Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 10 of 10 Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, addressed the issues raised by Member Craig. He discussed speed limits and stopping distances. He did not feel the offset of the intersection at High Point to be a negative. It further separated the left turn areas due to the placement. Member Craig reflected upon an issue raised by a citizen concerning Troutman turning left (north). She asked how it would work with even more cars on Boardwalk. Ward Stanford stated that a light at that intersection might be developed depending on the evolution of that area. He did measure times as viewed by a timid driver. The times there during peak hours were within the normal range of service. The number of cars that may be added due to the proposed project was under 100 cars. Member Craig continued to have concerns for safety considerations and pedestrian separation. She would not be supporting the project due to the fact that it was feasible to protect the pedestrians better. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Other Business: None The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 9 of 10 Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the board that a denial of the modification would not make the sidewalks automatically appear on the plans for the project as a whole. He felt it would be difficult to approve the proposed project with a denial of the modification due to all of the changes that would be necessary. Member Craig asked why a sidewalk would not be sufficient on the north side of the two south buildings. Troy Jones responded that the walkways on the north side of the buildings crossed garages, which did not meet the code. Ted Shepard felt the modification had a fundamental aspect to the project as a whole. Member Carpenter stated that the residential portion of the project consisted of one - bedroom units, so she felt a bit more comfortable with the project because there would probably not be many children in the development. She would not feel the same if the units would foster more families. Member Gavaldon would not support the motion. Member Bernth concurred with Clark Mapes and would not be supporting the denial. The motion was denied 2-4 with Members Carpenter, Bernth, Meyer and Gavaldon voting against the motion. Member Bernth moved to approve the modification regarding Buildings F, A & B, concerning Article 3.5.2(C)(1) requiring all residential building to have a primary entrance that faces a connecting walkway. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Torgerson was glad that the previous motion did not stop the project, but he would not be supporting the new motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Torgerson voting in the negative. Member Torgerson moved to approve the project development plan as recommended by staff. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig wanted to discuss traffic issues, how Boardwalk fit into the Master Street Plan, counts from site visits, the offset of the intersection at High Point, and site vision regarding left -out turns. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 8 of 10 There were no questions by the board for the issue of the modification of the secondary uses. Member Meyer moved to approve the modification regarding Article 4.22(D)(2) secondary uses as recommended in the staff report. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Troy Jones reviewed the final modification request. He referenced a memo he wrote including the findings for approval. The modification included buildings F, A & B without direct sidewalk connections from the primary entrance to the street sidewalk. Again the solution was to face the buildings internally to the courtyard. Member Carpenter asked Clark Mapes to clarify the modification request. Clark Mapes believed that staff did not feel strongly enough about recommending denial of the modification, so the staff did support the modification with the reasoning that the courtyard was appropriate. He believed that the site could not support the code requirement. They did not feel that the south buildings should have a walkway to the south due to the location of the wildlife movement corridor. Member Torgerson could not justify the modification. He felt it was not better for the public good to have to walk through an area that was also used as a driveway for vehicles. He felt the pedestrians should not have to share the concrete with the cars. Member Torgerson moved to DENY the modification regarding Buildings F, A & B, concerning Article 3.5.2(C)(1) requiring all residential building to have a primary entrance that faces a connecting walkway. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig had the same concerns for the safety of the pedestrians. Member Bernth could not support the motion. He felt that infill sites needed compromises to achieve the closest compliance with the code. He did like the courtyard idea, so he would not be supporting the motion. Member Craig felt that you could have a courtyard effect, but you could have a curb to protect the pedestrian. Member Gavaldon asked if the south buildings would be forced to have a connecting sidewalk on the south side of the building in the buffer area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 7 of 10 Troy Jones reviewed the issue with the next modification request. Building C & D were further than 200 feet away from the street and they did not have a connecting walkway to the street. The solution was to face the buildings to a courtyard instead of the street. Staff found that solution to be equal to or better then the requirement of the code. Member Torgerson asked if parking would be allowed in the area of the scored concrete behind the garages in buildings A & B. Mr. Prouty stated that the scored concrete was not designated parking, but parking would be allowed there. There was space for pedestrian walkways outside of the scored concrete area. He also said that the covenants would discourage permanent parking in the scored concrete areas behind the garages. Member Torgerson asked about the surface parking spaces being 17 feet long. Troy Jones reflected that residential parking at 17 feet has been found to be appropriate with a 2-foot bumper overhang area. Member Craig asked about the parking spaces overhanging the detention area. Troy Jones responded that the parking was 17 feet with a 2-foot overhang area. Mr. Prouty added that there was 6 feet beyond the parking overhang area for pedestrian walkways. Member Bernth moved to approve the modification regarding Buildings C & D, concerning Article 3.5.2(C)(1) requiring all residential building to have a primary entrance that faces a connecting walkway within 200 feet of the street sidewalk as recommended in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Torgerson voting in the negative. There were no questions by the board for the issue of the modification of the curb painting. Member Craig moved to approve the modification regarding Article 3.6.6(G) parking control concerning curb painting and signage as recommended in the May 30, 2000 staff memo. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 6 of 10 Member Bernth appreciated the wildlife preservation, but he also supported infill development. He encouraged infill more that urban sprawl, so he did not want to hinder that infill type of development. Member Craig felt that the foxes were urbanized and that the reduction of the buffer to 20 feet would probably not effect them. She felt that some of the residents would have pets, but 100 feet wouldn't contain the pets either. She felt this particular site had special circumstances and she could support the motion. She wanted to ensure that during construction, a fence would be placed at the 20 feet to be sure the construction would not intrude upon the buffer. Member Gavaldon wanted to make an amendment to the motion to include planting light vegetation to provide a modest buffer to the ditch. This would assist the wildlife and buffer the residents. Member Bernth accepted the amendment. Member Torgerson accepted the amendment, but he was concerned with ambiguous conditions and the enforcement of issues not directly related to the code. Member Meyer felt it must be modest. Tom Shoemaker reminded the board that the 20 feet starting at the top of the ditch, was an easement held by the Ditch Company. He assured that the Natural Resources Department would work toward the planting of modest vegetation, but he stated that the Ditch Company had to approve the work. Member Gavaldon was comfortable with the motion. Member Carpenter asked what protection would be in place during construction. Kim Kreimeyer stated that they would put language in the development agreement to protect the foxes. Member Craig asked Mr. Prouty to follow-up on the education of the residents and the purchase of the strip of land owned by the private citizen. Member Carpenter agreed. Mr. Prouty shook his head in agreement. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Carpenter voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 5 of 10 Member Gavaldon asked why the fence was built so close to the den to begin with. Tom Shoemaker stated that the site had very little wildlife habitat value. Due to that, there was no requirement for extensive research of the area. Kim Kreimeyer did not see any evidence that the tree was being used for a den, so no further study was required. She also took into account that the site did not connect two wildlife areas. Tom Shoemaker mentioned that the code did state that the buffer distance could be adjusted for flexibility. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, felt the 50-foot buffer was a benchmark, but a footnote in the code later stated that the numbers could increased or decreased. Member Carpenter asked if there could be a compromise of planting vegetation or fencing to protect the area. Tom Shoemaker felt that could be a compromise, but he had reservations due to the overall site context. He did not want to make a small area more appealing due to the fact that it was in a densely populated housing area. He felt that it would raise the risk of more animals being killed on the road. Member Carpenter asked if the vegetation would be a problem of attracting animals that would be there anyway. She asked if by planting a small amount of vegetation, would that den be a place to which the mother fox may choose to come back. Tom Shoemaker stated that it was a judgment call if the plantings would be appropriate, but he did feel that the vegetation might assist in the mother's choice to come back. John Prouty stated that the minimum distance for the buffer was 20 feet, getting wider toward Boardwalk. He also wanted to lead the effort in obtaining the strip of land to assist in the buffering and enhancement of the habitat. Member Bernth moved to approve the modification of the reduction of the buffer zone from 50 feet to a 20 feet at the minimum as recommended by staff. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Carpenter did not support the motion of reducing the buffer zone. She did not want to set a precedence that would develop all of the open wildlife areas. Member Torgerson felt that the issue was meeting the land use code and he trusted the judgement of the experts who supported the reduction in reference to the wildlife protection. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 4 of 10 Ronny Turner, 855 Sandy Cove Lane, agreed with his wife JoElla. He hoped to preserve as much of the buffer as possible. Discussion: Mr. Prouty responded to the concerns by saying that the den was quite far from the actual development site. He felt that the 2 buildings on the south did not have connecting walkways that went along the ditch to interrupt the fox. He felt that the design of his development was the best to deter people from walking behind the buildings along the ditch. He suggested purchasing the sliver of land parallel to the ditch area to then protect it. Troy Jones clarified the location of the tree with the den. Tom Shoemaker wanted to thank JoElla for the videos. He felt the community did appreciate wildlife. He also pointed out that the foxes adapted to the people around them and he did not feel the 50-foot buffer was necessary due to that. He felt communication and education would help in protecting the fox. Member Craig asked Tom Shoemaker what was intended by stating irrigation ditches could be used as wildlife movement corridors. Tom Shoemaker responded that they did not intend to have all irrigation ditches as movement corridors and he felt the definition needed some clarification. He said the initial intent was to preserve connections between different wildlife areas. Kim Kreimeyer stated that the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch connected the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area with the Fossil Creek Reservoir. Member Craig asked why the 50-foot buffer was necessary there, but not at the proposed development site. Kim Kreimeyer stated that the 50-foot buffer connecting two wildlife areas would be used for many different types of wildlife and native plants and grasses would be planted to protect the wildlife and promote the movement along the corridor. Member Carpenter asked when the Natural Resources staff made a site visit. Kim Kreimeyer stated that the site visit happened prior to March 8, 2000. Member Bernth asked who owned the land with the den on it. Kim Kreimeyer stated that a private citizen owned the land and that the City or Natural Resources Department had no control over the Ditch Company. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 3 of 10 believed that native plantings would not be a benefit to the canal because they would not want to make the site any more attractive than it already was for the wildlife due to the urban nature of the site. Member Craig asked which side of the ditch was the canal easement and was it being used for the 20-foot buffer. She had a concern that the buildings would be too close to the easement and the ditch, and the fox may begin to look for food within the development. Troy Jones stated that the ditch access was on the north side of the canal. He used the site plan to show where the ditch was located and where the buildings would be placed in proximity to the ditch and the street. Kim Kreimeyer, Natural Resources Department, added that the property was odd shaped, so the distance between the buildings and the ditch access was different at either end of the site. Kim described that there would be a 35-foot area between the ditch and the building in most areas. Tom Shoemaker felt the potential for interaction between the fox and the residents existed, but with good education, the residents could minimize that chance. He did not feel the distance between 20 and 50 feet would make a difference to the fox. Troy Jones again showed the site shots for clarification. The applicant, John Prouty, gave a presentation discussing the applicant's responses to the modifications. He also described other communities that had similar designs and amenities to the proposed project. He then described the proposed project. Member Craig asked where the primary access was for the 8 units per building. Mr. Prouty showed Member Craig a plan that revealed the landing located in the center of the building, as the primary access for the units in each building. Public Comment: JoElla Turner, 855 Sandy Cove Lane, gave a presentation concerning the foxes. She provided 3 video clips of the foxes. She felt the foxes were a true treasure for the community. She provided photographs and testaments that the fox had been there for 4 years. She felt it was a wildlife movement corridor. She wanted to preserve the wildlife movement corridor. Ellen Wride, citizen and employee of the Post Office, wanted to express her support of JoElla Turner's proposition. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 6, 2000 Page 2 of 10 Project: #32-99 Promontory — Project Development Plan Project Description: Request for a mixed -use development containing office and multi -family residential uses. The property is located on the southwest side of Boardwalk Drive, east of the Post Office, and north of Troutman Parkway. The applicant proposes to develop 48 one - bedroom residential flats (in 6 buildings) and a total of 37,804 square feet of leasable floor area for office uses (in 5 buildings) on a 5.08 acres site. The site is in the (E) Employment Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, in place of Steve Olt, gave a presentation describing the project. He noted the location of the site using site shots. He described the modifications necessary for the site. The first modification was for Buildings C & D, concerning Article 3.5.2(C)(1) requiring that all residential building have a primary entrance that faces a connecting walkway within 200 feet of the street sidewalk. The placement of the buildings was located beyond the 200 feet requirement, which placed the project out of compliance. The second modification was for Article 3.6.6(G) concerning painting the curbs and parking stall lines. The applicant proposed enhanced paving and signage to notify the residents instead of the paint. The third modification was for Article 4.22(D)(2) concerning secondary uses. The applicant proposed to adjust the ratio of secondary uses to 53% of the site. The fourth modification was for the wildlife corridor being reduced from 50 feet to 20 feet. The staff supported the buffer reduction. The last modification request was again for Article 3.5.2(C)(1), but concerning the 2 buildings at the south of the site (A & B) and the 1 building just north of the drive isle (F). These buildings were not able to have the primary walkway connect directly to the street due to the specifics of the site. The applicant felt the internal walkways were better than the code requirements. Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Department, described where the foxes had inhabited to the south and the west of the site. He felt the foxes would not be disturbed with the proposed project. The tree/den was not on the site. The applicant agreed not to use the ditch access that passed by the den. The Natural Resources Department found that the canal was a marginal wildlife movement corridor and did not require the extensive buffer that many others did. The corridor did not connect with any other wildlife area on the west. The Natural Resources Department did not feel the 50-foot buffer would bring any benefits and that the 20-foot buffer was sufficient. They also Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Ted S Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Vice Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Torgerson, and Meyer. Member Colton was absent. Staff Present: Virata, McCallum, Schlueter, Jones, Shepard, Eckman, Jackson, Shoemaker, Kreimeyer, Cook, Stanford, Mapes and Kuch. Agenda Review: Chief Planner of Current Planning Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the March 16, April 6, April 20 (CONTINUED), May 4 (CONTINUED), May 18 (CONTINUED), and June 1, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 3. Resolution PZ00-21 Easement Vacation 4. #13-82CH Oakridge Business Park PUD, 10th Filing, Lot 2 — Preliminary and Final Discussion Agenda: 5. #32-99 Promontory — Project Development Plan Staff continued the April 20, May 4 and May 18, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes from item 1. Member Craig moved for approval of Consent items 2, 3, 4, and minutes dated 3116/00, 4/6100 and 6/1/00. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.