Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD - RESUBMITTED PRELIMINARY (REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL) - 31-95C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 17 The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Colton voting in the negative. SINCLAIR REDEVELOPMENT. #20-96 Ted Shepard, City Planner stated that there was a variance on this project from the absolute requirement that the project not take it's primary access from College Avenue. He stated that a variance is being recommended by the Planning Staff based on the justification in the staff report. He stated that the second variance is from the required minimum score of 50% required by the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart. This project achieves a score of 33%, therefore a variance is needed to be granted by the board. Again, staff is recommending approval of that based on the justification that the plan is equal to or better than. Staff is recommending approval based on the project meeting the All Development Criteria and the intent of the Land Development Guidance System. Member Byrne asked for information on how this project unfolded. Planner Shepard replied that the Sinclair Corporation contacted the Planning Department when they found out that the Choices 95 project and College and Drake would widen the intersection and we have been working with the applicant ever since. Tom Richards, Sinclair Oil Corporation addressed the board. He acknowledged Planner Shepards cooperation in addition to the adjacent property owners cooperation with the approaches they have proposed. CITIZEN INPUT There was none. Member Colton moved for approval of the Sinclair Redevelopment, Preliminary and Final PUD, #20-96 with the two variances as noted. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. HARMONY RIDGE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. #49-95 Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff report on the project recommending approval. Tom Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources addressed the board on the Cathy Fromme Prairie acquisition. He stated that they are negotiating with the property Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 16 costs. His concern is that the urban estate densities absorb a greater portion of the city budget than is their fare share. He felt this was an auto -dependent development and that it keynotes higher costs. He cited busing children to school and stated that if this project moves forward, he would be looking seriously at what some of the impacts in terms of infrastructure are of this development and what it will cost the city. Member Colton felt this was a difficult project. The citizens and the developer have gone to a lot of work to make a plan that they feel good about. He felt that transition maybe in line here for a density variance. He felt that making the neighbors feel good is one thing, but meeting the goals of the city is another. He mentioned leap frog development and felt that City Plan should address that issue, and growing from the in out to have efficient road systems. He felt that a density variance was just and justified in some of the projects in the south as there is in the north. Chairman Bell stated that the current rendition of the plan seems to be meeting some of future goals of City Plan. She felt that we don't deal with transitions very well in this community. We clearly need a way to do that. Member Weitkunat moved that the board approve the density variance as requested based on the criteria of being equal to or better than the previous plan. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary with conditions as stated and the finding of fact in the staff report. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Byrne asked for a friendly amendment to add a condition regarding infrastructure. He asked that at final, he would like to see a study that deals with specific traffic impact and specific infrastructure improvements that this project will require. There will be direct and indirect, including the cost of busing school children to other schools. Member Weitkunat and Gavaldon accepted the condition. Member Colton commented that although he approves of the variance, he feels that this does not meet A1.2 in the LDGS. He feels that the city should grow from the inside out and hopes those issues will be dealt with in City Plan. He will not be supporting the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 15 units, which meets the minimum density requirement on a site like this, transition, and meet the neighborhood compatibility goals, they think is impossible to due. You can't bring a plan forward that meets all of those absolute criteria. Chairperson Bell shared her concerns regarding the density issues. She asked what made this project different and unique that the board should consider giving this variance. Director Blanchard replied that the board should consider that this is the first time that there has been a request for a variance. Neither project she previously mentioned had requested a variance for density, so the debate was, does it meet the criteria, not does it meet the criteria for a variance. Member Colton asked about the layout of the project and had the size of the lots changed from the previous project reviewed. Mr. Sell replied that some of the areas had been rearranged. Mr. Sell provided an old slide from the previous project and discussed the changes that had been made to the project. Member Weitkunat commended the applicant, the neighborhood, and the oil company for working together in a cooperative spirit in trying to come to a conclusion with a positive result. She also thanked the neighborhood for addressing issues the board should have addressed. She felt that consideration should be given to the location and because of that should be looked at differently. She spoke on inflexibility with urban development when reaching the edges of the community. She spoke about what was appropriate and what could effectively integrated into an area. Member Weitkunat felt that the LDGS was unkind to the north. She felt that the difficulty in meeting the base points should be considered. In looking at this she felt that this development was appropriate in this area. She felt this was an area that should be looked at on it's own merit as it evolves into what our community is going to become. Member Gavaldon commented that the board should work within the parameters of the documents provided for review. He believed that part of the process is the community process and that citizens participate and get involved. He commended the citizens for their involvement in this project. He felt the developer has gone to great lengths on this project and a lot of good effort has been made. He felt that this project has achieved a balance with all the elements. Member Byrne felt that it was a good exercise to have the neighborhood involved to the extent that they were and he commended both parties. His concern continues to be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 14 explained that the problem was for the developer was that it put them squarely pitted against a neighborhood in meeting all the neighborhood compatibility criteria, which they have to meet, because you can't do that with affordable housing because that means higher density, and in this neighborhood it is not appropriate. That is the reason they are where they are and why they came in with this point chart. Ms. Liley addressed the Land Use Policies Plan concerns that Member Colton had. She reviewed specific policies cited and how this project complies with those policies or discussed how those policies were not applicable to this project. She suggested, on balance, they meet better than most projects, both the LDGS and the Land Use Policies Criteria. Chairperson Bell asked what the zoning on this property would be in the new City Plan. Director Blanchard replied that this area would be designated as Urban Estates. He stated the lot sizes would be anywhere from'/2 acre to 5 acres. The Urban Estate areas are envisioned to be those areas within the city limits and the urban growth boundary that transition from higher density to existing rural and county density. Chairperson Bell asked where the neighborhood services for this project would be? Planner Olt reviewed on a slide where the various services in the area would be. Mr. Sell also reviewed what was being planned for services in adjoining the Richard's Lake P.U.D. Chairperson Bell asked about the need for this project to have a variance. She asked Mr. Eckman to explain the criteria this project would have to meet to receive a variance. Mr. Eckman explained the variance provisions of the LDGS and the Land Use Policies Plan; and stated that this project requested a variance to the density requirement based on meeting criterion 1 and 3 of the density variance provisions. Mr. Eckman explained how this project meets those two criterion and gave the board their options for approving a variance. Chairperson Bell asked the applicant to explain their undue hardship for the variance request. Ms. Liley explained that they have a 105 acre site with 28 acres just in wetlands and wetland buffers. Then to provide a buffer to the lake and the existing oil wells are conditions that are peculiar to the site and the undue hardship is trying to cram 300+ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 13 Richard's Lake PUD or the Hearthfire developers will build the road to the east to County Road 11 as a second point of access on a collector street. Member Byrne asked about the off -site improvements and how much of it is spelled out in code and how much is negotiated. Gary Diede, Director of Engineering replied that the code does require the 36 foot road improvement on Douglas Road, their primary access, over to the closest improved arterial, which is Highway 1. The code also requires the adjacent roads, County Road 13 in this case, to be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a two lane roadway. Member Byrne felt we were not in the business to build enclaves, but build a city. He felt that cities need a rational network of streets that provide reasonable inter- connections. He realizes that no one wants traffic, but it is one of the trade-offs. Member Colton wanted to discuss whether this project meets the point chart and the Land Use Policies Plan. He has seen indications that the neighborhood and the developer are happy with the project, but it was the board's judiciary responsibility to make sure the project meets the City's policies and plans. Member Colton still has concerns about the location of this project and the appropriateness of this development based on locational criteria. He questioned the base and bonus points on the point chart. He questioned the base points and that this project only scored 20 points for locational criteria, and that was because it is in North Fort Collins. It did not get any other points or meet any other locational criteria of the point chart. The way the developer did get enough points for this is that they spent $709,000 on neighborhood facilities and services and therefore got 49 points, which would be the 69 or 70 points needed for this project. Member Colton spoke about the Land Use Policies Plan. He cited policy numbers and explained that he did not think that this project met any of the policies listed. Member Colton asked the developer to explain why this project should be approved due to not meeting any locational criteria. Ms. Liley spoke on behalf of the applicant. She stated that they disagree with the analysis about both the LDGS and the Land Use Policies Plan. She explained that under the point chart that was in effect when this project was filed, those are the regulations that the City is bound to use and is using when comparing this project and seeing if it meets that point chart. Ms. Liley also explained their views on complying with the new point chart and that this project could get the 40 base points needed. She Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 12 changed their focus over to Douglas Road, which is classified as an arterial by both the City and the County. Once they make improvements to that to a 36 foot wide road, they will have met their off -site road improvements. They don't have other requirements besides that and the improvements to County Road 13 adjacent to their property. Member Byrne asked about the letter in their packets from Larimer County. He read from the letter and he was concerned about not having enough detail regarding off -site improvements. Member Byrne asked staff from the Transportation Department to respond to the off -site improvements and a scope of the traffic impact analysis and the single point of access to this development. Fred Jones, Transportation Department explained that there is an emergency access point off of Inverness and County Road 13, which will allow for emergency vehicle access. The city is asking for a secondary access point sometime in the future to have the property dedicated to -- Member Byrne asked if we do this in other areas and do provide a gravel road for fire trucks and police. Mr. Jones replied that it is a temporary access point. A secondary emergency entrance to the property would be along the bike and equestrian trail. He stated that this project is in a fringe area that is requiring some innovative approaches to access. This site does have County property on most of the quadrants surrounding it. After they reach 90 units, they will have a collector roadway that comes through the Richard's Lake development out to County Road 11, which will provide for porosity throughout this entire section of roadway. Member Byrne asked how that alignment is guaranteed. Mr. Jones replied that it would be guaranteed through the Richard's Lake Overall Development Plan that is already existing and shows that the roadway connection currently exists under that present plan. Member Byrne asked if there would be any question about that. Mr. Olt replied that the alignment is presently shown on the Richard's Lake Overall Development Plan which is a valid plan that has not and will not expire. As the Richard's Lake PUD goes through the process, that is when that street alignment through there will be defined. The alignment has reasonably been set through the Richard's Lake ODP. Once 90 units has been exceeded in the Hearthfire, either Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 11 design issues related to that. The will have that design proposal at final. The proposal is also to strike two bike lanes on Douglas Road. Member Byrnes concern was that the City is so far behind on road improvements and was concerned that as development occurs, it is not taking care of some of the road improvements that could be reasonably expected. Ms. Liley stated they have spent countless hours meeting with County and City Staff on these issues. What they are trying to do is accommodate neighbors concerns and deal with legitimate city concerns. She was suggesting to the board that the staff has made it clear that they would like to see some improvements to that section of County Road 13, adjacent to their project, and they would like to see Douglas Road widened to 36 feet to accommodate paved bike lanes. Non of those are objectionable to the developer and they have agreed to a condition by staff saying that they have to deal with both the off -site requirements to Douglas and County Road 13 improvements when they come back with the final design. Member Byrne stated he would like to see more specific plans that say what is going to happen and when is it going to occur. Member Byrne asked about Inverness Drive not connecting. He was concerned with street design. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, replied that this project was adjacent to an area that has no sewer district or service and is on septic. Because of that it would be restricted to 2.5 acre lots. Mr. Sell pointed out the Cherry Hills Sanitation District's boundaries. He stated that this project would stay in a very rural, low density situation. He explained what they have done to try and accommodate these concerns is to put in a public access. Bridget Schmitt, representing the neighborhood spoke on the situation with Inverness Road. She stated that it is a gravel road that his irrigation ditches underneath it and there is a bridge at the very end of it that makes a sharp left-hand turn south onto Abbotsford Road and then to Gregory Road. They felt that if this project were to be developed in the County with 2.5 acres lots, that might have been a feasible option. To have city type density come down that road, there would have to be major improvements to that road which totally change the entire character of the neighborhood. That is the main thing that they have been trying not to do. Ms. Liley added that legally, the requirement of the developer is to have access to one improved arterial that has been improved to city standards. After discussions, they Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 10 Member Gavaldon asked about the fire response time from the new station to this development being 6 minutes. He asked what the current response time would be. Ms. Liley replied that it would be a little over 7 minutes. The current planned station would be 2.5 miles away and the travel time would be conservatively 4.5 minutes. Member Gavaldon asked when Station 12 would be online. Ms. Liley stated that they would be operational in 1997 and that would be the same timing as their subdivision. Member Byrne made an observation that there was one way in and out of this development. Ms. Ruth Clear, traffic engineer, stated that initially there will be an access off of Douglas Road, but eventually there would be an access off of -- Ms. Liley added that the present plan meets city requirements. They wanted another access that would be their primary access that would go through Richard's Lake, once that project is up and going. What they have done is provide a primary access and a secondary emergency access, and that meets all the City's requirements. The developer is planning, voluntarily, at some point to change their primary access from Douglas to the south of the project and down through Richard's Lake. They have agreed not to pull more than 90 building permits before that access is built. Member Byrne asked what the average dwelling unit trip generator. Ms. Clear replied that each single family household generates 10 daily trips Member Byrne asked what the nature of the off -site improvements were? Ms. Liley responded that city standards would typically require that adjacent streets be improved. They met with the County because the neighbors wanted County Road 13 to remain gravel. The County engineer stated that would be fine because they don't expect a large volume of traffic. But, the City objected to that because a policy of the City in terms of future redevelopment of the area, that the road should be paved. The standard requirement of the City would be to pave that section of County Road 13 adjacent to the project and put curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side. Ms. Liley felt that there cold still be some negotiations regarding the curb, gutter and sidewalk before final approval. Ms. Liley stated that the city would also like to see Douglas Road widened to the standard 36 feet all the way to Highway 1. They are working with the City on the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Dinsmore stated that the developers have met with their Homeowners Association frequently and have listened to their concerns carefully. They have agreed to remove all commercial ventures from the plan to be compatible with the existing rural neighborhoods. They agreed to protect their irrigation supply, and to put building envelopes on deeds of certain lots to protect their views of the mountains. She applauded the developers efforts and asked the board to support the new Hearthfire proposal and that the key to it's success was the variance to the density variance. Jerry Doff, homeowner in Serramonte Highlands stated that he also agreed that the density variance would be a great help in keeping their area rural. Perhaps it would also set a precedent for future development that it is contiguous to this site. He encouraged the board to grant the density variance. Steve Slaten, 793 Richards Lake Road spoke in favor of people in general being able to develop their land. He spoke of the developers bending over backwards to try to accommodate the neighbors, the board, City Council and the County Commissioners. He was disappointed in the delays and felt that it was interfering with supply and demand and escalating costs of the project. He felt in the long term that was hurting Larimer County and the little people who want to purchase a home and cannot afford it due to increase costs. He felt that this was a specific example of the developers having to do this project over and over again. This amounts to increased costs of the project and he felt that the board was messing around with free enterprise. Mr. Slaten stated that he tried a 120 lot subdivision in 1995 and he never got out of conceptual review because traffic engineers wanted to tie him up with traffic studies. He felt that people in this areas concern in the future was will the neighborhood be pedestrian friendly. He has suggested at previous meetings that the traffic patterns be modified so that cut through traffic could be eliminated. Mr. Slaten felt that Richards Lake Road should remain closed and gave his opinion on some other road closings in the area. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Bell offered the applicant time for rebuttal. Ms. Liley only had one issue and that was that the developer was proposing the closure of access from this development to County Road 13 and that it would be an emergency access only. She stated that was a request of the neighborhood and that was why the new road would be going to Douglas Road which will be the primary access. The City did request that they did a cut there for in the future, if traffic volumes are warranted, it could continue through. There will be no through traffic on County Road 13. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 8 available in the area around Fort Collins. To this end, they feel that the current design of Hearthfire with it's request for a density variance have knitted together their older rural neighborhoods with a newer one by designing porosity for pedestrians, bicycles and equestrians. This design can effectively connect their neighborhoods without dumping unwanted increased traffic onto a small rural residential road that was never designed to act as a collector. Ms. Kilkelly gave the neighbors point of view regarding the oil fields. The producing oil field that exists there isn't just a problem for new residents coming in. The County residents in this area have expressed concerns about health and safety for many years about this oil field. However, only in about the last 6 months, have they had significant progress toward resolving some of these issues. A group of neighbors met with representatives of Whiting Oil and Safety and the Hearthfire development team for a field site visit on August 6th. During this meeting, neighbors related their experiences and concerns about living near the wells and storage facilities. In tern, the neighbors learned about measures which could be taken to improve and upgrade the operation. They met again on September 12th to review and discuss the findings of this safety evaluation. As a result of these interactions, relationships between neighbors and the operators have improved. They believe they have a new opportunity to resolve some very long standing problems. They feel that both the operator and the landowner are aware of the need to understand the possible hazards existing on and around the development side. They feel optimistic that they are committed to identifying and alleviating problems associated with the oil field. Margaret Phillips, representing the Dell Wood Heights Homeowners Association stated that the residents of their area heavily use this area. She stated that they moved out there because they wanted to live in a rural atmosphere and did not want to live in a truly urban area. She emphasized what a tremendous commitment this has been from the neighbors to come down from wishing to purchase this land and retain it as open space to coming to an agreement with the developers for this lower density. Adele Dinsmore, lives in Serramonte Highlands area, stated that the outcome they seek best serves the intent of the developer to build a quality PUD, allows Whiting to continue to extract oil and gas, and maintains the quiet way of life the residents of Serramonte have always enjoyed. She stated that the key to this compromise is the boards granting of the density variance. For without that, they cannot support the Hearthfire PUD. She asked the board to recognize that the Hoffman property has been a land use battleground for more than a decade, and should not be covered by a blanket zoning policy. She also stated that they were delighted to see a zoning designation of Urban Estate on City Plan for their area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 7 be the case with future developers. For these reasons, the neighbors felt it would be in their best interest to work for a positive outcome to help build a project that would be suitable for their area. The current Hearthfire proposal represents a total package with the various factors the neighbors felt were necessary in order for them to support the project. Reducing the impact of traffic to County Road 13 and Inverness; this has been accomplished by changing the access to Douglas Road. Sharing of recreational opportunities and encouraging neighborhood porosity; this is being accomplished through the bike, pedestrian, and equestrian trails. Providing larger lots closer to the existing acreage homes, including more view corridors, clustering to provide access for wildlife to the wetlands, doing all possible to maintain a rural atmosphere; this is being accomplished by the request for a density variance for which the neighbors are asking the board for approval tonight. A variance for the lighting standards has already been approved and the neighbors will continue to work with the engineering staff and the developers to determine appropriate road standards for County Road 13. Ms. Schmidt stated that they have been involved in all phases and spent many hours working on compromises to ensure the compatibility of this project with the established neighborhoods and their rural lifestyle. Ms. Schmidt stated that the North College Corridor Plan, as well as City Plan encourages growth in northern Fort Collins. The key ingredient for this growth to be beneficial is that it must recognize the uniqueness of this area. Uniqueness in terms of geographical and infrastructure considerations, as well as lifestyle choices. The current Hearthfire proposal serves as infill between county subdivisions and provides for transition from the existing rural acreages to the more urban densities being proposed for future developments. This project has been designed through traffic management and density reductions to lessen the impacts on the already strained infrastructure of this area. As growth comes to the north, we need to ensure that it is being sensitive to the needs of current residents. Kathleen Kilkelly, member of the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition spoke of their support for the density request for the Hearthfire PUD. She stated that they wanted to show a larger concern for a threatened lifestyle, like their rural residential areas, small acreages, horse properties, and equestrian activities. With the increased urban development expected in the northeast area of Fort Collins in the future, there are existing established rural residential neighborhoods. The neighbors feel that these will be effected by this development. The future development should be sensitive to and compatible with these established neighborhoods. Equestrian activities are prevalent in these neighborhoods and they are fearful that the opportunities to pursue these activities and the kind of lifestyle will be lost with future development. This loss would erode their quality of life and would further restrict the residential choices that are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 6 the applicant hired a firm that specializes in oil and gas wells, and safety testing of all kind. They train employees on -site, they give recommendations on meeting OCEA requirements and operating a safe field. The person who authored the applicant's report is a safety expert in this area. The findings and conclusions are found at tab 4 of the information notebook provided to the Board, in addition, a letter from PFA stating their review of this report and their conclusions to the safety of the oil well. Gary Rogerson, safety expert hired by the applicant stated that they were asked to do a test for any dangers there might be from the Hydrogen -Sulfite that may be produced by the oil wells. Mr. Rogerson explained the process they used to measure the amount of gas coming out of the line (which would be for the entire 2300 acres). They found the systems used by Whiting Oil -- there was no danger to anyone in the area from the Hydrogen -Sulfite gas. Member Gavaldon asked about if there were documented procedures and inspections and what was the latest safety record of Whiting Oil over the last 5 to 10 years. Dale Walters, Whiting Petroleum, responded that the safety record at the Fort Collins Field in the last 12 years is perfect. There have been no accidents of any nature, they have drilled 36 wells in that period of time, and they have three full-time employees. Their employees are fully trained and continually instructed regarding safety and the normal operations of their job. Whiting Oil has been very pro -active in compliance with Federal Regulations concerning the community right to no laws. Mr. Walters reviewed some of Whiting Oils safety policies. CITIZEN INPUT Bridget Schmidt, speaking on behalf of the Northeast Neighborhood Area Coalition. Ms. Schmidt commented that their group has been very active this past year researching every angle of the issue. Ms. Schmidt stated there are property owners interested in selling their land. They will keep pursuing buyers. The neighborhood does not, nor do any of the land trusts they have talked with have the money to buy the property. De -annexing the property into the County would be difficult because it is in the Urban Growth Area. There is a subdivision zoning on part of the property, and determining why someone did such a ridiculous thing over 10 years ago would be difficult; and would be more difficult to rectify these actions without much effort and legal assistance. Ms. Schmidt stated that the local development team was willing to work with them to maintain the characteristics of the established surrounding the property. This might not Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Sell spoke about the community center, the environmental concerns, the on and off - site wetland areas, safety with the oil wells and pumpers, their locations, setbacks from the oil well pumpers being 150 feet, and traffic with Whiting Oil Company. Mr. Sell commented that they never have had so much difficulty and so much pleasure in working with a neighborhood, and hoped the Board would endorse the plan. Ms. Liley noted some technical issues. She mentioned the Fire Station to be built at Country Club Road and Highway 1, and that it would be coming before the Board in October. Regarding traffic, the applicant has worked closely with both the County and the City on traffic issues. Largely, changing the access points and reducing the density allowed them to deal with that in a fashion that was acceptable to all the affected parties. Ms. Liley noted tab 3 in the handout that gives the most updated levels of service based on the current plan. The conclusion of the traffic reports are that no road improvements are necessary as a result from vehicular traffic from this development. Ms. Liley spoke on the oil well issues. She stated that this is part of a larger operating oil field that has been in existence over 20 years in the city, and many more years in the County, next to roads and houses. There is one oil well on the site with the standard pumper jack. This oil well is governed by a binding agreement which does not permit any additional oil wells to be drilled on the site. Ms. Liley noted that they have met the most restrictive of any recommended setbacks that have been given to the City with regard to separation between the oil well and structures. Ms. Liley stated that the Board received a letter tonight from Whiting Oil that their issues and concerns have been addressed in correspondence between the applicant and Whiting Oil, and with the revised site plan they have reviewed. Ms. Liley addressed the noise issue. She stated that the noise data they were provided by Whiting Oil in the last week, as well as decibel readings they took today, to verify, indicate that there should be no problem complying with the most restrictive of the noise ordinance. Ms. Liley addressed the odor issue. She stated that Whiting Oil has added a piece of equipment to the battery site. The battery site is off site and is the most likely to produce the occasional sulfur odors. The wells themselves are contained units, even when they are being cleaned, and are most likely not to produce any odor. They have attached a vapor recovery system to the battery site that will serve to further reduce the existing condition of occasional odors. Ms. Liley addressed the hydron-sulfite issue. Because this is the only potentially significant safety issue, and because there are so many questions at the last hearing, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 4 Planner Olt stated that he did not get a copy of one either. Fred Jones, Transportation Department stated he did get a new study. Member Byrne stated that the Board has not had a chance to review the new study submitted for tonight and hoped it had been updated for the current project. Mr. Jones replied that the street alignment did change on the north access point and also on the access point on County Road 13. This analysis was done for 147 dwelling units, and was done in July of 1996. Member Byrne asked if the analysis was representative of the project as it is currently proposed or was it substantially different. Mr. Jones replied it did represent the project as proposed. Member Colton asked if Planner Olt could point out on the locational map the convoluted city limits to the east and south of the development. Planner Olt complied and showed which properties were in the city limits and which were not. Lucia Liley, representing the applicant gave the applicants presentation. She mentioned the notebooks provided to the board and stated that they may be referred in the presentation. Ms. Liley gave a brief history of the project. She also spoke on the revised project discussing the preliminary plan for the whole site, the process to which they had achieved this plan, and the interaction the developer had with the neighborhood to reach agreements with the neighborhood on this plan. Ms. Liley spoke on the density variance and mentioned a letter from the County giving their support for the density of the project. Jim Sell of JimSell Design reviewed the site plan and showed slides of the proposed area to be developed. He discussed the context of the neighborhood, how they blended the higher density into the rural neighborhood, the connections to city bike trails, shopping, schools, Greenbriar Park, and the new proposed fire station. He stated that the dedicated off-street access for both pedestrians and equestrians would be continued through the Richard's Lake site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1996 Page 3 Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary, #31-95A Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff report. He stated that this was a remanded item from a City Council appeal, and was previously denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. Planner Olt stated that this was a revised plan and staff was recommending approval of the project including a variance to the All Development Criterion A-1.12, Residential Density, and with the following conditions: 1. The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans. 2. Wetland disturbance and mitigation measures will be resolved at time of final PUD review. Wetlands to be disturbed will be replaced at a rate of 1.5 to 1. The ultimate disposition of the wetland pond area will need to be resolved with the final PUD through submittal of a detailed plan for the area. Preliminary PUD approval does not imply that modification of the wetland area is acceptable to City staff. 3. Concurrently with submission of final PUD documents, the developer shall submit a detailed study based on the final plan and engineering, analyzing the effects of urban runoff into the wetlands and ultimately into Richards Lake, along with an adequate mitigation plan to deal with negative impacts if needed. Member Colton asked about this project being brought back as just a PUD and not an Overall Development Plan with a preliminary PUD. Assistant City Attorney Duval replied that the Council did not require that the plan come back in exactly the same configuration as it had been to the Board the first time. The applicant has now presented it as one preliminary plan; and since it is just one preliminary plan, the LDGS only requires an Overall Development Plan, "if a property is intended to be developed over time in two or more separate preliminary plan submittals." This plan has now been submitted as just one preliminary plan and an Overall Development Plan is not needed. Planner Olt added that they could come in with all or part of the preliminary plan in phases for a final approval. Member Byrne asked for a traffic impact analysis study, and that it was not included in their packets. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting September 23, 1996 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: 221-3415 (H) Vice Chairperson: Glen Colton Phone: 679-3201 (W 225-2760 (H) The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call: Byrne, Gavaldon, Weitkunat, Colton, Bell. Member Davidson was absent. Staff Present: Olt, Jones, Shepard, Ashbeck, Bracke, Blanchard, Duval and Macklin. Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows: 1. Minutes of the April 8, April 22, and May 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (April 22, and May 20 Continued) 2. #21-89G Troutman Office Park PUD - Preliminary & Final 3. #13-82BS Oakridge Business Park, 23rd Filing, Invision Marketing PUD - Preliminary & Final 4. #16-96A Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Phase 1 - Final 5. #3-96A Scenic Views PUD - Final 6. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval 7. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Request to Remove Land from the Urban Growth Area. Discussion Agenda: 8. #31-95C Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary 9. #20-96 Sinclair Redevelopment PUD - Preliminary and Final 10. #49-95 Harmony Ridge PUD - Preliminary & Final 11. #49-95A Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary These items are Continued until the October 7, 1996 P & Z Hearing: 12. Recommendation to City Council for the Approval of the Principles and Policies Document as part of City Plan. 13. #6-96 Harmony Towne Center PUD - Preliminary 14. #33-94B Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD - Final