Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD ODP - ODP130002 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 16 Other Member Kirkpatrick requested a review of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan at an upcoming work session. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 15 Member Schneider asked if the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan for an annexation of any county properties. Shepard said annexations are voluntary unless they are enclaves. Shepard said properties have to be enclaves for no less than 3 years before they can be contemplated for annexation. Board Discussion Member Hart moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approved a request for Modification to Standard Section 2.3.2(H)(2)(d) — L-M-N housing types because the granting of the modification is not detrimental to the public good and as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is because the Modification results in a loss of only ten dwelling units of a fourth housing type while the M-M-N zoned areas have a potential of providing 267 dwelling units thus significantly contributing to the mix of housing types in the neighborhood in a meaningful way. Also as submitted, it will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the Modification is requested. This is because general purpose of the standard, ensuring that neighborhoods over 30 acres have a diverse mix of housing types, will be accomplished primarily by the use of two zone districts (L-M-N and M-M-N) versus a development standard in one zone district (L-M-N) and included in the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. Member Hatfield said he's happy to see development moving to the northeast. He thinks it'll be a good development. Member Schneider said he's not opposed to the ODP. He just wants to express the concerns of the area. He likes the way things were moved around in order to get the school back out there. Member Heinz said she's happy to see the involvement of the original planning team as it maintains the integrity of the original project. She thinks it'll be great. Member Hart said he'd like to thank staff and the applicant for starting to take care of development in that part of town. Chair Smith said the board has expressed to staff their concern about development patterns in the southeast. He said if we're trying to do a really good job with bike and pedestrian connections and how convenient and safe they are, we're going to have to be deliberate in that review at the PDP level. He said it's a good plan and it'll start to move the city in that direction. Motion was approved 7:0. Member Hart moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Waterfield Overall Development Plan, #ODP130002 based on the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 14 by the HOA (homeowners association). Buffering will be planned not only for the wetlands but for the Larimer/Weld Ditch on the north property line. A neighborhood center is planned in the northwest corner along where Conifer Drive will eventually go through. The ODP, as proposed, incorporates 4 housing types. The project includes 3 housing types in the LMN area and a multi -family project in the MMN portion. They submitted a modification request to be allowed to do just three housing types instead 3 in the LMN because the ODP already provides at least 4 housing types when you look at Bull Run (which has 176 units). She said there will be another multi -family project in addition to that. Ripley said the street alignments and classifications are consistent with the city's Master Street Plan and Connectivity Standards. She outlined how. Ripley reviewed the purpose of an ODP and the criteria for approving a Modification of Standard. Staff Response Ted Shepard said with regard to a question about the regional trail at work session, the regional trail will follow the power line easements. Public input None ' Board Questions Member Hart said one of the major concerns voiced by the public was the urban/rural conflict. He asked staff for some background. Shepard said it's characteristic of the whole northeast quadrant of the city because of the irrigation ditches. He said for decades the senior water rights have allowed a lot of cultivation. What works to mitigate the conflict is on the west side of this project you have the benefit of open space provided by the school, the park and the wetlands which combined are about 35 acres. There is also an Xcel Public Service gas easement that is approximately 50 feet wide that allows for some separation. There is a ditch easement for the Eaton Ditch that contributes to open space. That makes for opportunities for co -existence. Shepard said it's an issue on the growing fringe of our city. This one happens to have some unique attributes that both contribute to the mitigation. Member Schneider asked if a wild life impact study was done. Shepard said the primary ecological attribute in this area is in the wetland. The wetland is unique in it's not an intermittent stream (an estuary). It is a land depression. Shepard said wildlife will be protected by the protection of the wetland and its buffer. Member Schneider said his other concerns are traffic. He understands that development pays its way. What the impact to existing roadways. Traffic Operation staff member Ward Stanford said the real study will come with the PDP. Schneider asked if that would also address overall connectivity with trails. Stanford said trail connections are outside his purview. Transportation Planning would better speak to how that will grow. Schneider asked about multi -modal plans for connectivity. Director Kadrich those are the kinds of issues that will be looked at during the PDP. She said directors of the various disciplines have been working together to make sure we get the board that information at the time of PDP review. Member Heinz asked about the `stub's and connectivity. Shepard said at the ODP level we look at collectors and arterials. It just so happens we know where the local streets will be as well. The ODP complies with the Master Street Plan as it's showing Conifer coming in from the west and sweeping in a 45 degree arc and crossing the Eaton Ditch to seine that area of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. That will tie into a north -south collector street probably called Bar Harbor Drive if it's extended due south from Mountain Vista Drive. "New" Vine is shown in its proper alignment. It will be stubbed to the west property line as required by Section 3.6.3. Heinz asked if the project will have cul-de-sacs or will they be required to connect to other developments. Shepard said at the PDP stage we will be looking at that. Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 13 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff Presentation Chief Planner Ted Shepard said at one point, Waterfield was an active project and Bull Run Apartments was developed as the first phase. Except for the apartments, the project lapsed and is now considered expired. As a new project, the ODP is now subject to the recommendations of the Mountain Vista Sub- area Plan as amended in 2009 and the Master Street Plan. The adoption of these policies now requires the CDP to show the realigned "New Vine" Drive, an arterial roadway located parallel and about one - quarter mile north of existing East Vine Drive. This new alignment is designed to, reduce congestion associated with the railroad crossings between North College Avenue and North Timberline Road. Provisions in the CDP are made for connecting to the future City Trail along the Eaton Ditch and for a trail around the wetland area. In general, the CDP complies with the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan. Shepard said a Modification of Standard is requested to Section 4.5(D) (2) which requires four housing types in the L-M-N zone district and whereas the applicant is requesting three. Applicant Presentation Jim Dullea is a Principle with Parker Land Investments. They believe the staff report does a very good job of not only describing their application but goes through all the required LUC approval criteria. Their plan is to do a short presentation which focuses on elements and highlights the staff report. Their team is available to answer questions. That team includes his partner Curley Risheill; Linda Ripley of Ripley Design (planning consultant), Bud Curtis of Northern Engineering (civil engineer) and Matt Delich of Delich and Associates (transportation consultant). Dullea said they became involved with this project over a year ago. They found the project had sat dormant for a number of years -- the land use approvals had lapsed since the building of the Bull Run Apartments. He said both the Transportation Master Plan and zoning had changed. They knew it was going to be important to understand the priorities of the city as it relates to this property. Their goals were to work in partnership with staff to address all the relevant issues, to finish what was started, and to establish what this project can do that benefit the community at large, especially their neighbors. Dullea said a goal of the Transportation Master Plan was the building of "nevi' Vine is going to be an important component of improving traffic circulation at the Timberline Intersection. Because it's a part of a network of larger improvements, ultimately it's going to be a large part of enhancing traffic along Vine. He said realistically, it's not until individual projects are approved and built that the goals within those master plans are implemented. The Waterfield ODP is one of the first steps in reaching those goals. He said they will bring back the synergy of the park, the school and the open space by putting them all together again. It was important for everybody to get that synergy back. Linda Ripley provided a history of the CDP from 1997 forward. She said the biggest changes were the realignment of Vine Drive and an update the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. As a part of that process the Bull Run Apartment area and 12-13 acres north of that was rezoned to MMN. With that all the approvals of the original PDP lapsed. Despite all those changes, the current developers are really excited about the possibilities for the property and getting it back on track. Ripley said the ODP before the board tonight recreates the original vision of getting the park, the school and the natural area all together so it can be enjoyed by the community and the neighborhood. She said there is a letter from Poudre School District in the board's packet that addresses their commitment to changing sites. The details on how that will work will happen later. Ripley said the applicant has agreed to dedicate additional property to the city park department so they can build an 8 acre park. The wetland area will remain a natural area that will be owned and maintained Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 12 ember Hart moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard for Se ion 4.5(E) (2) (b) regarding height and mass as proposed with this PDP in that it would be detri ntal to the public good and the modification meets the applicable requirements of ection 2.8.2(H) eca use the plan reduces the visual impact of the large footprint by providin multiple recesses a projections from the building and the building is one story. It only di s from the standard in a urinal and inconsequential and is based on the findings of fact a conclusion in the staff report. ember Hatfield seconded the motion. Member Kirkpatrick sae ith a standard of 20,000 square feet, 42,000 seems ' e a lot but the reason we have a modification pro ss is because we recognize that we have a re prescriptive Land Use Code and that it isn't the best r all scenarios. Given the unique needs o long term care facility and their unique needs from a license /State Health Department standpoi , she thinks it makes a lot of sense. She thinks the applicant ha one above and beyond to m our code and to reconcile that in the upgrades they've done in aesthete massing, and scale to ance the experience for the residents. Member Carpenter complimented staff on a job ell do . She thinks it was a difficult project and the way they approached it by basically taking care of bjections of the neighborhood. It is exemplary. Member Heinz complimented the applicant forward to seeing the project. , Member Hart said the neighbors by project looks like. He thinks the of the neighborhood. The motion passed for a way t worked with the neighborhood. She looks in the process made a ' nificant difference in what this s gone a long way toward ing to accommodate the needs Member Hatfiel made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve he Morningstar Assisted Livi &Memory Care Project Development Plan, PDP130024 based o the findings, facts and clusion as stated in the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the n. The mo ' n passed tio7:0. Project: Waterfield Overall Development Plan, #ODP130002 Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development for a parcel of land located generally at the northwest corner of East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road. The parcel is 116.89 acres. There are two zone districts on the parcel: L-M-N — 103.57 acres and M-M-N — 13.32 acres. Proposed land uses include residential, neighborhood center, public neighborhood park, public elementary school and open space. The project does not include the existing Bull Run Apartments and the former Plummer School. There is a Request for Modification of Standard to address the mix of housing types. Recommendation: Approval of the ODP and the Modification of Standard Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2014 Page 2 Chair Smith asked if staff or any member of the audience or board wished to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. A member of the audience requested Terra Vida II Apartments PDP to be moved to discussion. Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consisted of the Minutes of the October 10, 2013 Hearing, 3 Mile Plan Update, Mail Creek Annexation and Zoning, Foothills Redevelopment ODP, and Provincetown File 3 One Year Extension of Vested Rights. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3 Terra Vida II Apartments PDP, #PDP130028 7. Old Town Flats —Block 23 PDP, # PDP130022 8. Morningstar Assisted Living & Memory Care PDP, #PDP130024 9. Waterfield ODP, # ODP130002 Project: Terra Vida II Apartments Project Development Plan, # PDP130028 Description: This is a request for 276 apartments on 10.2 acres located between Lady n Drive, Cinquefoil Lane, Precision Drive and the planned extension of Le ever \ Drive. There would be ten, three-story apartment buildings plus a 6 0 square foot office/clubhouse, pool and picnic area along with nine mixe a dwelling units. The site is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. Recommendation: Awroval of the Modification of Standard and the PDP Hearing Testimony, Written Corftnlents and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard said the a icant is the same d oper as the existing Terra Vida Apartments located one block to the south. This project s on referred to as Presidio Apartments during the plan review process b He said multi -family and mixed -use dwelling Employment Activity Center of the Harmony names at a later date for marketing purposes.) permitted within the Basic Industrial Non -Retail he PDP complies with the applicable standards of both the Harmony Corridor Plan and t -c zone. F er, the PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards wi t>4o exceptions. Two difications of Standards have been requested. The first, a Modificati of Standard to Section 3.5.2 (1) is recommended to allow the entrances on Buildings 5 an to be located more than 200 feet fro a public sidewalk and to allow their entrances to not fa a public street as a design consideration to ' prove internal circulation to the clubhouse. The cond, a Modification to Section 3.5.2(G) (1) (a) is re mended to allow the rear elevation of thre arages to have a length that exceeds 55 feet. Staff recom nds approval. ampbell of Campbell Architects said they met criteria in all respects for the project ey are not for any waivers. He's available for questions. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Vidergar, Wray, Shepard, Ex, Levingston, Gloss, Virata, Holland, Stanford, Olson, Gingerich, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the October 10, 2013 Hearing 2. 3 Mile Plan Update 4. Mail Creek Annexation & Zoning, #ANX130001 5. Foothills Redevelopment Overall Development Plan, # ODP130004 6. Provincetown Filing 3, 1 Year Extension of Vested Rights, #73-82X/Y