Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION - PDP (RE-SUBMITTAL) - 26-00 - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGPlanning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 12 Member Meyer commented to a letter from a citizen with concerns about traffic. The issue was discussed at length at the worksession and she just wanted her to know that and if she would have any questions, to please call Planner Shepard at the Planning Department. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Big Horn Village II, Project Development Plan, #15-01 Project Description: Request for a 56 unit multi -family complex located along the east side of City Park Avenue and south of University Avenue. The project is located on 3.6 acres of land and will yield a gross density of 15.5 units/acre. The property is zoned MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Planner Barkeen reviewed the site plan including parking, landscaping, lighting plan, historic preservation and elevations. Planner Barkeen stated that the applicant was requesting a modification to Section 3.5.2(C)(1) — Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. That Section of the Code requires that all units have access to be within 200 feet of a public sidewalk. This site is relatively long and narrow and is confined to its access points. It is developed on the north and south sides so the only access points are to:City Park Avenue. With the 200 foot requirement, the remaining interior portion of the site would be undevelopable if we adhere to the strict application of the Code, therefore the applicant is asking for a modification. Planner Barkeen went on to say that the applicant would also be providing a pedestrian access to University Avenue through the project to the north. This would be a proposed sidewalk connection. Planner Barkeen reviewed slides of the area for the Board. Planner Barkeen also reviewed for the Board what trees and vegetation on the property would stay, be removed and mitigated. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 11 Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department replied that construction traffic is normally dealt with at the time the development construction permit is issued for the property. That is when the developer plans on doing grading and utility installation. If there are concerns, staff will specify construction traffic locations and limitations. For this site, they should take as much as they can, access off of Elizabeth Street. They will probable have to take some access through the site because of the ditch that splits the site and the fact that until the box culvert could be built, they would not have access to the other side, which they may need to get built and completed as well. Member Bernth moved to approve a modification of standard to Section 3.5.2(C)(2) — Street Facing Facades. He referred to Section C on Page 11 of the staff report for the justification. Also in granting of this modification it would not be detrimental to the public good. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved to approve a modification of standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Residential Building Setbacks — Arterial Streets. He referred to Sections A, B and D of the Staff Report. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved to approve a modification of standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Residential Building Setbacks — Non -Arterial Streets. He referred to Sections A, B and E of the Staff Report. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Bernth moved for approval of Peak View Estates, PDP, #26-00. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig asked staff to stay on top of the issue of construction traffic in the area. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 10 to help facilitate the neighborhood look. They wanted to create a community at large where people are welcome as well as proud to live where they are living. Mr. Leffler discussed another modification regarding setbacks. On West Elizabeth the requirement for the road is that there is a 30-foot setback from right-of-way. They are requesting a setback variance from 30-feet to 20-feet, to allow them to have this type of orientation with the building structures that they have. The last modification has to do with one building and a variance of about a 1 foot setback variance from the setback requirement of 15 feet. It would be from 15 feet to 14 feet. Public Input There was none. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the modification request from 30 feet to 20 feet and was it not a 15 foot setback. Planner Shepard replied that the standard requires the setback to be 30 feet. It refers to arterial streets. Elizabeth is classified as a minor arterial. Staff interpreted very conservatively saying it has to have the 30-foot setback, it doesn't so lets bring the modification to the Board. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if any other modifications along this segment of Elizabeth have been granted, or variances to the LDGS to reduce the setback. Planner Shepard replied he did not believe the Board had because the previous projects along Elizabeth Street were done under the LDGS, which did not have a setback standard. Member Craig asked about the neighborhood concern about lighting on the private drive. Planner Shepard replied that staff has discussed the concern with the applicant and the applicant has determined that there will be no pole lighting on the private drives. The lighting will be building mounted. Member Craig asked about construction traffic and how did city staff plan on mitigating that. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 9 Board the location of the wildlife corridor adjacent to the canal and stated that it also ran adjacent to the property on the eastside and also along the westside of a portion of the canal. There are significant setbacks that were put into place here that would benefit the canal. There is a 20-foot green space area that is incorporated to benefit the wildlife corridor as well as an additional 40 and 80 feet of wildlife corridor that was incorporated in another two areas. Mr. Leffler reviewed for the Board the entire wildlife corridor in the area. Mr. Leffler discussed the concern of downstream flooding that occurs periodically from the canal. He stated that the discussion was how could they institute some features and structures to help facilitate and control the downstream flooding issues. What they have been able to do was incorporate an oversized detention area that not only takes into consideration the stormwater runoff for the development as well as oversizing for that They also have incorporated into what will be a spillway and flood controlled structure that will allow facilitation of flood issues that occur downstream from where this development is. This is an effort by the developer to work with the city, staff, the neighborhood and the community at large to help fix problems that occur as we go through development. Mr. Leffler discussed the streetscape that occurs along Elizabeth Street. The developer has incorporated an 8 foot pedestrian bicycle path that runs down the west side of the canal and comes through the property on the south side of the detention pond (which is in support of City Plan where it talks about having pedestrian accessibility adjacent to canals and wildlife corridors). Mr. Leffler discussed the site. He stated that they have incorporated some details that will show their ideas of what they were bringing forth in the new urbanism of development for multi -family. They have created courtyards inside of the multi-plexes to enhance both the neighborhood community as well as the interaction. In addition they have pedestrian corridors that are tied through the courtyards and back over to the pedestrian bicycle pathway, which is adjacent to the canal. One of their modifications is talking about orientation of buildings to streetscapes. The orientations of what they were requesting is more particular for units that are at the number of four dwelling units or more. They have placed upon the west side of Andrews Peak, all the frontages of the units onto the street side. However, because of the unique character of what they are developing for the courtyards, they felt that it was imperative to continue with this type of new urbanism look. They have enhanced on the building sides with a continuation of stonework, which is very appealing. They have also enhanced the landscaping Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 8 Member Bernth moved to recommend approval to City Council for the East Ridge Annexation and Zoning with a T, Transition Zone District. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Peak View Estates, Project Development Plan, #26-00 Project Description: Request for 58 dwelling units divided between 48 multi -family and 10 single family detached units. The project is 9.21 acres in size and located on the south side of West Elizabeth Street between two residential neighborhoods. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs through the southern portion of the property. The project includes three Requests for Modification of Standards. The parcel is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval of the Modification Requests and Approval of the Project Development Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval of the project and also the modification requests. He referred the Board to the staff report for the modification requests. He passed along that staff has created a separate findings of fact for the modifications per the direction of the City Attorney's Office. Don Leffler, Design Development Consultants represented the applicant and addressed the Board. Mr. Leffler stated that they have had two neighborhood meetings and he felt that they were successful. In addition in working with staff they came across a very concerning issue with reference to the canal. That brought about a lot of constraints and issues that they had to deal with about a wildlife corridor that was recognized in this area. Mr. Leffler pointed out for the Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 7 formal adoption process. Rather than holding the applicant up from annexing the property right now, we are recommending that the land be zoned T, Transition. Once a decision is made on the Structure Plan and is adopted, then the applicant can proceed with the recommended zoning to fit that newly adopted Structure Plan. Gary Kounkel, 2700 Valley Oak Drive, applicant on the project spoke to the Board. He stated that Planner Barkeen explained the situation well and with the Mulberry study going on, they felt that they were interested in cooperating with that and seeing that outcome before they determine the uses on this property. Citizen Input Mrs. Weiss spoke to the Board again and felt that they were not getting a fair answer by the developers. If they are going to come into the City of Fort Collins they certainly know if they are going to build homes on that property. Until some of these problems are solved on this property, they are endangering their lives and their livelihoods with that road out there. Until they know the use of the property, it should not be brought into the City of Fort Collins. Citizen Input Closed Member Craig asked Mr. Stringer to address some of Mrs. Weiss' concerns and what the city's plans are, also when do we consider an intersection dangerous enough to warrant a traffic signal. Dave Stringer, Engineering Department responded that at the Project Development Plan phase, that is when staff starts looking at the traffic studies to determine what kind of road improvements are going to be needed there. We do know that they will have to do some improvements to Timberline along their frontage, as well as improvements to the interior of the site, which will be built to city standards with curb, gutter and sidewalks. Vine Drive was improved with the Waterglen project to the County standard of a 36 foot wide street standard with two travel lanes and two bike lanes and right now that is sufficient out there to address the vehicles out there right now. Ward Stanford, Transportation Department also replied that the warrants would be looked at for a regular intersection without the tracks. The tracks become an additional item and certainly if there is an accident rate of significance with trains and cars, it would be looked at and mitigation would take place. Is there a dead set number, no there is not. It would go along with the warrant analysis procedure for seeing if an intersection should go from a stop sign to a signal. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 2 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Bernth reported he was having trouble with Item C, under the Findings of Facts and Conclusions on Page 5 of the staff report. It reads, "By reason of exceptional physical conditions (the limited size of the lot and lack of available open area) the strict application of Section 3.8.13(C)(1) would result in undue hardship upon the owner of the property because a monopole that was compliant with the setback would be too short to be functional. Member Bemth asked for the applicant to justify that statement. Chairperson Gavaldon asked for a staff presentation. Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. He stated that the modification would be for a wireless telecommunication facility. Planner Barkeen showed slides of the site and the surrounding uses. He stated that a telecommunication facility is permitted in the Community Commercial zoning district subject to an approval of a Type 1 Administrative Hearing. Planner Barkeen reviewed the site plan and the exact location where the monopole would be located. He reviewed the setbacks as 13 and 32 feet. The applicant is looking at a monopole of about 60 feet tall. The Code requires that for each foot in height, there needs to be one foot setback from the adjacent property lines. The way it is now it can only be 13 feet tall. Sam Kimbral, Owest, applicant on the project addressed the Board. He stated that this proposal has come forward with the understanding they would have some hurdles. They have a situation where they have a gap in coverage along Shields north and south and along Elizabeth to the east and west. They have gone through some preliminary work in trying to locate a site. Their approach was to seek the variance first and if they can get past that hurdle, then it would become incumbent upon them to come back and see if they can work with Planning to come up with a design and a height that would work for everyone. Chairperson Gavaldon asked that Mr. Kimbral address the question Member Bernth had regarding Finding of Fact and Conclusion number C. Mr. Kimbral responded that what they have discovered in that area in looking at potential sites is that the lots are quite small and most of them are built upon. There is not a good deal of open lots, they are small commercial establishments on small lots. To meet a one to one setback requirements there is just not workable on those lots. A great deal of the lot is taken up with the building Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Torgerson, Craig, Bernth and Gavaldon. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Barkeen, Stringer, Moore, Stanford, Wamhoff, Schlueter, Lamarque, Williams and Alfers. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Modification of Standards — 829 S. Shields 2. #33-98 Eastridge Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 3. #26-00 Peak View Estates — Project Development Plan 4. #15-01 Big Horn Village II — Project Development Plan Member Bernth pulled item one, Modification of Standards for 829 S. Shields. Citizen pulled item two, Eastridge Annexation and Zoning. There was no remaining Consent Agenda. Project: Modification of Standard — 829 South Shields (CQwest Wireless Telecommunication Facility), #44-01 Project Description: Request for a modification to the Land Use Code to reduce the setback for a wireless telecommunication facility from the property lines from 60 feet to 13 feet.