoning districts will be met with this development plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner, Steve Olt provided contextual site information. This is a 108-acre site at the northwest corner of Richard's Lake Road and Turnberry Road. The proposal being reviewed tonight includes 394 dwelling units (single family detached, single family attached, and multi -family). The Amendment to the ODP for Richard's Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 12, 1997. It included 682 dwelling units in total, 21,000 square feet of commercial and residential uses, a 15,000 square foot commercial building and a 7-acre neighborhood park site on 181.7 acres. This ODP has since expired. The subject property is the northerly two-thirds of the Amended ODP. The Richard's Lake PUD, Phase 1 — Final was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 4, 2000 for 293 single-family residential lots, 54 multi -family residential dwelling units, 21,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial and residential uses, a 15,000 square foot community building, and a 6.0 acre neighborhood park site on 114.5 acres. Approximately one-half of this phase of development expired three years after final approval due to the lack of engineering improvements required. The expired portion of the Phase 1, Final is included in the Water's Edge at Richard's Lake, PDP. Other developments in the area include the Lind Property Overall Development Plan to the east; Serramonte Highlands, a large -lot residential development in Larimer County to the north; the Hearthfire Development Plan, First and Second Filings, to the north and west of the proposed site. Richard's Lake Road is along the south side of the entire Richard's Lake Project. There are two zoning districts. The Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District (LMN) carries a density range of a minimum five dwelling units per net acre and a maximum of eight dwelling units per gross acre. The other zoning district, the Urban Estate District, has a minimum half acre lot, no more than two units per acre overall. Clustering of homes is allowed as long as 50% of the property is in open space. Clustering has been utilized on this project. Staff has reviewed the project against the City's Land Use Code, Article 3, General Development Standards. With the exception of three standards that have not been met, staff has determined that the development proposal does satisfy the standards in boththe All Development Criteria, Article 3, and the appropriate zoning districts in Article 4. Planner Olt said that the three standards that are not being met are: Section 3.2.3, solar orientation of single family lots, which states that all single family lots less than 15,000 square feet must meet one of the three definitions of a solar oriented lot which deals with the front of the lot being within 30 degrees of true easttwest. The Code reads that at least 65% of the lots that are subject to that ordinance must meet the solar orientation standard. In this proposal, Staff Olt stated 116 out of the 264 lots are subject to the ordinance or 43.6% actually meet the standard. The applicant has submitted an Alternative Compliance Plan. Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and determined that the ability to provide the required number of solar oriented lots is limited due to established street layout. Staff has also determined that the development plan proposed is equal to a plan that would satisfy that standard in the Land Use Code and is recommending approval of the Alternative Compliance Plan for the solar orientation. 2. Applicant has submitted a modification of the standard to two named private drives, Jib Lane and Lateen Lane, to connect to two public streets, Cruiser Lane and Brightwater Drive. Staff Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 3 has determined that this request is not detrimental to the public good and recommends approval of the modification of the standard. 3. Section 3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards deals with the spacing of a limited movement collector or local street intersections with arterial streets. The Land Use Code requires that local street connections to arterial streets are to be at no more than 660 foot spacing to any developable or re -developable property off -site. Per the applicant's plan, the distance from the corner down to the street is about 780 feet instead of 660. Applicant is requesting an Alternative Compliance Request. Staff has determined that this is not detrimental to the public good, and has recommended approval of the Alternative Compliance Plan. Planner Olt stated that the applicant was providing a significantly landscaped berm and a 60 to 70 foot separator from the north property line to the rear lots of the Serramonte Highlands subdivision. He felt that a substantial visual and noise separation was being provided by the applicant. Chair Lingle asked Attorney Eckman if the review criteria for alternative compliance plans were the same as for the modification standard. Eckman replied that the alternative compliance does not require a finding that the proposal is not detrimental to the public good. Therefore, the review is focused on whether or not the plan advances the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complied. Don Tiller, with Vignette Studios, represented the applicant. Also present to represent the applicant were: Bill Swelling and Joe Hemmelgarn with Skyline Meadows Development, the developer, and Terrence Hoaglund and Michelle Alexander with Vignette Studios. The applicant stated that the developer had initiated two reviews with the neighbors. As a result of those meetings, the applicant stated they were sensitive to the Serramonte neighbors to the north and provided a buffer. As a result of the neighborhood meetings, they also agreed to restrict the number of the patio homes bordering Serramonte Highlands to one-story structures with no walk -out basement. The developer's intent was that the homes wouldn't protrude into the view that the Serramonte neighbors have to the south. The applicant has also designed a 60 to 70 foot buffer between the lots and the north edge of the property. They are also retaining an existing equestrian trail in the ELCO easement area. Applicant Tiller discussed the modification to the standard regarding the public drives connecting to more than one public street. They reviewed several alternatives and found that the proposed plan works best. They have also reviewed this plan with the fire authority, and it was suggested that those private drives be named to aid in emergency response efforts. In regards to connectivity, the alternative plan they reviewed would cause the developer to lose units they couldn't afford to lose. Finally, with regard to the solar orientation, applicant believes the architecture of the homes will naturally lend itself to the roof surfaces facing south. Because the City supports both active and passive solar, applicant believes retrofitting with active solar will be much easier because of the south facing roof and that should exceed the 65% requirement. Member Schmidt asked if two-story houses to the south of a one story home would inhibit solar even if it was active solar. Applicant responded that there is a one to three shading aspect and that you need to go back 3 foot horizontally in order not to shade. Given the separation between homes, the applicant felt it was unlikely that there would be roof shading. Member Schmidt also asked if the applicant had considered having two roads run east/west through the area, which would allow the lots to face the other direction. The applicant responded that when they tried to design two roads running east/west with the right-of-way requirements, the development Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 4 started pushing further to the north resulting in a loss of buffering and pedestrian connections. Member Schmidt asked about the amount of open space required for the oil well. Applicant responded that the oil well encompassed one and a half acres. Schmidt asked for an explanation of phasing. Bill Swelling, the developer, responded that phasing is the result of the cost of capital and market absorption. Currently, in northern Colorado, there is a relatively slow absorption rate, probably 2 to 2 and a half homes per month in a development. By using phasing, builders can finish a phase without a huge capital expenditure. They have divided the project into logical areas, and the consumer purchases a home understanding that all the trails, landscaping, etc. will not be in place until all phasing is completed. In relation to phasing, Member Schmidt stated that the berm close to Serramonte Highlands was to be built half in Phase II and half in Phase III. Applicant Swelling stated that they have a commitment to the people in Serramonte that the landscaping and berm would be put in at the time construction was started and that would be put in writing. Member Schmidt also asked if an easement had been approved for the equestrian trail on the ELCO property and, if not, what would happen if ELCO decided they don't want the trail there. Applicant Swalling said that ELCO wanted the trail because they use it for road access, but that an agreement was being prepared. Chair Lingle stated there appears to be 17 lots adjacent to the five on the south edge of Serramonte Highlands. He stated that seemed jarring in terms of a natural transition. He questioned whether the developer had considered making those lots larger and transferring some of the density south of Morningstar or somewhere else within the LMN. Applicant Swalling responded that they had already moved as much of the density to the south as they possibly could and were focused on trying to maximize the width of the buffer to the north bordering Serramonte Highlands. Chair Lingle also stated he felt if the developer is not maintaining control of the product that is built by allowing various builders in the development, how can they guarantee that their solar compliance rationale will be based on what will actually happen. Applicant's representative Hoaglund responded that if the roof gable runs from east to west, a southern solar orientation is very possible. With the code requirements that are in place, even with lots that meet solar requirements, there is nothing that says the houses being built must meet passive or active solar requirements. Chair Lingle then asked if the Land Use Code provided for enforcement of the alternative compliance; i.e., would the building department have to verify that the roof line is running in the right direction. Director Gloss responded that it could be put in the development agreement. He also stated that it would take a substantial effort for each of the building permits to be evaluated against the approved plan to make sure the roof orientation matches what was approved. Member Rollins asked if the City currently monitors north/south facing lots to ensure that homes are built so that the solar orientation requirement is met. Director Gloss responded that the City does not. Public Participation: Joe Bleicher lives at 2509 Turnberry Road. He is speaking on behalf of the residents that live on Turnberry Road. The Turnberry residents feel they had an agreement with the previous developer that before the 200`h home was built, a frontage road would be built along Turnberry Road. Now that the original PUD has expired and there is a new developer, the Turnberry residents are recommending that the Planning & Zoning Board hold approval of the Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Development until an acceptable agreement can be reached to either (1) return to the trigger of 200 building permits, combined with the traffic volume trigger of 4,000 vehicles per day past the Turnberry Road homes, or (2) establish as a revised trigger of 350 building permits, an increase of 150 building permits from the original trigger of 200, that excludes consideration of traffic volume and other factors. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 5 As part of his presentation, portions of the videos from the May 12, 1997 and May 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meetings were viewed. Patrick Renworth lives in Serramonte Highlands at 1817 Serramonte Drive. His home will have five patio homes directly on his back property line. Mr. Renworth feels the LMN zoning adjacent to their neighborhood is too dense to be adjacent to the Serramonte Highlands neighborhood. Mr. Renworth stated that when he purchased the property in 1977, city plans indicated that lots adjacent to his property would be one acre per lot. He has written to Steve Olt three times to request a buffer strip variance. He is requesting that the City work with the builder to provide a more appropriate zoning adjacent to Serramonte Highlands that will be more compatible with the rural characteristics of his neighborhood. Jerry Dauth is also a homeowner in Serramonte Highlands and is on the board of directors. His address is 1925 Serramonte Drive. He stated that the proposal, which would provide 17 lots backing up to 5 of the Serramonte Highlands lots, is inappropriate. He compared previous development in the area which had been approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Hearthfire has five of their homes fronting up to approximately four Serramonte homes and has a nice buffer and transition. Four of the homes in the Country Club Road Subdivision back up to five homes in the Richard's Lake Subdivision. He requested that the Board direct the developer to reconfigure the transition. Karl Swenson is president of the Serramonte Highlands Homeowners' Association. He echoed the concerns of the previous property owners, and said that the planning and zoning code requires that there be a transition from high density to low density from the City to the County borderline. He asked that the plan be denied. Charles Ward is the vice president of the Serramonte Highlands Homeowners' Association. He stated that a 4 foot berm with trees does not provide a transition between the two, three, and five acre lots of Serramonte Highlands and the building that is proposed. He requested that the plan be denied and that the developer be asked to resubmit the plan with a variance for a greater transition and a zoning variance on the northern edge. Steve Stansfield lives on 2413 Turnberry Road. His concern was traffic. He stated that they back out of their driveway onto what is typically a 45 to 50 mile per hour traffic pattern. While he does not oppose the development, he is concerned about increased traffic due to the addition of this new development and the current developments of Centex, KB, and Maple Hill. Chair Lingle requested that staffmember Baker address road improvements and any agreements the previous developer made and the City's roll in those agreements. Per the City of Fort Collins policy, roadway improvements are funded by development, and there needs to be a certain level of development to fund, pay for, and trigger those roadway improvements. Once the trigger is reached, the developers write checks to the City for those improvements. The trigger at that location is 200 building permits at Richard's Lake, 145 at Centex, and 132 at Maple Hill. Mr. Baker has designed the frontage road in conjunction with the development and that frontage road plan is approved. He stated that the building rate isn't as aggressive as it has been in past years, but the building permit triggers are in the development agreement and the City is still collecting money from the developments to fund roadway improvements. At the time it makes economic, traffic, and safety sense for the City, those road improvements will be constructed, including the frontage road. Member Schmidt asked how close the triggers were on the other developments. Staff Baker responded there are about 100 building permits in the Lynd subdivision and 50 in Maple Hill. There is Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 6 a trigger of 200 in Richard's Lake and there are only 172 lots remaining, so the 200 permit number cannot be accomplished. More homes will have to be approved before that trigger can be reached. Member Schmidt asked if some type of temporary fix could be created to help the residents on Turnberry Road. Staff Baker stated that he felt it would be difficult to squeeze in a recirculation roadway system to eliminate backing into the roadway at this point. Member Schmidt then asked if staff had any idea when the trigger would be reached on building permits. Staff Baker responded that he did not have any idea. He also said that street oversizing is the implementation element of transportation with new development and that is part of what he looks at to make sure it makes sense to put roadway improvements in when the traffic volume builds to a level that those permanent improvements are needed. Chair Lingle asked if the money generated from the development agreements are held for the project and not transferred to other projects in the community. Staff Baker responded that the street oversizing fund is a city-wide fund. Building permit fees are collected city-wide, and they are expended city-wide. Chair Lingle asked if that was different than the check received when the trigger is reached. Staff Baker replied that there is an additional exaction the City receives from developers. That exaction is for frontage improvements, sidewalk landscaping and other items along the front of the property. Chair Lingle said there was a letter from the neighborhood sharing a concern that the money received from the trigger will be moved elsewhere. Staff Baker responded that the developers' checks written for the trigger points are earmarked for that frontage and that it doesn't go anywhere else. The street oversizing portion is the only thing that is used city-wide. Chair Lingle also asked about the percentage split for oversizing. Staff Baker responded that the typical split between development and street oversizing is the developers pay about 20% of the road improvement costs along their frontage on each side and then street oversizing picks up 60% of the roadway costs for arterial roads. The majority of the expense is street oversizing. Member Rollins asked that of the three things that trigger improvements, number of building permits, traffic volumes, and safety, what is the trigger for traffic volumes. Staff Baker responded that the City typically looks at about 5500 vehicles per day on a two-lane roadway with no turn lanes before the level is reached that require additional improvements. Currently, that roadway is experiencing about 3,000 vehicles per day. Member Rollins also asked about increased speed due to temporary improvements. She wanted to know how the City is monitoring safety. Staffmember Baker cited that they look for additional individuals searching for gaps in traffic to make left turns as more of a safety aspect than just higher speed. Ward Stanford of the City's Traffic Department said that the cues they look to are rate of accidents and increased in speeds over a given amount of time. Member Schmidt asked if the developer is still going to foot the bill for the frontage road project. Staffmember Baker responded that there is a joint funding agreement between the developers, and that they all had to contribute in some way. Maple Hill had to give up a lot of frontage along their property to shift the road over and also had to bring a lot of fill up to make that roadway prism stable. The same was true with Centex and Richard's Lake. At the trigger point for those building permits, they will include an amount for the frontage road agreements in their exaction. Chair Lingle asked if Director Gloss could provide some history; i.e., there was some testimony that in 1997 the zoning changed. It became LMN from something that seemed to be less dense. Director Gloss responded that he is not sure how the land was zoned prior to the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997. But with the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, the land was zoned LMN. LMN Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 7 requires the density range of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum of eight per gross acre. After 1997, there was an amended development plan and a preliminary plan for the remainder of the Richard's Lake property, and that did have larger lots along the north property line. That was a different developer, and both plans were withdrawn. Member Schmidt asked if the project was approved in its entirety and the developer built streets and infrastructure for a portion of it, and the PDP expired, what would happen. Also, she asked if the next developer would have the same density requirements. Director Gloss responded that there are two triggers that must be met. The first is that within three years after the Planning & Zoning Board's approval, the developer would have to have all or a portion of the property in for final compliance review and approval. If that didn't happen, the project development plan would expire. Once that happens, the development agreement is dated and the project is recorded. Then the applicant has an obligation to reach what is called substantial completion of the project. Within three years after that, the infrastructure must be completed. That includes all streets, utilities, storm water facilities, and street lights. Once that is done and the property is totally vested, then the project wouldn't expire. If none of that is accomplished, the plan is basically null and void. Any new developers would be required to meet the standards and requirements of the Land Use Code under the present LMN zoning district. Member Schmidt then asked if the density requirement is modifiable. Staff Gloss responded that the developer could request a modification to the minimum density. Member Rollins asked if there had been any previous requests for modification to the density. Staff Gloss responded that since 1997 the City has not approved any modifications for the lessening of the density in the LMN zone district. Chair Lingle asked applicant Tiller if he had any responses to resident concerns about the buffer transition. Applicant Tiller said that he would like to respond to that as well as other areas of concern. He stated the developer has reduced the density as much as he feels he can, he feels he has provided generous buffering to the north, including the screening by the landscape buffer as well as restricting the homes along the north edge to one-story homes, dwelling units have been reduced, there is no commercial component in the plan which should reduce usage of the site, and the street connection into Serramonte Highlands from this neighborhood has been removed. Lingle stated that there were four actions that the Board needed to take. They are (1) the alternative compliance plan for the solar access; (2) the modification request for the private drives; (3) the alternative compliance plan for the spacing of streets on to the arterial; and (4) the PDP. Regarding Section 3.2.3(b) of the Land Use Code, the solar access lots, Chair Lingle stated that he would not support the alternative compliance plan because the developer wanted to reduce the number of lots required to have solar access by one-third. The lack of north/south lots means a lot of passive solar ability would be lost, and that active solar would be required. Member Schmidt agreed. Member Smith agreed with the developer's plan. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board deny the alternative compliance request to Section 3.2.3(B) solar access orientation and shading because it is not equal to or better than a compliant plan. Member Rollins seconded the motion. Motion was approved 3-2. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 8 Applicant Tiller then requested that the application be withdrawn at this time so they could continue to modify it and present an alternative to the Planning & Zoning Board. Chair Lingle asked Attorney Eckman if the PDP could be approved without the approval of the alternative compliance. Attorney Eckman stated that there could be a conditional approval, but he didn't feel that was what the applicant was suggesting. The decision was made to act upon the modification and the alternative compliance as a means of giving the applicant some direction in preparing their alternative. Member Schmidt made a motion for the approval of the modification of Section 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) based on the fact that the modification is not detrimental to the public good and that it promotes the general purpose of the standard. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. There was discussion regarding the alternative compliance plan for spacing of the streets. Member Stockover suggested that the vote be tabled until the Board is presented with the final plan. Lingle responded that he felt it would be valuable to give the applicant some direction through a vote. Staff Olt responded that if it was approved tonight and the revised plan doesn't require it, the alternative compliance would become irrelevant with the Board's decision on a subsequent project development plan. After a year the alternative compliance would expire. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the modification to 3.6.2(L)(1)(b), primary access in a single family development, given that it is not detrimental to the public good and it serves the purpose of the plan equally well as a compliant plan. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Chair Lingle then asked for comments from the Board members regarding the PDP. Member Rollins said that she was concerned about Serramonte Highlands' resident comments regarding the density. She suggested that some different type of transition be created on the border to Serramonte Highlands. Member Schmidt said she thought the developer should give some consideration to the type of living styles that are going to be there and how compatible that is with the Serramonte Highlands residents, and that she didn't feel the answer lies entirely in larger lot sizes. She also felt that it was important that any commitments be put on the development plan. Schmidt also suggested that instead of the community building being across the street from the park, it might be better to have them a little more closely connected. Chair Lingle stated that there are a lot of positive things in the plan, and he didn't want the discussion to take a negative turn. He liked the overall layout of the different density ranges and felt it was a nice mix of product types. He said he would like the developer to look at modifying the density and maybe provide larger lots along the northern fringe to better transition. He also stated he would like to see that flow down the east/west streets so it would meet the solar access requirements. Member Schmidt suggested that density could go down to 4.9 or something in that range. Applicant Swalling stated that if they have to meet the solar requirements, they will lose green space and walking area that is very marketable from the standpoint of people being able to walk from one end to the other while crossing the fewest streets possible. He asked for guidance in that regard. Chair Lingle responded that he was uncomfortable designing the project. Member Schmidt suggested that City staff could help. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 9 Chair Lingle also commented to the people in the surrounding neighborhoods that the triggers for street improvements are in the City's court, not the developers, and they would be wise to contact their City Council representatives to make sure they understand their desires need to be a priority for the street oversizing fund. Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board postpone the Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Project Development Plan No. 58-86(J) indefinitely. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan and related items, including amendments to the Structure Plan, amendments to Division 4.20 (Limited Commercial District) of the Land Use Code, and rezoning of 4.8 acres to Limited Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Timothy Wilder, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department presented the proposed Northwest Subarea Plan. Also presenting was Russ Legg, planner for Larimer County and Amy Kosala from Clarion Associates. The proposed Northwest Subarea Plan has been developed by a City staff and consultant team with extensive public input. The 18-month planning process, initiated in the spring of 2005, is scheduled for adoption by City Council on November 21, 2006. The primary elements of the Plan include vision, goals, policies and strategies, including: • Framework Plan, • Open Land and Trails Plan • Transportation Plan • Guidelines for the Urban/Rural Edge • Action Plan. The Action Plan is the matrix of the strategies and identifies the lead responsibility, start date, and possible funding sources. Based on the proposed Framework Plan, Plan policy LU-1.2, and Strategy LU-1.2a, the following amendments to the City Structure Plan Map are needed to: (1) change the area west of Overland Trail from Urban Estate to Foothills, (2) change various areas from Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and Urban Estate to Commercial Corridor District, and (3) include a new stream corridor ("Soldier Creek Restoration"). Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 10 In addition, based on Subarea Plan policy LU-2.1 and Strategy LU-2.1a, amendment are needed to Division 4.20 (Limited Commercial District) of the Land Use Code and a rezoning is needed on 4.8 acres near the northeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Shields Street. The public process for this plan was unusual in that a Citizen Advisory Committee was not established, but rather an on -going and extensive outreach program was initiated. The latest meeting, held in July, was well attended and the draft plan was presented. The vision the residents had for the area was discussed at one of the numerous meetings, and the following items were discussed. Residents wanted to retain the country feel of the area and their views of the foothills, and would like to see more open space developed to preserve the open lands that are in the area. Residents did not favor extensive additions of commercial uses. They desired pleasant and safe travel, valued their independence and reliance on the neighbors and themselves to get things done and also wanted to maintain stable neighborhoods. Residents also felt the historical and cultural heritage was important. Public Participation: Mary Elizabeth Lenahan spoke. She is the president of the Northwest Neighbors FC. On behalf of the Northwest Neighbors FC, she presented a list of the considerations for the group. This list is attached to and made a part of the permanent record. David Neighbors, who lives on Taft Hill Road spoke. He stated that the City needs to be cautious about letting developers build in the infill areas. He felt it was the Planning & Zoning Board's responsibility to ensure that development matches the existing neighborhoods. Planner Timothy Wilder responded to Mary Elizabeth Lenahan's comments regarding the land to the west of Overland Trail. After discussions with the team, it was decided that because of the large wetlands in the area, the desires of the community and the owners' rights, it was decided that the residential foothills zoning was most appropriate. Regarding connections to bike trails, there is some work being done on a connection along Overland Trail down to the Poudre River Trail. In response to Mary Elizabeth Lenahan's comments, Larimer County staffmember Russ Legg stated there there is discussion about safety at the Poudre High School on West Mulberry. Member Schmidt moved the Planning & Zoning Board make a recommendation that City Council adopt the Northwest Subarea Plan, including the three items on page 3 of the staff report: the amendments to the City Structure Plan, the revisions to division 4.20, the limited commercial, and the rezoning of the 4.8 acres near the northeast corner of West Vine and North Shields Street. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Member Schmidt thanked everyone for their work on the plan and stated she felt they did a great job. Chair Lingle concurred. Planner Wilder thanked the consulting team and Larimer County Planner Russ Legg. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 11 Project: Pads at Harmony, Project Development Plan - #26-06 Project Description: This is a request for a Basic Industrial and Non -Retail Employment Activity Center and a Convenience Shopping Center development on 9 acres located on East Harmony Road at Snow Mesa Drive. This plan proposes 38,365 square feet of gross leasable building floor area (containing bank, medical office, office, and restaurant uses), with 211 parking spaces on 3.95 net acres west of Snow Mesa Drive; and, 35,080 square feet of gross leasable building floor area (containing bank, office, restaurant, and retail uses), with 150 parking spaces, on 3.14 net acres east of Snow Mesa Drive. This property is in the HC — Harmony Corridor Zoning District. Staff Recommendation: Approval Chair Lingle stated he had a conflict of interest with this project and turned the meeting over to Vice - Chair Schmidt. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chief Planner Ted Shepard stated that this project is in the basic industrial non -retail employment activity portion of the Harmony Corridor Zone. It also includes a convenience shopping center, an affirmative use in this area. It is a nine -acre site, bisected by Snow Mesa Drive. Snow Mesa Drive is signalized at Harmony Road and will continue north into this project for a short segment and will terminate at the Harmony Mobile Home Park. There will be 38,000 square feet of gross building area containing a bank, medical office, and a restaurant on the west side of Snow Mesa Drive. On the east side of Snow Mesa Drive, there will be a neighborhood convenience shopping center. Two modifications are being requested: (1) the amount of secondary use that is permitted in this portion of the Harmony Corridor that exceeds the maximum allowable of 25%, and (2) a reduction by 10 feet to the normal 80 foot setback along Harmony Road. The variance would allow building within 70' of Harmony Road. Staff is recommending approval of the two modifications and the PDP. Applicant Michael Chalona with Land Images, Inc. presented the project. The property owner, Bellisimo Construction, Inc. was also present. He discussed the project as well as the two modifications they are proposing. He stated that the goal was to have a higher standard of architectural character than that set forth in the Land Use Code. Public Participation: Donnie Schaefer spoke. He lives in the Harmony Mobile Home Park and is concerned they will be forced to move. Planner Shepard responded that, although the history of the Pioneer Mobile Home Park is certainly foremost in people's minds, this situation is different in that the Harmony Mobile Home Park is in much better shape and is of higher quality. He did say it is an economic issue, and that he does not have an economic analysis background. The subject is outside of the scope of what can be regulated by the Land Use Code. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 12 Vice -Chair Schmidt asked about traffic flow. Applicant Chalona responded that Snow Mesa Drive will be a 24-foot wide private drive. They were asked to make it a wider, higher speed thoroughfare to the traffic circle but they wanted to keep it smaller to control speeds. Vice -Chair Schmidt asked if the mobile home park residents enter and exit through Snow Mesa Drive. The applicant responded that it was the main entrance and possibly the only entrance. Vice -Chair Schmidt asked how large the park was. Resident Schaeffer responded that there are approximately 300 to 400 mobile homes in the park. He also stated there are some concerns about safety because the children from the park board the school bus at the entrance to the park. Planner Shepard commented the City could have asked for a 54 foot right-of-way, but that would severely impact the project and would cause higher volume on the street than was intended. The 24 foot drive aisle with head -in parking will calm traffic. Vice -Chair Schmidt also asked if the office buildings were an acceptable use. Planner Shepard replied that office buildings are an acceptable use. Vice -Chair Schmidt stated the applicant said the setback would provide for more building articulation. She wanted to know if the City felt comfortable with that commitment. Planner Shepard stated the applicant said they would exceed the standards of 3.5.3(D) of the Commercial Building Standards that call for a distinct base, middle and top. The applicant also committed on the record that wherever there is a building fagade that is 100' or longer, that the recesses and projections would be no less than 3% of that. Planner Shepard stated that is out of the big box standard. The City will hold the applicant to what he committed to at the time they do the final plan. After the final plan is recorded, there will be a building permit review. Anything that deviates from that would come through the minor amendment process. Attorney Eckman suggested the Board condition the modification on the applicant's commitment to specified articulation or by putting language into the development agreement. Vice -Chair Schmidt stated that would make her more comfortable. Planner Shepard stated that would be acceptable. Member Smith stated he was not in favor of approving the setback modification. Planner Shepard reiterated for clarity that the berming along Harmony Road would not be a solid continuous uninterrupted berm. It will be punctuated by the requirement for some storm water retention, meaning there will be areas that won't have a berm. Member Stockover said the setback modification was probably not necessary. Perhaps the applicant could consider constructing the buildings 10' less deep. He also stated he felt the articulation on the front side was important. The applicant suggested that for any building which is going to be between the 70 foot and 80 foot setback, that the developer would follow the 3% articulation. Member Schmidt felt that was a good solution, and stated this hearing is a good time to get it on the record Member Rollins moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the request for a modification of the standards set forth in Section 4.21(E)(1) of the Land Use Code with the condition that any building that is less than 80 feet would be required to exceed Section 3.5.3(D), and would also be required to comply with the big box standard for any building fayade length of 100 feet or greater, and there would have to be recesses, projections, or articulations equaling 3% of the length of the building. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-0. Planning & Zoning Board October 19, 2006 Page 13 Member Smith asked if the applicant was agreeable. The applicant responded yes. Vice -Chair Schmidt stated the second modification would be the percentage of secondary uses increasing from 25% to 41 %, Section 4.21(D)(2) and asked for any discussion. Member Smith responded he felt the modification was acceptable. Vice -Chair Schmidt asked Planner Shepard about requirements in the Harmony Corridor about the type of restaurants that are acceptable. Planner Shepard responded that standard and fast-food (carry -out) restaurants are acceptable, but a drive- in/drive-through restaurant is prohibited. Member Smith moved the Planning & Zoning Board approve the modification of the standard stated in Section 4.21(D)(2) and stated he believed the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposal would result in a plan that promotes the standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-0. Member Smith moved that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Project Development Plan for the Pads at Harmony, No. 26-06 as proposed. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. eron Gloss, Director Dave Lingle, Board Ch