Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH - ODP - 24-00A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 18 adequate public facilities and she feels that the access onto Timberline is going to exacerbate the situation and she did not feel that the funding was in place to give her reassurances that it will be fixed by the time of build out. Member Bernth commented that he finds it ironic that one of the biggest concerns that neighbors have is density. Here we are with City Plan and trying to increase density and yet the last 5 neighborhood ODP's that the Board has dealt with, that has been the neighbor's biggest issue. He did not think that there is any real solution to it because we are in the scenario from changing from a small town to a city. Member Torgerson stated that he shares Member Craig's concern about adequate public facilities. But he did not think that now is the appropriate time to deny a project at CDP level based on that. It does seem like applicable criteria once they go to start pulling building permits. Member Carpenter also shared concerns about traffic and the infrastructure that we have, but felt that it should be looked at at the Project Development Plan level. She also finds interesting the complaints about density that they have heard. To her while there may not be a perfect answer, the density is better than sprawling out all over the plains. She felt that it is important that we are encouraging infill and that we need to be aware that there are going to be more difficulty and more problems with infill projects. She also encouraged the neighbors to keep working with staff to get the calming measures in their neighborhood. Member Craig asked if the PUC approves the pedestrian connection would the developer support the connection financially. Mr. Chapman responded that if the connection is approved they would fund it. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he felt that this project has satisfied all the conditions for the process. He believes that the applicant has a strong message of cooperation and working partnership with the neighborhood. Not just two but three neighborhoods. He stated that the neighborhood can still be part of the process when the PDP comes forward. He stated that there are steps in place that if they don't meet the adequate public facilities, they will not get a building permit. There is a process in place to ensure that it happens. He feels that they have done everything that is reasonably possible. Member Meyer concurred with Member Carpenter regarding infill and sprawl. The Motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 17 Member Craig stated that one other criteria that she is looking at is adequate public facilities. Under that it talks about how development must have access to the improved arterial street network or a street that funds have been appropriated to fund improvements as an arterial street. In looking at Timberline and the funds are not there to improve it to the arterial street that it needs to be, that is what she is grappling with. Mr. Bracke replied that it comes down to is not so much as to whether it is there now, are the improvements going to be there to bring this to acceptable levels of service at the time he starts pulling building permits. Not at the Overall Development stage. We know that a significant amount of road improvements need to take place, but not at the ODP. The roadway improvements always follow the development, very rarely do the roadways go in first and then development. Member Craig stated that this development has put itself in a situation where it is going to have to come out onto Timberline, so the impact will be immediate on Timberline. At this point in time we don't have the funding in place and with all the transportation problems we have, it bothers her that we bring in development and until we have made a crisis, then we have to go to the people in a capital improvement project and ask them to fix it. She sees Prospect and Timberline as this kind of a problem. Planner Jones clarified that as far as adequate public facilities and this development connecting to improved arterials; Drake and Timberline south of this project are funded improved streets. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Alternative Compliance Request for Section 3.6.3(C) and 3.6.3 (D) for the Intersections along Timberline Road. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Meyer moved for approval of the Spring Creek Overall Development Plan, File #24-OOA, including the Findings of Facts and Conclusions from the staff report dated 2/1/01. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting the motion. It was not because she did not like the plan itself, she just felt that this area is lacking the necessary infrastructure for something like this. Until she sees funding in place, she was not comfortable with it. She is basing this on 3.6.4, and she felt that we are going to go from an arterial to a minor arterial at a dangerous spot on Timberline. She also cited Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 16 Ms. Wamhoff replied that would depend on whether that is necessary for their project. At this point that has not been determined. Member Craig asked what the purpose was of the TIS at the Overall Development Plan level. Mr. Bracke responded that it was to give staff a good idea of what kind of improvements are going to be necessary to accommodate the overall development. Whether or not it meets the Master Street Plan. It gives staff a good idea of the level of service and existing conditions. It gives staff a good idea of what improvements will be necessary at the intersections. Mostly base information. Member Craig asked what his feeling was as to this development, if it adds what they are saying at ODP level, which is 4,000 cars. Mr. Bracke replied that 4,000 cars were total traffic. He referred her to the TIS and total trip distribution for this project, which is about 1,200 to 1,500 vehicles, on the portion between Drake and Prospect on that portion of Timberline. Average daily traffic really has no use in determining the size of the roadway. Peak hour is the key. We have no standards that deal in a TIS with total daily traffic. Mr. Bracke stated that there is no doubt that Timberline is a major arterial, based on its volumes and trip lengths. It is not constructed as a minor arterial, it is still constructed as a paved county 2-lane roadway. When you are looking at our street standards, there are guidelines as to what a minor arterial should carry, which is about 16,000 to 20,000 per day. That assumes that there are signals, curb cuts and turning movements going on. Traffic signals, curb cuts and all those property access points, take away the capacity of the roadway. A signal is a "cork" in a roadway as far as capacity. This is a two-lane roadway with virtually no access points, so it can carry 25,000 per day because there are no side friction points or signals to take away capacity. This is by no means ideal, but it is by no means an urban setting either. Member Craig asked what would happen when the signal is added to the north access of this development, even though up to that signal there will be four lanes and then we narrow it back down to two lanes all the way into and probably through Timberline and Prospect intersection because there is no funding to fix it. Mr. Bracke replied that there is no funding at this point. Staff will be addressing the impacts and the off site improvements that will be necessary from this developer and any other development that comes in. It is also an important issue in the Capital Improvement Program. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Capola replied that in the short-term there are no improvements with this project at Drake and Timberline. Those are what has already been slated and funded for this year. Member Craig asked about between Drake and Prospect. Mr. Capola replied that north from where the current project stops, along the site frontage. There will also be some cost sharing that has yet to be worked out at Timberline and Prospect. Member Craig asked if along their frontage they would be adding two lanes and a median. Mr. Capola replied he did not think that they were at that level of detail yet Mr. Chapman replied that there is a street-oversizing program required for frontage along new developments. They will have to widen the street to the ultimate configuration along their frontage. Mr. Capola added that that construction project is included in the analysis. Member Craig asked about the funding of the improvements and what would be in place at the time of build out. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department replied at the process of when they submit something, this development at the minimum will be required to improve their frontage along Timberline. Staff has not gone any further than that because we would need to see what is proposed as far as what density they come in with and street layout. Staff will start discussions as to what other improvements are necessary to accommodate this development which may require some off -site improvements as well. The developer would fund those off -site improvements. Anything that falls into the ultimate cross section could be reimbursed by street oversizing for the portion that street oversizing reimburses for. As far as funding sources, this development would have to pay street oversizing fees, or contribute towards those funds that would be reimbursed back to them for the improvements that are made, just as any other development contributes to that fund. Member Craig asked even though this development puts money into the street oversizing "pot' when they are built out is she still going to see four lanes and a median on Timberline from Drake to Prospect and some improvements on the Prospect and Timberline intersection. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 14 Planner Jones replied that the charette dealt with the vacant areas. The neighborhood did voice their concerns and frustrations with traffic in the area, but the focus was on the vacant areas. Stuart Street was also discussed. Member Craig asked if the neighborhood could lobby their Council Member and see if they could get the extension of Stuart Street on the ballot list for capital improvements. Planner Jones replied they could and he encouraged the neighborhood to find out what the process would be to get something like that on a capital improvement priority list. Mr. Bracke clarified that the neighborhood would need 70% consensus for the traffic calming measures. Member Bernth asked about the pipe plant next to this property and did he have any knowledge about the development of that property; which would have to occur before there could be any connection from Stuart Street. Mr. Chapman replied that they have contacted them and they do want to sell that site, but it is on the low end of their priority list. They are not actively marketing it. They have also said that it most likely will not be a residential use and they will put a deed restriction on it to be a commercial or industrial use. Mr. Chapman clarified that at both neighborhood meetings as well as the City Council hearing he offered to take the lead and help facilitate the meetings between the neighborhood and the city traffic department. Their actual impact on the neighborhood would be the two streets to the east of their project in Parkwood East and those would be the streets that they felt would be impacted by their development and they would focus on for traffic calming measures for those two streets. They would be willing to help with the funding for the two streets the development would impact but not for the whole Parkwood neighborhood. Member Craig asked Mr. Capola the applicant's traffic consultant to come up and clarify the information on the charts that read "long-term", "short-term", and "current -term" operation of the different intersections. Mr. Capola stated that his numbers include the proposed changes at Timberline and Drake that will be made within the short-term time frame. Basically you have more traffic because of this project and because of growth with Rigden Farms and other projects coming up, but you have improved roadway geometry. Member Craig asked with the improvements, what did this project plan to bring. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 13 building height limitation. The developer is proposing between 12 and 18 on the MMN and between 5 and 8 on the LMN, which complies with the Land Use Code. He did not know if there is any other mechanism to require that they stay at the lower end. Member Craig commented that as far as the density is concerned as soon as City Council said these are what the zoning districts are going to be that locked the Board in to work off of that criteria. She felt that when the PDP comes in the density can be addressed again. It is really too early in the process for the Board to address it tonight. Member Craig asked Mr. Seitz from the Homeowner's Association if he knew whether their Association had the 80% consensus needed from their neighborhood to install the speed calming measures. Mr. Seitz commented that when he heard the developer say that he was willing to participate, he heard that he was willing to participate in facilitating the process, he did not hear him say he was willing to fund. His second point is that at the last City Council meeting when these issues were brought up, Council Member Mason brought up that in the past his experience was that the people in favor of the speed bumps were the ones that were living on the street and the ones that were not in favor of the speed bumps were the one's that were living on the cul-de-sacs. He asked the traffic department to go back and say, "is there a more reasonable approach here?" Is really fair for the people and children who are at risk to have to solicit throughout a whole neighborhood and get 80% approval. Mr. Seitz reported that they have had a number of discussions and it really depends upon the criteria at which they have to get. Yes, they have a number of the Board Members and concerned citizens who are willing to go out and knock on doors to try and get the signatures. Mr. Seitz also reported that they have a sub -working group that has been working with the city. He stated that the city would be willing to put in the speed bumps that they wanted, provided that they came up with the funds, as long as they were willing to deal with the negative impacts and criticisms. The issue is still getting the funding and approval. Planner Jones stated that there will be another required neighborhood meeting prior to submittal of the Project Development Plan. That may be the time to start laying out some proposed traffic calming measures that the applicant could work with the neighborhood groups and come up with some solutions and present them at the neighborhood meeting. Member Craig asked if any of this was addressed at the design charette. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 12 reasonable we need to change the standards, but that is what is now existing in our TIS guidelines. Mr. Bracke addressed the issue with Riffenburgh School. From what they have been told to this point, the children from this development will be going to Laurel. The school impact for this development is not reasonable because staff has been told the school will be Laurel. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Mr. Bracke to address the traffic calming issues in Parkwood and Parkwood East. Mr. Bracke responded that they have gone into the Parkwood, Parkwood East and Stonehenge neighborhoods on a number of occasions to try and address some of the problems. Their problems are typical of almost every neighborhood in the community. There are over 170 streets that staff is looking at right now within the city. Their speeds are high, but all speeds are high in the city. Staff would love to come up with a plan that the neighborhood could agree to and its great to have a funding source. His program is severely limited with funds; they have $100,000 per year for traffic calming. That budget is supposed to address citywide needs and basically staff can address about 5 neighborhoods per year. He would be happy to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Bracke responded to the citizen's comments regarding safety. He stated that staff does have in some neighborhoods safety concerns. We don't have any high accident intersections in this area. A lot of accident issues are caused by congestion problems; people get frustrated and make poor choices. Drake and Timberline issues should be alleviated with the improvements. The highest accident rates are generally in high congestion areas. There are not a lot of accidents in neighborhoods. Member Bernth asked about the cost of the traffic calming measures. Mr. Bracke replied that a speed bump is about $3,500; raised crosswalk $5,000; four way stop can be installed for a couple hundred dollars. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Planner Jones to address the density issues that were brought up during citizen input. Planner Jones responded that in the LMN zone in the Land Use Code the developer is required to develop at a density of at least 5 dwelling units per acre and not exceed 8 dwelling units per acre. Within the MMN zone they are required to develop at at least 12 dwelling units per acre and there is no maximum specified in the MMN. There are height limitations to the buildings and there are parking requirements. Typically the practical maximum is around 20 units per acre given the parking requirements and the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 11 issue and the rezoning that these uses bring significantly less overall traffic to the area than it would had it been left in the more intense uses. Gene Capola, who is the traffic consultant for the applicant spoke to the Board regarding his findings in his traffic study. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Eric Bracke of the Transportation Department to address traffic issues that were brought up by the citizens. Mr. Bracke began by addressing Stuart Street. He stated that Stuart Street is a great idea, but not a very practical idea any more. In 1983 Stuart Street was planned on the Master Street Plan to connect all the way over to Timberline, EPIC Center was being planned with their access being taken off of Stuart Street. With opposition from the neighborhood, EPIC ended up being turned around and access taken off of Riverside. The Parks Department actually built Riverside down to the entrance point and Stuart Street was cut off. In 1983 it was likely that we could have fought for an at grade crossing for Stuart Street as it went over to Timberline. In 2001 it is highly unlikely that we would get an at grade crossing for Stuart Street. It would either have to be over or under the tracks. It becomes very costly and it is not as easy as just punching a street through. Mr. Bracke addressed traffic. He stated that Matt Baker and the Street Oversizing Department will be starting the improvements to Timberline within the next month. It will widen Timberline to a four lane arterial, double left turn lanes, widen Drake, make improvements to Drake and take the improvements to Timberline approximately 1000 feet north of the existing Drake intersection. That will reduce a lot of the problems at the Drake and Timberline intersection. This particular development would be responsible for making the improvements along their frontage. When they come in with a PDP, that is when staff will look at how much of the first phase, what are their off site improvements are going to be. The full movement access on Drake is reasonable; it aligns up with Sagebrush. If it becomes a problem in the future, we would go in and modify that access point. Mr. Bracke addressed the cut through traffic in the neighborhood. He stated that the big key is not Edora or EPIC, those are regional facilities. People come from all over the city to use those facilities. There are people who do cut through the neighborhood to get there, there is absolutely no doubt. That number is fairly minimal compared to the neighborhood traffic. To assume that one small development is going to exacerbate the traffic he did not feel that was a reasonable assumption. Maybe a dozen to twenty vehicles a day through there are minimal. We do have specific guidelines and on a local street that we do accept, fewer than 12% is a negligible impact. If that is not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 10 all the things mentioned before and make some requirements of the developments going in that are going to be having a huge impact on their existing neighborhoods. They should not have to pay the price for new development with the quality of life that they have. That is not right either. Public Input Closed Chairperson Gavaldon gave the applicant rebuttal time. Mr. Karns responded that traffic and density go hand in hand with every development they work on. One thing he would like to mention and they are very sincere about is the issue of how to solve some of these traffic problems within the existing neighborhoods. They have offered on more than one occasion to help facilitate discussion about what the solutions might be. At the City Council hearing on the rezoning they offered to participate to determine what are the appropriate improvements to solve some of those issues. It is a difficult balancing act between the issue of connectivity and what it means to old neighborhoods. There may be a multitude of things that can be done. One of the things that they have been reminded of is that it requires the support of the neighbors. They have certain standards about how many of the neighbors have to participate in the improvements. If they can get beyond that and find solutions, they are willing to help on that. Regarding density, they are bound by the Land Use Code to achieve the minimum densities. They are willing on the LMN to restrict that to single family homes, but they will still have to achieve the 5 to the acre minimum density. However, is there a tangible benefit to doing that kind of thing from a traffic impact viewpoint. Their traffic study shows that the project as it is planned now, in and of itself, doesn't exacerbate any of the intersections to a worse level of service. By lowering the density, it can't make the intersections function any better from a statistical viewpoint. Similarly in the MMN, they are bound by the Code to achieve a minimum of 12 units per acre and based on the size of the parcel, they have to build at least two types of product. There is no cap on density as to how many units can go on there. It is really from a practical viewpoint in terms of physical design. They have placed a cap of 18 per acre and that may seem like a lot, but it is not a real high limit for a multi -family apartment development. The reality is that they will probably be somewhere between the 12 and 18 by the time they meet the criteria. There was a question about the crossing at Timberline. They have been working on that and really it is a PDP level issue of how to build the best safest crossing at Timberline. The pedestrian crossing will serve all of the neighborhoods. The overall issue of traffic, they feel, was addressed at a significant level with the Structure Plan Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 9 Demographics will tell you that the higher the density the higher the crime. She encouraged the City Council to keep all development in Fort Collins as low density as could possibly be afforded. Not only will we increase traffic problems, but we will also increase the crime in our community. Our neighborhoods do not need anymore crime. Kathy Mills, who lives at 2313 Tanglewood Drive spoke to the Board. She asked the Board to consider schools. Ms. Mills mentioned the population of Lesher Junior High and the fact that 75% of the high school students at Fort Collins High School drive their own cars to school. She was wondering in the traffic study, how many cars per household they were figuring and how many trips. It is already incredible for the kids to drive from Parkwood to Fort Collins High School, not to mention the quality of the education as the schools themselves are very densely populated now. It seems that the city has a lot of regional plans in place that one day would take care of a lot of these issues, but there are a lot of people who already live there who have to live there in the meantime while we are waiting for all these things to catch up. She appealed to the Board to consider the lowest density possible. ML Johnson, who lives at 1506 Buttonwood Drive in the impacted area spoke to the Board. He stated that he found it amusing that when the plan was being presented that it was estimated that only 16 cars would be cutting through Parkwood and Parkwood East. Obviously whoever was coming up with that particular number had not even considered what would be happening with Rigden Farms because they will be going to Riff enburgh School. He felt that the after school activities would turn their neighborhood into a highway of cut throughs. He requested that there not be an exit onto Drake because that would invite people to make a quick left and go through one of the two subdivisions. He also requested that the Board extend Stuart Street into this subdivision and perhaps meander it around to it would not be a direct cut through from Timberline because that would also be a problem. He understands that there is a problem with funding going over the railroad track for Stuart Street, but he submitted that if the city has enough money to solve a problem that was not there, the roundabout, the city certainly has enough money to fix this problem that they are creating. Perrie McMillen, who lives at 1508 Teakwood Drive stated that she is in total agreement with all the points that Mr. Seitz from their homeowners association brought up. She also mentioned that many of her neighbors who have children are talking about this everyday. People are afraid that when Rigden Farm goes in and the new Johnson Development goes in that they will have more issues with traffic in their neighborhood. It is too easy and too natural to cut through their neighborhood to get to Riffenburgh School. She asked the Planning and Zoning Board to do whatever they can to protect their neighborhood and their children. This is a huge safety issue and this is an accident waiting to happen. It is getting to the point where it is not safe for the kids to ride their bikes to the pool or to school anymore. She asked that the Board to consider Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 8 Wayne Lenowski, who lives at 2412 Rollingwood Drive expressed the same concerns about what was on the front of the newspaper today by a City Council candidate. That being concerns of frustration that public input is not adequately being taken into account. He has attended a number of meetings and the Board has heard him speak enough times now and including letters and e-mails, yet a change has been made to the Structure Plan and a rezoning has occurred and the development continues. At this point he would like to say to please take into account the input that the Board is hearing, the concerns that they have are the same ones that the Board has heard this evening, those being the concern of traffic through their neighborhood and the safety issues that could result. In addition, he shares the concern with the density in the area. Mr. Lenowski felt that it was not surprising, in fact probably quite reasonable that the developer wants to move to as high as density as reasonable. It probably is the way that you maximize profitability and he would probably do the same thing in this situation. However, as the Planning and Zoning Board, he felt that they should balance that with the concerns of the neighborhoods in the area. This development, in addition to Rigden Farms and the development that is likely to occur on the northeast quadrant of the same intersection, creates a density and a traffic that is really frightening when you consider what that will do to the cut through traffic in their neighborhood. He requested that the Board take these concerns into account. In particular as detailed plans are developed for this neighborhood as it particularly relates to density and the units per acre. Bob Vinton, who lives at 1313 Parkwood Drive stated that he went to the recent neighborhood meeting that was to present the preliminary plan. His concerns stem primarily around the transportation issue. He thinks that it is pretty clear that the City Plan has designated the intersection at Drake and Timberline as a major activity center. From a macro planning view of the city that makes sense. Clearly the Timberline and Drake intersection and the Timberline widening are all intended to support that. He felt that it was equally clear that there is a pretty major missing portion of the transportation network in this area because there is almost a square mile of area that has no collector street in the middle. He thought that was the source of the transportation issues that everyone is talking about tonight. In the absence of a good collector network, what happens is that people cut through the neighborhoods. He realizes that it is not directly associated with this particular development, but on the other had he feels that it is important for the Planning and Zoning Board to make recommendations that relate to the impact on the surrounding areas. Without Stuart Street designated as a collector going through to Timberline, this area is going to have significant traffic problems for the long run. He urged the Board to attach a recommendation to this activity that would have the Stuart Street extension put into the transportation plan. Helene Stout, who lives at 2532 Creekwood Drive which is in Parkwood East stated that we already have a density problem, a traffic problem and a crime problem. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 7 very concerned about traffic. Parkwood East Apartments have added greatly to the density of the neighborhood. Access to Parkwood East Apartments was curb cut onto Eastwood against the original City Plan so now we have Edora Park traffic cutting through the apartments, which are cut onto Eastwood. They have traffic to Parkwood East Apartments, Edora, EPIC and Riffenburgh School all going onto streets that were not meant to be collector streets or feeder streets. She is concerned about the amount of traffic that this development would put into their neighborhood. Unfortunately they are already locked into the Rigden Farm to Riffenburgh raceway. Rigden Farm will attend Riffenburgh. They will bus them, but she does not anticipate that every kindergartner will get onto a bus, nor will that do anything for after school activities or family nights. They are not able at this point to do much about that type of traffic, but it would behoove the city to either eliminate or wait till the very last of the development to put the intersection onto Drake. Bob Simpson, who lives at 2324 Eastwood Drive which is next to one of the stop signs on Eastwood Drive stated there is a lot of traffic that goes down their street. He did not see any new accesses proposed for their neighborhood, which would make it very easy to come around and access Eastwood Drive. He wondered if there was some consideration for another way to provide access to EPIC from the area that is being proposed. He also asked if there was any way to restrict the access of cutting through the apartment as well. He felt that there should be a way to restrict traffic to residents only. He has concerns with his children's safety while playing in the neighborhood and the stop sign by his house has not been very effective. Ron Dinkel, who lives at 2330 Rollingwood at the corner of Teakwood and Rollingwood reiterated the concerns about density. He shares that concern and also a concern regarding the storm drainage on Rollingwood. Any kind of rain could literally have rain up onto their lawns because the lack of inlets. They have expressed this concern at some of the other meetings. He is also concerned with the traffic, not just the cutting through but with the safety of the residents of the area. He has asked for help from the Police Department in getting people to stop running the stop sign, he has called more than once, but has had no response. He does not think the traffic department past and present has addressed the concerns. Shirley Malin, who lives in Meadows East, 2013 Custer Drive spoke to the Board about her concern about traffic and density. They get a lot of people from Drake that cut through to Sagebrush, taking a left down to Custer and out to Timberline. Now that the High School has opened, the cut through has increased dramatically. It is practically impossible during rush hour to get out onto Timberline or off of Sagebrush onto Drake. She did not hear anyone addressing those issues in that area. She had concerns with safety in the area also and would like to see it addressed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 6 "key" locations where they anticipate the largest safety issues. They would like to see the developer fund speed bumps, raised walkways and additional 4-way stops at the recommended sites. They strongly believe that these recommendations would make their neighborhood safer. The second major issue he wanted to discuss was density. The sections he is speaking about are bounded by Prospect on the north, Horsetooth on the south and College and Timberline on the east and west; are already one of the highest density areas of Fort Collins. They asked the Board to require the developer to keep the density numbers to the minimum required under City Plan. The current ODP that they saw tonight, has a range of 50%, from 448 to a possible of 681 housing units. They pleaded with the Board to not allow the developer to build out the units significantly greater than the minimums required. With the development of Rigden Farms and the future development of the 420 acres of the Johnson Farms on the east side of Timberline, both in accordance with the higher density minimums required by City Plan, this is an area of Fort Collins that is being overwhelmed with even more people. Higher density is not the only objective of City Plan. Please, in keeping with the quality of life objectives inherent in City Plan, they asked that the emphasis for higher and higher density is mitigated for this development and in our already higher density of Fort Collins as well be mitigated. Mr. Seitz asked the Board to consider, but were not sure that they lie within their jurisdiction, first, continuing Stuart Street east to Timberline which appears to be a possibility to address the increased cut through traffic through Parkwood and Parkwood East. There is room for it and asked that it be considered in conjunction with careful planning of Stuart Street which could also include stoplights at Riffenburgh School. Traffic lights to the major entrances to Parkwood and Parkwood East would greatly reduce the risk required in making a left hand turn into Lemay and Drake, which are going to be denser with traffic than they are now. Finally, they asked the Board to consider requiring the developer, as they understood in his plan, to install the walkway or crosswalk to connect the Johnson Farm development to Parkwood East. This would greatly aid the pedestrians from the new Johnson Farm Development to access EPIC, Edora Park and Riffenburgh School, and allow pedestrians from Parkwood and Parkwood East to access the new commercial center at Timberline and Drake. Peggy Greiss, who lives at 2254 Eastwood Drive, which backs up to the railroad tracks and the smaller part of the detention area behind Parkwood East stated that she had lived in that house for 14 years. She has watched this neighborhood develop and is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Karns stated that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses would be applied over the entire Overall Development Plan, not on each individual project development plan review. Standards for housing density and mix of uses would be consistent with the requirements for an Overall Development Plan application for the LMN and MMN portions of the property. Mr. Karns showed a slide of the Illustrative Concept Plan for the property. Public Input Monte Seitz, 2404 Parkwood Drive, spoke on behalf of the Parkwood Property Owners Association and concerned residents in their neighborhood. Mr. Sites submitted for the record a copy or printout of the map that Planner Jones showed earlier. He had been asked to address two major issues concerning the development of the 55 acres of Johnson Farms. The two major issues he has are traffic problems and densities. The first major issue is traffic. Traffic is a huge concern for them. The addition of Johnson Farm development and the Rigden Farms development, they believe, will substantially increase the flow of traffic in and out of their neighborhoods. In order for their new neighbors to access EPIC, Edora Park and Riffenburgh School, they must either drive north on Timberline, then west on Prospect, and around into EPIC. Presently the roads and intersections will not easily accommodate larger volumes of traffic. The point he would like to make is that they keep hearing that Timberline is going to be expanded to six lanes. Prospect and Drake are not getting bigger. The intersections at Prospect and Timberline and the intersection at Prospect and Lemay are already congested at various times during the day. The portion of Prospect between Timberline and College is consistently heavily congested at the present. Drake between Timberline and College is not far behind in terms of being heavily congested. Adding a larger number of people at this time without expanding Drake or Prospect will make these problems even worse. Mr. Seitz went on to say that most new developments have narrow winding streets. Parkwood and Parkwood East, being older neighborhoods have a number of long, straight and sometimes wide streets which makes cut throughs easy. These long and straight streets allow for faster traffic, much of it is speeding. Combine with that the north/south directions of their streets being straight, will encourage cut through traffic. Because of the nature of this development and the streets, they do not believe that the Traffic Department models work for Parkwood and Parkwood East. It just goes to reason that many people will choose to drive through Parkwood and Parkwood East to get to EPIC, Edora Park and Riffenburgh School rather than take a longer route through dense traffic, particularly 6 lanes of dense traffic. Mr. Seitz stated that they would like to see the developer address these problems, they have copies of the overhead maps for each Board Member, and they have marked Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 4 compatibility with adjacent neighbors. He stated that the LMN zoning allows for the type of uses that can be similar and create a transition with the single-family homes in Parkwood Estates and the surrounding neighborhoods. They have identified uses for that area as single family detached, single family attached and two-family dwellings. It would be a mix of the traditional lower density single family home uses. In the MMN the uses would be multi -family or single family attached which would give them some ability for transition. The E use is fairly broad in the range of uses and they would be used for an appropriate transition. Mr. Karns went on to say that in the LMN zoning it is a requirement that they create at least a 1-acre minimum neighborhood park. This park would be at least 1 acre in size and would be maintained by the homeowners association. The road configurations and the arrangement of buildings would define the ultimate size. There would also be the required 10,000 s.f. public space in the MMN zone. There would also be other open spaces within the project when they get to Project Development Plan design. There are some existing trees in the MMN zoning and they would work to preserve the trees. Mr. Karns reviewed the proposed densities on the Overall Development Plan which meet the code requirements. Planner Jones had previously reviewed the densities for the board. Mr. Karns reported that the Overall Development Plan conforms to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards. Over 86% of the site is contiguous to existing urban development within the City. Mr. Karns stated that the Overall Development Plan conforms to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan. The Plan also conforms to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements. Mr. Karns stated that the Overall Development Plan would provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties in such a manner as to ensure connectivity into and through the Overall Development Plan site from neighboring properties for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movement. He stated that they have every intention of constructing the additional pedestrian connection assuming that they can get the easement provided to do so. They will continue to work on that. Mr. Karns stated that the plan would identify any natural areas that are affected on or within 500 feet of the site. There are none on site and they are not aware of any within a reasonable proximity. Mr. Karns also reported that the Overall Development Plan would be consistent with the Drainage Master Plan. This site is in the foothills basin and their preliminary drainage plan submittal shows how that complies. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 3 Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the Staff Presentation. He gave a history of the project stating that the project had come before the Board in November for the rezoning. At that point it was called The Johnson Farm Rezone. Planner Jones gave the Board a visual presentation of the site and the surrounding uses. Planner Jones discussed the criteria for an Overall Development Plan. He stated that this was a general in nature type of plan. The applicant shows the zoning districts within the parcel, they specify the anticipated general range of dwelling units within each of the parcels and the range of uses proposed within the parcels. They also show the intersections with the arterials. He explained that an Overall Development Plan is general in nature and does not get into the specifics that a Project Development has. He stated that in the LMN zoning district the applicant was proposing a unit count between 93 and 148 units, they are proposing a unit count in the MMN zoning district of 355 and 533 dwelling units. In the E, Employment zoning district they are proposing the standard employment uses with the exception of composting facilities. Planner Jones reviewed the eight criteria from the Land Use Code that this proposal would be evaluated against. Planner Jones reviewed the remainder of the visual slides for the Board discussing vehicular connections out to the arterials, an aerial photo of the area showing the square mile and the street connections. Planner Jones stated that he superimposed the Master Street Plan on top of the slide so the Board could see the street network. Planner Jones also reported that the applicant is requesting an Alternative Compliance for Street Patterns and Connectivity Standards. A memo was handed out to the Board explaining all requests for Alternative Compliance. Planner Jones spoke about the pedestrian connection across the railroad tracks to the west. The applicant, to the best of their ability, will provide that if they get permission from the Public Utilities Commission. This crossing is anticipated to be a grade separated crossing probably an underpass, underneath the railroad tracks and would be for only bicycles and pedestrians. Member Carpenter asked if there were any standards for existing development compatibility requirements for an Overall Development Plan. Planner Jones replied that we do have compatibility in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code, which is building standards and is a Project Development Plan issue. Craig Kam, Director of Planning for Nutzer Kopatz Urban Design Associates and consulting planners on the project gave the staff presentation. Mr. Karn discussed Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 1, 2001 Page 2 Member Bernth moved to recommend to City Council approval of the redefinition and clarification of the definition of "street' in accordance with the project description on the first page of Item 6. Planner Shepard asked to read the "fine tuned" definition into the record. ..."street shall mean a public way, whether publicly owned or privately owned, used or intended to be used for carrying vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and shall include the entire area within the public right-of-way and/or public access easement. Except in the application of 3.8.7, which is our sign code, where street shall only mean a dedicated public right-of-way, other than an alley, used or intended to be used for carrying motorized vehicular traffic." The distinction being that for sign code purposes, we only count public right-of-way. Member Bernth added that statement to the motion. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Spring Creek Farms North, Overall Development Plan, #24-OOA Project Description: Request for an ODP for a 55-acre Mixed Use Development. The site is located at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Timberline Road. The design concentrates on 29.6 acres of medium density residential uses along Timberline with 18.5 acres of lower density residential uses adjacent to the existing low density residential neighborhood to the west (Parkwood East), and 7.2 acres of employment along the north part of the site. The site has three zoning districts: Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District, MMN; Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, LMN; and Employment District, E. Staff Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7431 Roll Call: Carpenter, Meyer, Bernth, Gavaldon, Torgerson and Craig. Member Colton was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Wamhoff, Jackson, Bracke and Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18, October 19, and November 16, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Resolution PZ01-01 3. #54-87G The Lodge at Miramont PUD - Final 4. #13-OOA Arbor South Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 5. #24-OOA Spring Creek Farms North — Overall Development Plan Other Business: 6. Recommendation to City Council Regarding a New Clarified Definition of "Street' in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Items 2, 3 and 4. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.