Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE ONE - FINAL ..... FIFTH P & Z BOARD HEARING - 49-95B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 8 Member Weitkunat and Member Carpenter excused themselves from the item, due to not hearing the item previously. Discussion was held on whether or not the Board wanted to consider this item. Member Davidson moved not to rescind the earlier decision and let the appeal go forward. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 20, 1998 P & Z Meeting Page 7 Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat commented that this is a project that falls under the LDGS, and meets many of the criteria that has been set forth. She commented that she does not have a problem with logo's on buildings, it's part of doing business. She was very sure that the Group would do something extremely tasteful, compatible and artistically favorable. She was looking forward to seeing the rest of the project and what happens with the historic buildings. Member Davidson thanked Mr. Kendall for being flexible and sensitive to the aesthetics of the development. He does think that is very well done for pedestrians and landscaping for the scale that it is. Member Carpenter thanked Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Ward for working on the historic pieces as hard as they have. She is also looking forward to seeing the rest of this project. Chairperson Colton commented that this was a very nice project and hopes it continues in the eastern portion. Regarding the sign, he understands the concerns of fellow board members, however, he did not have that strong of a concern. He felt that on other Group buildings, the sign is pretty muted. The motion was approved 6-0. Other Business: Project: yR -95Consideration of the Board to rescind its denial of the Harmony Ridge PUD on July 16, 1998. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Harmony Ridge matter was heard earlier by the Board, and the project was denied. Since that time an appeal has been filed to take the question to the City Council. The applicant is attempting to obviate the need for that appeal to go to City Council by attempting to come back before the Board and ask the Board to rescind its earlier denial. If the Board should vote to rescind its earlier denial, that would put the matter back on the table for the Board to consider as a main motion. He instructed the Board to hear the presentation as to why they would like to ask the Board to rescind and if the Board would then decide to rescind, the matter could not be heard tonight. A later Board hearing would then be scheduled. If the Board decides not to rescind, the issue is closed and the appeal would go forward to the Council. I__ .— i I A L -'Jl � 111 111W u�..iui rC .Jt7J007�YJ.)4 r.rx Q Cr. J cc YY c z C a z 2 z u, N N N N 3 W i' ■ r- r N CD T 0 r~ Joe vansant Lucia Liley, March/Liley Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Batt Delich �Wy August 14, 1999 Engineer Harmony Ridge traffic analysis summary (File: 9595MEM4) This memorandum summarizes the results of the operational analyses at the Harmony/Shields intersection with Phase 1, and Phases 1 and 2 at a forecasted year 2002 condition. Level of service C will occur with background traffic. Level of service D and C will occur in the respective peak hours with background plus Harmony Ridge Phase 1 traffic. The peak hour operation will be acceptable with the existing geometry on all legs, with the exception of the south leg (northbound), which will have 2 through lanes (shared right turns) and on the north leg (sorthbound), which will have dual left -turn lanes. It is concluded that the operation is acceptable. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. Level of service D and C will occur in the respective peak hours with background plus Harmony Ridge Phase i and 2 traffic. The peak hour operation will be acceptable with the existing geometry on all legs, with the exception of the south leg (northbound), which will have 2 through lanes (shared right turns) and on the north leg (southbound), which will have dual left -turn lanes. it is concluded that the operation is acceptable. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. Ms. Gwen Bell and PIanning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 • Page 4 On behalf of the Owners, I thank the Board for the opportunity to present this request and respectfully urge the Board, based on the foregoing information, to rescind its denial of Harmony Ridge and to reconsider such final plan on September 3, 1998. Sincerely, MARCH & LILEY, P.C. LAL/gIr Attachment F:\wrcwLwnaM0IM3XscnmLrx Ul"I Ms. Gwen Bell and Planning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 Page 3 service (although it achieves an overall acceptable level of operation) and that in the five-year future range, both morning and afternoon peak hour operation would be unacceptable given, "the existing geometry and same basic phasing." Two pieces of crucial information related to intersection geometry and project phasing were not discussed at the previous Board hearing: (1) improvements planned for the Harmony/Shields intersection this fall; and (2) the fact that the Harmony Ridge Phase 2 traffic numbers were included in the Traffic Study (although Phase 2 is not part of this final plan). This fall the City will complete are -striping plan for the Harmony/Shields intersection which will add two northbound through lanes and another southbound left turn lane. City engineers are of the opinion that these improvements will bring the intersection up to an acceptable level of service. The Owners' traffic engineer, using the highway capacity software as required by the City, re- analyzed the intersection, both with and without Phase 2 traffic. The summary results of that analysis are attached, and copies of the analysis have been given to Eric Bracke. Generally, the analysis shows that with present traffic and in the five-year future range, this intersection will operate acceptably given the new improvements and including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic. Harmony Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Another issue identified by the Board was the lack of a connection to a continuous Harmony Road bicycle/pedestrian trail. Bicycle/pedestrian trail connections were shown and detailed on the approved preliminary plan. No conditions were attached by the Board requiring additional connections. In fact, the project scored bonus points on the Residential Uses Density Point Chart for "providing bicycle/pedestrian connections to existing City sidewalks and providing bicycle/ pedestrian connections to a City bicycle trail." These are points which are not required in order to develop a residential project but awarded because they go beyond City requirements. The only change from the approved preliminary plan is the addition of another trail connection requested by City staff. A site plan showing all of the bicycle/pedestrian trail connections and improvements has been given to the Planning Department. Nonetheless, the Owners would offer another connection. Presently, the north side of Harmony Road has an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail from Seneca Street to Shields Street with the exception of 800 feet adjacent to The Villages at Harmony West. The Owners have already committed to acquiring right-of-way for and improving Seneca Street to its intersection with the realigned Harmony Road, including bicycle/pedestrian trails. They would offer to improve the missing 800-foot connection on the north side of Harmony Road to provide a continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians from the project along Harmony Road to Shields Street. Street Names All street names were reviewed and approved by appropriate City departments, including Emergency Services. If the City desires new names, the Owners will be glad to provide them. Ms. Gwen Bell and Planning and Zoning Board August 14, 1998 Page 2 What makes this situation even more difficult is the sale by the Owners to the City of approximately 180 acres adjacent to Harmony Ridge as part of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. The Owners had not offered this property for sale. The City, however, very much wanted the 180-acre parcel but believed the Harmony Ridge property better suited for development. Although the Owners are not developers by profession —Mr. Stark is a prominent local sculptor and Mr. McGarvey is the owner of the local Charcoal Broiler —they decided that they would sell the desired property to the City at what they believed to be a less than market value price with the specific condition that thev first receive oreliminaryRlan approval of the Harmony Ridge PUD so they could be certain that they would have a developable parcel of ground to offset the investment loss on the adjacent 180-acre parcel to be sold to the City. Particularly, since the Owners were not experienced developers, they never imagined that their project could be at total risk after receiving preliminary approval. Now they find themselves in the position of having sold the 180-acre parcel to the City, relying in good faith on the preliminary plan approval, but having lost all development approval of the project as a result of the denial of the final plan and being caught in the transition between land use systems. The Owners believed they were well prepared for the hearing, relying on the fact that they had met the six conditions of preliminary plan approval and that all the various City departments had recommended approval of the project. Had they been given the opportunity, they would have requested, or agreed to, a continuance to try to deal with the Board's concerns. Since that did not happen, the only options available are to appeal to Council or request that the Board rescind its denial and reconsider the final PUD. Since the Board did not have key pieces of relevant information and since the Owners have potential solutions to address Board concerns, in this particular case a rescission and reconsideration would seem to be the more appropriate course of action. The following briefly summarizes such information and proposed solutions. Private Drive Issue (Chokecherry Trail) A primary issue identified by the Board as grounds for its denial was the belief that Chokecherry Trail was unsafe since it did not meet the City's grading standards. In proposing Chokecherry Trail as a private street which was not required to meet City standards, the Owners were relying on the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer that the proposed grade, though not in compliance with City standards, did not pose a safety problem. Nonetheless, to address the Board's concern, the Owners have now designed Chokecherry Trail as a public street fully complying with all City standards. Dave Stringer has reviewed and approved that design. Harmony/Shields Intersection A concern expressed by some Boardmembers was the addition of any traffic from this project to the intersection of Harmony and Shields since the February 23, 1998 addendum to the Harmony Ridge Traffic Study concluded that selected movements now operate at unacceptable levels of ART" F MARCH. JR. LUCU1 A. ULEY J. BRAD:ORD MARCH SUZAN D. FRITCHEL MARCH & LILEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 E. OAK TMET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 808242880 (9701 492-4322 Fu (970) 4ee-8719 August 14, 1998 Ms. Gwen Bell, Chair Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Planning and Zoning Boardmembers City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado RE: Harmony Ridge Final PUD Dear Chairperson Bell and Members of the Board: VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA HAND DELIVERY ARTHUR E. MARCH 19o8-1981 Our firm represents Lee A. Stark and G. D. McGarvey, the Owners of the property proposed to be developed as Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One, Final ("Harmony Ridge"). On behalf of the Owners, I respectfully request that at its meeting on August 20,1998, the Board consider rescinding its denial of Harmony Ridge and setting a date of September 3, 1998 for reconsideration of the project. Requests to rescind previous decisions are not commonly sought. I have requested only one rescission in the past 18 years. In the case of Harmony Ridge, there are some compelling fairness issues which dictate that the Board should at least reconsider its decision. Not only is Harmony Ridge a final planned unit development, it is caught in the City's transition between land use schemes. A denial of a final planned unit development always has serious impacts. In this case, those impacts are greatly magnified because of the transition rules. Were it not for the transition, the Owners would not lose their preliminary plan approval and could re -file a final plan, attempting to address the Board's concerns. Instead, the Owners have been advised that the denial of the final plan terminates their approved preliminary plan as well, meaning that they must completely start over after three (3) years in the planning process at a cost of $200,000 to date. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1998 6:00 P.M Council Liaison: Mike Byrne I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Glen Colton (H) 225-2760 (VV) 679-3201 Vice Chair: None due to resignation of Chairperson Bell The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Colton. Roll Call: Davidson, Carpenter, Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Craig, Colton Staff Present. Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Blandford, Stringer, Baker, McNair, Bracke and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda's. 1. Minutes of the September 4th, September 18th, 1997 and July 16, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 3. Resolution PZ98-15 Easement Vacation. 4. Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation. 5. #16-89J Timber Creek and Stetson Creek Overall Development Plan - Partial Abandonment. Discussion Agenda: 6. #90-850 The Preston Center at Wildwood Business Park PUD, Filing One, Amended Preliminary and Final. Member Gavaldon pulled Item #4, Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of Consent Agenda items 2, 3, and 5. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Pro' Resolution PZ98-17 Easement Vacation Prodect Description: Request to vacate a 6 foot power easement on Lot 1, Sherwood Mews, PUD, (411 North Sherwood Street) located on Sherwood Street between Sycamore Street and Cherry Street.