Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 3-96 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMinutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 21 Member Strom cited the Findings of Fact from the staff report and the point totals from the LDGS point chart. The motion passed 4-0, with Member Davidson having a conflict of interest. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 20 their property. Or, from a property owner further to the east, which would require the developer to pipe the water down the West Plum channel to the property further to the east. Member Strom asked if there was any reason to believe that this project would adversely affect the neighboring properties in terms of drainage. Mr. Hamdan replied that all they require is that they don't increase the runoff. From what the developer has shown them, is that he could go around the Happy Heart property by going in the right-of-way and then to the property further to the east. There will be more drainage definitely down stream of the Happy Heart Farm. Member Strom asked if it would meet City standards. Mr. Hamdan replied it would. Chairman Bell asked if the proposed Park is really the detention pond area. She asked if there would just be a bikeway around it. Was this really a park? Mr. Hamdan replied that most of the time the detention areas are dry and only operate during larger storms. It should be called a dry basin, and not a detention pond. You can use it as a multi -functional open space, which is often what you see used. Chairman Bell asked for clarification on the affordability issue. There were points taken. Planner Haas replied that on the site plan there is a note that at least 15% of all units will be dedicated to affordable housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Standards. Chairman Bell asked how many units 15% would be. Planner Haas replied 34 or 35. Member Colton asked where the transit stop would be. Planner Haas located the Transfort stops and future shelters in the area. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Scenic Views P.U.D., Preliminary with the recommendation from staff to put through the connection between the two neighborhoods. Member Strom seconded the motion. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 19 Ms. Ashbeck stated it would be similar to any of the other Capital Improvement programs. It would not be a specific development project, it would be the cumulative effect that would eventually warrant Elizabeth to be widened to the full minor arterial standard. It would occur much like Prospect Road between Shields and Taft Hill when it was widened, where it made it to the top of the capital improvement list. Member Colton asked about the properties north of this project, located out of the Urban Growth Area, but someday might develop. Planner Haas replied it was all CSU and State property all the way to LaPorte Avenue. Chairman Bell asked for clarification on the roadway in the condition of approval recommended by staff. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the condition that staff was asking for was because the applicant was asking for an emergency access only. Staff feels that there should be opportunities for re -circulation on this site out to the arterial street system. Planner Haas added that the traffic study has indicated that 65% of the traffic out of this site will be going eastbound, so the concept of the homeowners of the multi -family portion running through the duplex portion would be quite the minority compared to the duplexes running through the multi -family to get to Elizabeth. Ms. Ashbeck added that staff agreed with the developer as far as providing pedestrian connections between the two developments, and that has been done. But, there would be vehicular trips going down Elizabeth or other trips north on Overland. That circulation can be accommodated on -site and staff is not asking for connections through other neighborhoods. It is a better circulation pattern, and would be helpful to not force people to make a left hand turn across the arterial and go through the intersection every time you want to go east on Elizabeth. Member Colton asked if Natural Resources had any concerns with the wildlife in the area. Planner Haas stated that the Natural Resources Department did review it, and did not have any concerns. There is a small wetland on -site, and would be left undisturbed, any parts that would be disturbed would be mitigated in the open space area. Member Strom asked for the storm drainage questions be responded to. Basil Hamdan, Storm water Utility, addressed the storm drainage issues and that the developer would need a drainage easement from the Happy Heart Farm to drain across Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 18 Particularly with this development, that the extra width out there would accommodate turns in and out of the site, and again the left turn lane at Overland and Elizabeth. The City feels that it is an appropriate site to actually get the improvements constructed rather than escrow. Member Colton's concern is that the trees would be lost, and was it likely that would happen if we allow not only this density at this site, but also other sites with corresponding densities. Ms. Ashbeck replied that when there are significant trees to save, they try to realign the roadway with a capital improvement project in the future. Member Mickelsen asked if the largest intent of the build out on Elizabeth, the minor arterial. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the minor arterial is what they anticipate the street to be down- graded to with the revisions to the Master Street Plan this summer. We are keeping the right-of-way for the arterial street for the time being, and that is what we are getting for dedication on other properties that are developing, because that is what the current Master Street Plan asks for, but we are not widening to the arterial width . Member Mickelsen asked if the 100 foot arterial were to happen, would they take right- of-way from peoples yards. Ms. Ashbeck replied that would have to be determined at the time we actually had a capital project, or some project to look at for widening and how we would transition whether we would put the walk back with the areas that are developing. If the street does get down -graded and we have the opportunity to just swing the sidewalk back and keep it from impacting properties. There are other capital improvement projects where we have had to go as far as to attach the sidewalk in some areas. We don't like to do it, but if it means saving trees, there is any number of alternatives that we would look at. for trying to connect the out parcels that lie in between improved areas. Chairman Bell asked how many other undeveloped parcels would contribute to the traffic on Elizabeth? Ms. Ashbeck reviewed the other undeveloped parcels in the area. Chairman Bell asked what would trigger the need to make the improvements on Elizabeth. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 17 arterial, the developments going in on West Elizabeth have had the sidewalks located at the very back of the 100 foot right-of-way. The sidewalks are being built in the ultimate location, and the improvements along the developing sites will put the curb in for the minor arterial, so what we end up with is a wider parkway strip. Ms. Ashbeck stated that this project did not have the conflict with trees as others did further east on Elizabeth, and sidewalks may have to be put behind existing trees in locations where we can. There is still some question regarding how the improvements will be transitioned between Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail, in addition, when that will occur. It may require cutting down trees, and purchasing properties for right-of-way from adjacent owners if they are not developing properties. Ms. Ashbeck gave a visual explanation of what is occurring on West Elizabeth from Taft Hill to Overland with development and what portions would be improved by development and what would not. Member Strom asked what cross-section would be built with the Siena Development. Ms. Ashbeck replied a minor arterial. There would be pieces that would need to fit together in the future, but that would take a capital improvement project. Member Colton asked if traffic from this site would contribute to making it a three instead of a two lane. Ms. Ashbeck stated that the improvements from this development, along with the improvements from the Laurie Ann Estates Development would accommodate a left turn lane. Member Colton stated he was more sensitive to will the traffic, because of density, cause the other stretch to have to be widened at some point in time, as opposed to if it was less dense, it would not have to be. Ms. Ashbeck replied that the proposed development was not triggering widening other portions at this time. The remainder that they have talked about developing on the other side of the canal does not have any frontage on the other side of the street and may not even be widened with that project unless they had frontage. They are not having enough impact to warrant widening off -site. Ms. Ashbeck cited the City Code requirement that developments that are on undeveloped property, adjacent to a street that is slated for either a collector, or minor arterial, the standard is that they improve the street along the frontage of their property to the ultimate width. That they dedicate the right-of-way, and they build the improvement. There are cases where money is collected is escrow, but the City's preference is to get the improvements built. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Vieo stated the contracts were with separate owners than for this piece. Mr. Duvall asked if they simply had not closed on the contracts. Mr. Vieo replied they could not close until the third owner is part of the assembledge. Mr. Duvall asked if the other two contracts were contingent upon the third owner agreeing to sell. Mr. Vieo replied they were not contingent on that but certainly have a bearing on it. Mr. Duvall stated that the LDGS stated that an ODP is required for any property which is intended to be developed overtime in two or more separate preliminary plan submittals. What we have here according to Mr. Vieo's testimony is a situation where he owns a property and fee title, and has contract rights to other properties but does not own them in fee title. The LDGS does not indicate any requirement that even if he owned the property adjacent -- in fee title, there is no requirement that he bring them as an ODP unless development would occur in phases. He is under no legal requirement to bring forward any other properties that he either has contract rights on or owns if he does not wish to develop that property. Member Strom asked for clarification on what is proposed to happen to Elizabeth, and what is proposed for the developer to do regarding Elizabeth. Also, how does this mesh with the neighborhood's concern with Elizabeth. Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department replied that she had prepared a handout for the Board on arterial street section and the minor arterial street section. Ms. Ashbeck reviewed a larger drawing stating that Elizabeth is currently on the Master Street Plan adopted by City Council as an arterial street; which is a 100 foot right-of-way. Ms. Ashbeck stated that would include four travel lanes, a center turn lane, bike lanes, parkway strip, and sidewalk. She stated that Elizabeth, near the end of Taft Hill Road is being built out to this standard, along by the King Soopers store, where there are more intense land uses that require the turn lanes and the additional travel lanes. Ms. Ashbeck explained that as new development occurs to the west, they are still requiring dedication of the full right-of-way in anticipation of potentially widening the roadway and to be in conformance with what the current Master Street Plan shows. But, in re-evaluating the Master Street Plan and some of the work that is to go to Council later this summer. There is the potential that West Elizabeth Street going west beyond Taft Hill Road, could be downsized to a minor arterial, which is a 50 foot roadway with 2 travel lanes, a center left turn lane, 2 bike lanes, a smaller landscape strip, and a 4ft. walk. However, because we are requiring the right-of-way for the full Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Stinson also spoke on storm drainage on the project. In summary, he was sad about the loss of the parts of their lifestyle that cannot be replaced for all the money in the world. The open views of the beauty to the foothills, the wild creatures who's homes and families will be sacrificed for more people and the money made from the sacrifice, the peace and the peace of mind that will forever be gone as the dust and debris, stress and noise rise with the level of traffic and level of the roofline. Bill Roberts, 2922 West Elizabeth stated he was the most impacted of any of the neighbors by this development. Mr. Roberts has some of the same concerns as Mr. Stinson. He has seen tremendous amounts of debris blow across that field. Mr. Roberts realized development would occur, but would like to lessen the impact of the development on their neighborhood. Mr. Roberts main concern is the multi -family section of the project. He agreed and wanted to express his concerns with widening Elizabeth. He did not see that much traffic on Elizabeth, but does see excessive high speeds on Elizabeth starting at the point where there is no more development. He suggested trying to minimize the traffic on Elizabeth and to try to slow the traffic down. Mr. Roberts respectively asked that the Board follow Mr. Vieo's recommendations that two lanes and bike lanes be sufficient. PUBLIC INPUT Eldon Ward, Architect for the applicant clarified the question on the ownership and the lack of an Overall Development Plan. Mr. Ward stated that at the time of the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Vieo was trying to assemble various properties, including three properties on the other side of the ditch. That was not accomplished before the time of submittal, and therefore legally they could not submit for any properties, except what was previously approved as the Scenic Views PUD (which was approved in 1985), with the intent of following up with the other properties as they become assembled; and, have another neighborhood meeting at that time. City Attorney John Duvall stated that it would be helpful if Mr. Vieo would come forward and state for the record some questions on the ownership situation. Mr. Duvall asked Mr. Vieo with respect to the property that is now under consideration, has that historically been owned in separate ownership from the adjacent properties, which he is considering purchasing, or may have a contract on now. Mr. Vieo responded separate ownership. Mr. Duvall asked what were his rights to the adjacent property as of now. Does he have it under contract, or own a title. Mr. Vieo replied there were two contracts, but he does not own it in fee title. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 14 Planner Haas added that the piece on the east side of the canal was seen at the neighborhood meeting when they thought they would have all the land and had planned to develop it as part of this proposal. That is not the situation now, and the plan does not contain the single family portion east of the canal. Member Colton asked if they now have ownership of the property. Mr. Vieo replied a portion of the property, not all of it. Member Colton still thought the Board should be seeing an ODP on the property and asked for legal advise. City Attorney John Duvall replied he would look into the LDGS and get back to the Board. PUBLIC INPUT Doug Kindsfather, 2706 Jaeger Court, stated that there was a lot of concern about what is going on on the other side of the canal. He thought there was a lot of reason why the land did not go under contract. It was the landowners conscious decision to wait and see how this was accepted at the neighborhood meeting. The response was not favorable. Mr. Kindsfather stated his concerns about the property on the east side of the canal and the traffic it would cause on Orchard Place. Mr. Kindsfather stated that he did not feel the density of the plan was conducive with the rural atmosphere. He also has concerns with the foot -traffic going through the canal, which now has wildlife. Mr. Kindsfather's concerns were with density and the traffic it will generate; and, felt the surrounding neighborhoods could not handle the changes in the traffic. Dennis Stinson, Happy Heart Farm stated that the first thing extracted from this site would be the "scenic views". He felt that citizens can do little and say little short of expensive litigation to influence the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Stinson spoke about the wildlife lost in the area and the visions and views they would be loosing. Mr. Stinson had concerns with the traffic in the area and suggested that Elizabeth be "downsized" for calming and quieting effect and it be designated as a main east/west alternative transportation prioritized route. The neighbors have suggested to the developer that a substantial wall be built between their properties before the project excavation starts, which might mitigate some of the noise, the blowing of dust and debris, and the heart break of having to watch it as it happens. He did not feel the two - foot plastic debris fence would not stop the wind erosion of the denuded 23 acres from winds that we have seen 100 mph. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 13 2. To try and utilize the natural terrain to complement the homes in the neighborhood. To open up the canal to public use. 3. To encourage neighborhood diversity and inter -action by putting in picnic benches, lighted walk -ways, parks, public biking and jogging trail system. Also, to introduce a bridge concept to walk and ride across the canal to enjoy it as a park and trail system. 4. To get the trail system identified as part of the city's official bike system. Mr. Vieo stated that Elizabeth and Overland Trail would be improved and bike lanes would be on both sides of Elizabeth. Mr. Vieo also showed slides and spoke about detached sidewalks, the intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth Street, landscaping along the street frontage on Overland Trail. 5. To create a neighborhood plan that complements the existing neighborhood. To expand the amount of park and public space so the neighbors could use it. 6. To emphasize the human scale of neighborhoods. Mr. Vieo showed slides and spoke about the trees that would be destroyed if Elizabeth Street that would be destroyed if Elizabeth is expanded to three or four lanes in the future. 7. To maintain the country rural feel of the property. Mr. Vieo spoke about the widening of Elizabeth and Overland Trail, fencing, and the extension of Orchard Place. 8. Pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. To minimize the circulation of automobiles in the subdivision. He feels each neighborhood should be self-contained with limited access. No through traffic and no cross streets. Connect neighborhoods with bike trails and open space, but not automobiles unless absolutely necessary. Member Colton asked about the plans for development shown on the site plan that is not part of this PUD, on the east side of the canal. He was wondering why the Board was not looking at an ODP as opposed to a PUD? Mr. Vieo replied that was the original intent. There was some contractual breakdowns and they did not have ownership so they were not able to include that portion of the property. They hope to come back in and show the other piece when they have it all figured out. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 12 Member Strom commented that he is not one to encourage traffic through residential neighborhoods from commercial development, but that the evidence indicates here that the likelihood of substantial increases in traffic is minimal; and, the applicant has gone above and beyond the usual in terms of attempting to mitigate whatever traffic there might be. Member Mickelsen foresees a lot of foot traffic and a lot of people using this center and that it will be an asset to their neighborhood. Member Colton commented that he used to live on Ticonderoga and hoped the speeds would be reduced. He has a concern with not having a left out of this site on McMurry north. Outside the traffic issues, he hoped this would be an addition to the community. Member Davidson applauded Safeway for creating a community area plaza in this shopping mall, giving access to the neighborhood and the shopping mall itself. Member Davidson likes the intense landscaping on Monte Carlo as a buffer and the berming up against Safeway. Member Mickelsen commented that she hoped that when the safety becomes more important than the cost of the left turn lane, it will be seriously considered. The motion was approved 5-0. SCENIC VIEWS - PRELIMINARY P.U.D. - #3-96 Member Davidson excused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. City Planner Mitch Haas gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: 1. The P.U.D. is approved subject to the proposed "twenty foot emergency access" changing, at final, to a permanent roadway connection, of at least twenty-four (24') feet in width, between the duplex and multi -family portions of this development. Bill Veio, applicant gave a presentation on the project. He gave a slide presentation speaking on design objectives, they were: 1. To create a mix of housing types that meet the long-term needs of residents in Fort Collins. Condominiums, single family attached housing and single family homes. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board April 22, 1996 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 8. #33-94A Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD - Preliminary 9. #3-96 Scenic Views PUD - Preliminary Member Mickelsen moved for approval of items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. HARMONY SAFEWAY MARKETPLACE - PRELIMINARY PUD. #33-94A Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. At the time of Final PUD, additional landscaping shall be provided within the 80 foot buffer along Harmony Road. 2. At the time of submittal for a Final PUD, the applicant shall have obtained a State Highway Access Permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation in order to allow the access from Harmony Road. If a permit is not granted, then the access must be deleted and the Site Plan amended accordingly. Katie Press, area Real Estate Manager for Safeway Stores, 6900 S. Yosemite, Englewood gave a brief history of the project. She spoke on working on with the neighborhood and introduced other speakers on the project. Dennis Wyatt, Wyatt and Associates, planners and architects on the project gave a presentation on the project. Mr. Wyatt spoke on their planning effort, the location of the project and the surrounding transportation system, neighborhood issues, the site plan, orientation and size of the buildings, pedestrian traffic, landscaping, parking lot layout, internal traffic, service and truck loading areas and access, screening to the residential area, pedestrian plazas, architectural elevations and design, and building materials. Kathleen Creger, Creger and Associates, 1390 Stuart Street, stated she was the Transportation Engineer on the project and conducted the traffic impact study on the site. Ms. Creger stated that they spent a great deal of time with the neighborhood, trying to address neighborhood concerns. Ms. Creger reviewed the traffic impact study and level of service at surrounding intersections. Ms. Creger spoke on the Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3415 Vice Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) The meting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Davidson, Strom, Mickelsen, Colton, Bell. Member Gaveldon was absent Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Haas, Olt, Wray, Ashbeck, Schlueter and Deines. Pete Wray from Advanced Planning gave an update on City Plan. Election of Vice Chairman: Member Davidson nominated Member Colton for Vice -Chair. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Agenda Review: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1, Minutes of the November 13, 1995, March 4, 6, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. (Continued) 2. #11-810 Huntington Hills Village PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary (Continued) 3. #72-84J Community Healthcare Center PUD (Lot 3 of Repiat No. 1 of Country Club Corners, Third Filing) - Preliminary and Final 4. #72-841 Country Club Comers PUD - Big "0" Tire Store - Preliminary and Final 5. #54-87AG Harmony Market PUD, 12th Filing - Preliminary and Final 6. #45-83F Third Amendment to Troutman PUD, Second Filing, Lots One through Five, (Highline Autos PUD), Preliminary and Final 7. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval