Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGEFIELD P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 45-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 18 Deputy City Attorney Eckman thought with regards to the Natural Resource Conditions, legally binding agreements from the ditch company should be in order at the time of final that would make those conditions possible. Member Fontane added that was her intention with the motion. Member Cottier agreed as the second. Chief Planner Blanchard wanted to clarify for the record what the conditions were. He understood them as granting from page 3 of the staff report, Variances 1,2, and 4, the 4 Natural Resource Conditions and the delineation of the 100-year flood plain, the redesign to eliminate the hammerhead, and researching the deletion of two lots, there would be no granting and no -vesting of the layout and density, and the variance to the solar orientation. Chief Planner Blanchard asked about any change to the sidewalks. Member Fontane replied no change in the sidewalk pattern. The motion was approved 4-3, with Members Strom, Walker, and Bell voting in the negative. #29-90 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director gave the staff report stating the Planning and Zoning Board was being asked to consider the adoption of new land use policies and design criteria as an update to the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Planning area for the study extended 4 1/2 miles from the 1-25 interchange to College Avenue and extends 1 mile north and south of Harmony Road. The key issues focus on how much, where and what type of commercial and retail development should be permitted in the corridor. Last July, the City Council took some steps to answer these questions. One of the measures was the enactment of a six month moratorium on the processing of Planned Unit Development applications for retail and commercial development in the corridor. The moratorium was intended to provide the City with some breathing room to look at the planning policies which guide future retail and commercial development. During the moratorium period, city staff and the Planning and Zoning Board were directed to review the City's policies and recommend any necessary amendments to the Harmony Corridor Plan. The update to the Harmony Corridor Plan involved two parallel work efforts. The first is a technical planning effort, which analyzed Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 17 Member Fontane accepted the amendment. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that it was important to remember that this is an infill site and the neighbors had some very important comments about the acceptability of this project. It would have been nice to see Indian Hills constructed and had that as a point to see if it does work. She thought the board needed to be more receptive to creative projects. She thought that the Street Department and Fire Department needed to be more flexible and creative also. Member Strom was struggling with this. He thought that the concept was good, but there was a lot of details that had to be worked out. The standard being worked with was equal to or better than. He would be more comfortable with another 30 days to try to work out some of these details. He thought some of these issues needed to address layout before they could be resolved. He was not sure he could support the motion at this time. Member Bell felt pressed to support this motion. She felt that there were a lot of questions unanswered, especially around traffic issues. She would like to see more attention given to discussions with the Transportation Department so the board could see some clearer concepts before preliminary approval. Chairman Clements toured some neighborhoods like this in Boulder, so she knows they are working, and has less of a concern that they will not work here. She felt that if Mr. Prouty, the neighborhood, and staff have worked this well together to this point, she had little doubt that they would not continue to work together to resolve these issues. That was why she did not have a problem supporting this project. Member Cottier asked about adding a further condition to the motion that layout and density are not guaranteed. Deputy City Attorney replied we have done it before. He thought that it was another condition that could be added. From a legal perspective it could be done. From the standpoint of establishing a new tradition, it leaves the preliminary approval without there being much to it. Member Fontane accepted the condition. Member Carnes stated he could support the motion as it stood now. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 16 He suggested a continuance, with a suggestion that the neighborhood and city staff try to address these issues. Member Walker addressed the open space issues. He felt that it was a critical issue and this was a very unique open space for this area being in one of the most highly dense areas in the City. He did not think the open space attributes in this area could be overlooked. He thought the city has an opportunity to enhance this high density area and mitigate it with the open space. He thought that it was important that the City make a significant effort to acquire this open space. Member Fontane moved for approval of the Bridgefield P.U.D. with the following conditions: 1. The variance to the right-of-way width of a local street from 54 feet to 43 feet. The onstreet parking would be reduced from 8 feet to 7 foot wide. 2. A variance of the local access street right-of-way width from 54, to 341, and the street width flowline to flowline from 36, to 291. 3. A variance for curve radiuses permitting less than the standard 240, (less than the 30 mph design speed). 4. The conditions recommended by the Natural Resources Department. 5. The study or what ever would be appropriate for the flood plain to be delineated. Member Cottier asked about the variances 3A and 3B. Member Fontane would like to see those straight streets go through and take out the two lots. Deputy City Attorney asked about the solar variance. Member Fontane added the variance to solar orientation. Member Cottier asked if the motion was for approval with taking out those two lots and not allowing the hammerheads. Member Fontane replied that was correct. Member Cottier asked for a friendly amendment that would leave it open for further negotiation between Mr. Prouty and the street department. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 15 for those lots. Mr. Prouty also needs to provide more parking on the main drive. Chairman Clements asked parking for who. Mr. Herzig replied guest type parking, convenient to the houses they are trying to visit. Mr. Herzig stated a lot of the difficulty on this was that staff felt that all of the issues had not been resolved before we had to recommend denial based on the fact there is no resolution to those issues. Chairman Clements concern was with the fact that Mr. Prouty was bending over backward to work with the neighborhood and staff to assist in resolving these issues, and has a recommendation of denial. It seemed inconsistent with other projects that come in with a lot of conditions and get approval and stay in the pipeline to get the conditions resolved. This project comes in with an applicant that is bending over backwards to work with the neighborhood and the staff and the staff is recommending denial. She was curious. Planner Olt replied that part of the problem with this was Mr. Prouty was caught with front end of the pipeline of doing business differently. Staff, as of October, has indicated to the development community; and, based on concerns from the Planning and Zoning Board about a lot of conditions and unresolved issues at preliminary, staff is changing things based on when information if required. Based on the four All Development Criteria that staff felt was not being met, and we could not ignore, staff felt that that had to be used to make a recommendation. Chairman Clements understood that, but usually when the board is complaining about that is when neighbors are standing up here saying that issues were not being resolved, their concerns were not being addressed and they did not have time to review the plans. Member Carnes asked if staff felt that an approval could be given at this time without approving layout and density, as he had seen on a previous application approval. Member Walker commented that in this situation there is a layout and density that does have a lot of positive attributes. The neighbors have commented that this provides another element in a mix of housing types for this area, and strengthens the fabric of this neighborhood. From that standpoint, the concept as far as the density and layout are very workable. There are small details that cannot be overlooked, but it seemed to him, some of the street issues could be resolved. He did not feel strongly enough about denying this project, because he felt the issues could be resolved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 14 Member Cottier asked if the streets in Indian Hills are one-way? Kerrie Ashbeck replied that was another difference as well. The circulation system proposed is different. So far, it does not seem that they will function as one-way. There are questions as to whether people will travel the opposite way to get to their house, in the shortest way possible, rather than following the directional one-way around the perimeter of the site. Member Walker wanted to pursue the street system more, he liked the notion proposed here, he thought the design was innovative and creative. He would like to hear more about what specifically are the objections, and what would be the way for a project of this nature to work, as far as the city goes. Planner Olt replied the primary concerns are the cross sections and safety issues from the standpoint of encouraging pedestrian movement. Bringing it from the homes across the streets in all locations and trying to encourage pedestrian movement around the outsides. With the 16 foot paved area, there will be a significant amount of traffic, both local residents as well as guest traffic. There is still a concern with the width of the 7 foot wide indented parking, with interspersed landscaped islands. The concern is with the obstruction with the cars not being parked, up along the curbline. Also, with no sidewalks internal, there is a concern, and staff feels that is where the pedestrian movement should occur. A four foot sidewalk around the perimeter would be much safer and would not create the pedestrian/vehicle conflicts that are perceived. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, stated that Mr. Prouty has proposed a one-way street system as a result of a meeting with staff. In staff's internal discussions, it was felt that the one- way was too restrictive and they did not think it was a good idea because people would have too far to travel to go down the street two houses. There would not be enough traffic on the street to enforce the one-way system. Staff felt he should stick with the 20 foot roadway and not inter -mingle that with a walkway at this time. Another concern with the street system was the dead-end streets and hammerhead turnarounds. The Engineering Department is not prepared to support that type of turnaround. Staff feels that he should do something to cul-de-sac these, or extend the streets to a through street. Another concern is with the buildings fronting onto Prospect, they do not have the rear alley. The street is not designed with any parking on the north side and that would attract people to park there anyway. Staff would like to see it widened out to provide parking in someway. In staff's opinion there is too little parking Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 13 runoff from the site to protect the water quality of the pond. Could he have more clarification on what the city has in mind about the kinds of things that might have to be done to protect the water quality in the pond. Mr. Prouty replied that the project, as proposed, involved an asphalt roadway around the perimeter. That was designed with a curve on one side, which is the inside of the project. The flood waters, runoff and residue, instead of running off of people's back yards into the open space, is captured in the street curb flowline, which is canted into the inside of the project and carried and removed with the stormwater. Member Walker asked about the 50 foot easement for the canal. Was he proposing to add any landscaping elements within that 50 foot easement. Mr. Prouty replied no. Member Cottier asked for clarification on the emergency access situation, that that was one of the criteria sited for denial of this project, Criteria A-2.5. Mr. Prouty has stated that Heatheridge has agreed to emergency access. Planner Olt replied that there was a secondary point of emergency access that was adequate coming from Heatheridge Lake. What staff has based their opinion on was the internal street network. There are areas that Poudre Fire Authority has said is not acceptable to transition from a local street to private alleyways without proper turnaround. Kerrie Ashbeck, Engineering Department stated that was correct. The condition did not have to do with the secondary point of access that Mr. Prouty is acquiring through Heatheridge. It has to do with the width of the internal streets as well as the need for turnaround areas where those streets deadend at 20 foot private alleys. Member Cottier asked if the variances requested for street widths were the same as were requested for Indian Hills. Kerrie Ashbeck replied the primary difference was at Indian Hills there was a 4 foot sidewalk provided along the frontage where houses front on the streets. In addition, the pavement he is proposing on this project is 16 feet in width with a four foot alternative surface for pedestrian walkways/emergency access width. In Indian Hills there was a full 20 feet of asphalt pavement provided. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 12 Ms. Gordon replied that it is currently owned by Heatheridge Condominiums. Member Strom was concerned about the confusion that already exists in this area about who owns what. He was also concerned about raising expectations that we are not in the position to enforce. If this property is owned by Heatheridge Condominiums, they are a party that is not present at this hearing, and is not involved in this proposal. His question was whether the board was within their prerogative here to try to enforce conditions on a third party, a component in this case that they would be required to do landscaping on someone elses land. Mr. Prouty replied that in the course of their meetings with Heatheridge to acquire the necessary emergency access through their property; and, also an agreement to cooperate as far as crossing their property as necessary to handle their stormwater needs to get it into the city system, he felt comfortable telling the board that the concern that Heatheridge has with the pond is that it represents a liability. They can't fence it because of stormwater considerations, but they own it, and if someone drowns in it, they get sued. There has been positive interest by Heatheridge in working with Natural Resources, particularly, in light of the fact that it could be totally surrounded by another open space acquisition, and that the pond come into City control. Member Strom also asked about Larimer Canal No. 2, and that some of the canals end up with no landscaping at all along them because of the management of the canals. He did not think they were in a position to do anything about that. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that was true. The old canals have a prescriptive easement in most cases. Sometimes they have a deeded right, sometimes even a fee ownership. In most cases, the interest is a prescriptive or one that has been acquired over long historic uses. Their right is a wide enough right to carry the water that is decreed to them, and has historically been carried, along with a right to drive along the side of the ditch to maintain it; and, so to the extent that if something gets in the way of that maintenance right, they have the right to remove it. Member Strom again raised the question, not because he did not think it was a good idea to landscape, but because he was concerned that people not be operating under false assumptions that we have any right to do that landscaping. That right may be superseded by someone elses right to strip the landscaping out. Member Walker asked about the water quality in the pond. There were words that something would have to be done to mitigate any Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page it Ms. Gordon replied that the most unique thing about this property is not its wildlife habitat, but its location. Its proximity to an area they already own. It is a logical extension of a natural area that they hope to also enlarge with the purchase of the Michaels property. It is less for the wildlife habitat value than it is for some of the other values. Member Cottier asked about the triangle piece in the middle and if the City was considering purchasing that. Was the Natural Resource value of that parcel significant enough that some sort of mitigation plan be required for any development proposed in that area. Ms. Gordon replied not particularly. What they have asked Mr. Prouty to do, should his development go forward, is to retain the character of the canals that have a lot of heavy vegetation on them, and he has agreed to put together a forestry maintenance plan for those trees and shrubs. In proximity to the pond, they would have liked to see more of a buffer there, he has agreed to put together a revegetation plan that would help screen the lake. Member Cottier asked from Natural Resources perspective, if the City does not purchase this piece, was this development satisfactory in terms of maintaining the quality of the remaining natural areas around there. Ms. Gordon replied yes. She was concerned about the water quality that would run off into the pond, but there are ways to engineer that so it would not flow directly into the pond. Chairman Clements asked if that should be a condition if it should go ahead. Planner Olt replied yes, that should be brought up at a later date. Ms. Gordon has written recommendations and four conditions that she felt would be appropriate on this plan, if it is approved, based on the staffs decision. Based on four other criteria to recommend denial at this time, staff did not feel that it was appropriate to put these conditions from the Natural Resources Division on a recommendation for denial. He would be prepared to recommend that, should the board move for approval. Member Strom asked to hear them now. Ms. Gordon read the four conditions as stated in her memorandum to Planner Olt dated 11/9/94. Member Strom asked who owned the pond property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 10 was not a wetland. That did not mean that it was not home to other types of habitat, it was probably home to foxes and raccoons. Member Carnes spoke of the criteria in the LDGS regarding wildlife habitat and whether it had been identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as significant and in particular need of attention. Mr. Carnes asked for comment on that. Ms. Gordon replied that that specifically identifies animals that are endangered. That was a limited list. She did not think that was the issue here. It was not endangered species. Member Carnes stated that there was no reference in the criterion to endangered or threatened species. He would like some clarification at some point. Planner Olt asked for the question to be repeated. Member Carnes asked about the LDGS criteria regarding wildlife habitat and whether or not it had been identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as significant. Was there any areas like that in Fort Collins? Ms. Gordon replied that there was a couple of places in Fort Collins that the Division of Wildlife does become involved in because they have identified it for a specific species. It is part of their migration patterns or a particular habitat. She did not believe this property would be of interest to the Division of Wildlife. It is to their department and it is in reference to the entire complex. There is a wildlife ecologist on staff and staff was confident that they are tracking areas that are really critical to habitat. Member Carnes said the reason he brought it up was the reference from someone in the neighborhood to this being a corridor for movement of wildlife. Ms. Gordon replied that was true of any of the ditches or water bodies in the City. They do tend to be how animals move around. Member Walker asked about another criteria mentioned. It talks about the physical elements of the site adapting to the physical characteristics of the site, "and minimizing the disturbance of the topography, water bodies, streams, wetland, wildlife habitat." This concerns him, and wondered if this criteria has been met due to the interest in the property by Natural Resources to acquire it. That would suggest that some of the elements mentioned could be lost due to this project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 9 approval that the flood plain be delineated, then it would be specifically addressed. Mr. Schlueter stated the Stormwater Department did not deal with groundwater. It was up to the developer and his engineers to design their projects for the groundwater. The Engineering Department sometimes gets involved if they are using City right-of- ways to install their groundwater system. Mr. Schlueter spoke on the confusion of the Canal Importation Project and the bridge under Heatheridge. He encouraged the neighborhood to come down and talk to them. It was designed for the 100 year flows to pass under Heatheridge so it would be open for emergency access. Chairman Clements thought there was a lot of confusion about stormwater and groundwater in this area. All of those issues would have to be addressed before a final would be granted. Was that correct? Mr. Schlueter replied that was correct. Staff has a lot of questions at this point. Chairman Clements asked if the Engineering Department had any input on the groundwater issue. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department stated they had not seen anything yet, that was an area that was covered at final, when they have to do a hydrologic study and install pipe if they want to put a subdrain system in. Chairman Clements thought the general concern was flooding in this area and it was up to the City and the developer to work together to make sure that does not happen. Mr. Herzig replied that was correct. Member Bell asked about the comment on the Wildlife Act and the corridor and deer. Ms. Gordon replied they were aware that this property has a lot of wildlife on it, and that it acts as something of a corridor. There was a lot of habitat value associated with this property. Member Bell asked if it included the triangle below the canal. Ms. Gordon replied that property would be considered an upland site. They asked Mr. Prouty to do a wetland survey and only came up with small scraps of wetland vegetation that would indicate it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 8 Chairman Clements made a point regarding the board's ability to tell this landowner to hold off on building a phase of this development; and, the board did not have the right to do that. If someone owns this land, and it is not the City, the landowner has certain rights that come with owning property. The board has to look at this development before them and judge this proposal on merits set forth in the Land Development Guidance System, which is our performance zoning. The board can encourage and support the City and the Natural Resources Department to go ahead with negotiating the purchase of this property. Tonight, the board will be looking at this development as proposed. Chairman Clements asked about the grant mentioned for trails and signs through this area. Ms. Gordon responded that Natural Resources has a small amount of grant money available for projects that come in to do neighborhood level projects. To do revegetation and habitat enhancement projects. She has not been directly involved in that for sometime. She felt bad that there has been a misunderstanding about where the private property begins and the City property ends. She thought that there was a lot of confusion about this property. She thought that one of the problems was not having very good maps. Ms. Gordon stated that Stormwater was in the process of revegetating this entire site for more biological control of the water course and to treat the stormwater. She was not sure where that overlaps with the Jr. High Schools project. Chairman Clements thought that there needed to be some lines of clarification drawn. Ms. Gordon thought they needed to meet with them and understand what the scope of the project is. She did not see any reason for them not to proceed on the Bridges open space natural area. Chairman Clements asked if Ms. Gordon would follow up on that. Ms. Gordon said she would. Chairman Clements asked Mr. Schlueter from the Stormwater Department to talk about this parcels, if there are any concerns with groundwater. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department, stated there plans were to build a channel system that would contain the entire 100 year flow through the easement they have. The existing flood plain has not been delineated. Staffs feeling was that this could be accommodated, there might be some rearranging of his lots, or filling or raising. At this point it should become a condition of Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 7 Prospect comes in because of all the ground water. As a neighborhood, they have not been able to get it together because at different meetings they receive different information. They did not mind the project that is north of the Larimer Ditch No. 2, they would like to see the project south of it on hold to allow them time to meet with all they different people and get this coordinated. Ms. Hendrickson spoke of a bridge in their neighborhood that did not exist anywhere else in the State of Colorado. There is a bridge on Heatheridge Road that is 6 foot high. The piping on it is 18 inches in circumference and they are set in walls of concrete that is 2 x 2 feet that go 12 feet into the ground. This bridge was set up to stop debris in the 100-year flood. Ms. Hendrickson spoke of the Canal Importation Project that started in 1988. This entire field of open space area was designated at that time by the Task Force as the last natural drainage area for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this area was to hold the surface water in the 100-year flood. She could not believe that the board, at this point, would say that it would be O.K. to come in and add 30 to 40 more houses into an area that is very dangerous if a serious flood ever occurred. Ms. Hendrickson voiced her concerns about the ground water in the area. Ms. Hendrickson reiterated her comments on the open space and it's importance to the schools and their current projects. She also stated that part of the area was a wildlife corridor and must be preserved for the wildlife in the area to move through. She would like the board to approve the upper portion of the project, but the bottom area should be put on hold for further organization. Juanita Martin, stated her home is on the border of this project. Her concern also was for the open space below. She agreed that Mr. Prouty has worked hard. She was concerned with wildlife in the area. They have deer come to their home a lot. They also have been under the assumption that the City had already purchased all the open space. Ms. Martin also asked for a postponement on the lower half of the property. She did not feel there was a need for development of both sections of the property until they have had a chance for them to work with Natural Resources. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairman Clements clarified that the board was very supportive of natural areas. Chairman Clements also clarified that Mr. Prouty was not the owner of the land and was acting on behalf of the owner on this development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 6 preserve the natural feel of the project, and his concern for neighborhood access to the natural area should the City buy it. Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, representing Skyline Street and the associated streets adjacent to that. He concurred with the two previous speakers. Mr. McMaster spoke on the development in his area and the large number of multi -family units that have been built. The feeling of the residents is that they would like low density, single family homes built. The neighborhood was pleased with Mr. Prouty's development and how hard he has worked with the neighborhood residents to meet their concerns. Mr. Prouty's development was much better than a high density development. They thought that this was a very attractive alternative to high density. Mr. McMaster felt that the city regulations could be worked out. Mr. McMaster spoke on the open space area and asked that when looking at planning and zoning of the city, this was a critical matter to consider; and, since the Planning and Zoning Board cannot control the issue, they hoped the board could work with them to provide some positive impetus so this can happen. This was very critical that this issue be should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. McMaster thought Mr. Prouty has worked hard to establish a relationship with the neighborhood and that there would be a win/win situation if the open space is purchased. Mr. McMaster hoped everyone could band together and realize the uniqueness of this area and get the decision made to purchase the 8 acres; and, make it part of the existing open space and wildlife area, and make it a continuous corridor from Taft to Shields. Sandy Hendrickson, 1636 W. Stuart, represents the neighborhood of the Ridgewood/Stuart area. Ms. Hendrickson works at Blevins Jr. High School and they use the open space every year for different projects. The other teachers did not know that the City had not purchased all of the open space. They have been working with Natural Resources for the past year and their belief was that the entire open space area was purchased. Ms. Hendrickson spoke of a grant received in working with the Phillips Petroleum Environmental Project. They have $2,700.00, the City of Fort Collins matched that with $2,200.00, to come into this area and develop trails and plant natural grasses and shrubs. There will also be nature signs. They do not want parking lots because there was already 1/8 of a mile of free parking on Stuart Street. She felt nobody knew what anyone else was doing and there was a lot of confusion. Ms. Hendrickson stated that an employee of Natural Resources came to her house at 5:30 this evening with a new map. On that map, their goal was to take this entire field and purchase it for open space, all the way to the northwest corner where Taft Hill and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 5 CITIZEN INPUT Emily Smith, President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association. The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association commended the developer of Bridgefield PUD for designing and proposing a medium density residential development of single family homes that places primary emphasis on creating a sense of neighborhood and community. Their Association commends the developer and the City's Natural Resources Department for working diligently with the property owner and the adjacent neighborhoods to propose a southern 8 acres of the site for city owned open space. Ms. Smith spoke on the open space acquisition, and that residents, various schools and youth groups regularly visit this site. Ms. Smith spoke on this piece of open space being an intrecal part of creating a permanent open space pathway for wildlife and there were many people who currently use the property. Ms. Smith spoke on the population and density of the area. Ms. Smith mentioned the quarter -cent sales tax voted on and that the whole community should benefit from open space, and this was one of the last parcels in the Prospect/Shields area that could be acquired for open space, and the City should acquire this tract. Their position was that the acquisitions are a P & Z problem and should be addressed by the P & Z Board. They did favor single family neighborhood oriented patio homes being built on the northern portion of the property. They urged Natural Resources to make the acquisition of the 8 acres of open space a priority. The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association recommends approval of this application and will continue to actively work with the developer, Natural Resources, and the adjoining Neighborhood Associations in order to secure the parcel to be used as open space. Valerie Asseto, 1504 Constitution Avenue, she represented Bryant and Constitution Street residents. In general, their neighborhood strongly supports this project. Ms. Asseto spoke on their neighborhood being single family homes surrounded by some of the highest density in the City. They support the project because it is a single family home project, it added to the diversity of the housing types in the area. They would welcome this as part of their neighborhood, but was concerned about crossing Prospect Road. The neighborhood appreciates the diversity of people in the area and would like to keep it that way. They have very strong support for the City to purchase the natural area. It is heavily used by the neighborhood right now. Ms. Asseto stated that the neighborhood appreciated Mr. Prouty's efforts to cooperate with the neighborhood, his attempts to Planning and zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 4 able to gain access off of Stuart and also some configurations for parking. Mr. Prouty wanted a correction to the staff report on record. An exception to the buffer requirement by Natural Resources was that in the event that the water quality could be demonstrated to be preserved to a high quality level, that buffer requirement would not be imposed. The plan reflects working along those lines. Mr. Prouty went over the concerns by staff, vehicle safety, and pedestrian safety. He stated the design of the project suggested a 15 mph or less design speed, which is an important aspect of the safety consideration. A one way perimeter street, with a very low traffic volume situation, and a very low speed traffic situation, which proposed little, if no hazard, having pedestrians and vehicles share the same roadway. Mr. Prouty also spoke on emergency vehicle access, and thought that there was adequate space. Mr. Prouty stated that general design concerns were too much asphalt and concrete. He submitted that this was mitigated by the design benefits that occur. Mr. Prouty stated that the reason the houses face out instead of in was because of the natural open space, and that offered a greater quality of living. He thought that this community focuses on the open space periphery. The site slopes from south to north and there was an opportunity with creative siting for every home to have a view, and enjoy some alternatives to condominium or conventional townhouse living. Mr. Prouty went over the 5 specific areas of explanation. They are specific variance areas. Stepping stones to try to move beyond traditional constraints and evolve towards more creative approaches toward housing and right-of-ways. Mr. Prouty went through some slides of the site, showing and commenting on street configurations, perimeter streets, street widths, turn arounds and hammerhead turn arounds, landscaping and walkways, and parking. He also showed slides of streets in developments in Boulder for comparison. Ray Moe, American Company, traffic consultant for Mr. Prouty, spoke on widths and standards of streets, and emergency vehicle access. Mr. Moe stated he was in favor of this design and hoped the board would consider it. He thought the design had some sound planning ideas, and it was time to start looking at some of those ideas. His belief is that the speeds along that roadway would be a friendly community, encouraging biking and walking. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 3 Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it should not go into the board's thinking on this project as to whether it passes or fails the LDGS. The board needed to look at the project in terms of the criteria of the LDGS. Even if they approve it, that does not mean that the City can't still purchase the property. Chairman Clements asked to hear from the applicant. Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Company, handed out some supplemental information to his presentation. Mr. Prouty wanted to go over the fundamental planning considerations. Mr. Prouty stated the property was owned by an out-of-state property owner who interest is to make money, and not to assist them in achieving their objectives. The project he is proposing is an excellent patio home project. The owner has granted them a 30-day extension to work on details on this challenging site. He was here before the board tonight with a recommendation of denial from the City staff. He is operating under constraints of time or he has to drop the project and/or forfeit a substantial amount of money. Secondly, the nature of some of the questions tonight will be planning related. Mr. Prouty will be asking for the board's input and guidance on 5 essential planning variance related matters that relate to this project. Mr. Prouty spoke on the four factors that are paramount on doing good planning. One, is to look at the natural area; two, look at the pedestrian situations; three, consider what the correct definition and appropriateness and specification for roadways and safety are; lastly, take a look at siting, housing style and density. He thought if the factors were pursued in that order, you could end up with a high density, aesthetic, functional living environment for the residents that live in a specific neighborhood. Mr. Prouty was in agreement with the density chart, give or take 20%, he was in agreement with how the city assessed it. He pointed out that you are awarded 50% of the site percentage, which is committed to be preserved as open space. His overall commitment was that a significant portion of this site, 30 to 50% be preserved in its open state in some fashion. Mr. Prouty stated there have been extensive neighborhood meetings. The have formed a natural areas committee that has met several times and has had several newsletters. The neighborhoods have been very creative and articulate in bringing matters up, and continue to do so. Mr. Prouty stated that he is committed to natural resource protection, and this site is a very unique natural resource refuge and is being enjoyed by many. It did have a lack of access and lack of parking. If purchased, the city would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 21, 1994 Page 2 Ms. Gordon replied no. Member Walker asked Ms. Gordon for more context as to Natural Resources interest in this parcel. Ms. Gordon replied that this was a component to a larger area. This was a very desirable addition to the Bridges property to the west, and also some property Natural Resources is looking at on the southeast corner of Prospect and Taft, referred to as the Michaels property, which is also under negotiation. Member Walker asked how much land Natural Resources owns there? Ms. Gordon replied 12 acres. Member Walker asked how much land this would be? Ms. Gordon replied, a total of about 8 acres. Member Walker asked how much land the Michaels property was? Ms. Gordon replied she thought about 10 to 12 acres. Member Cottier asked if this was on the priority purchase list? Ms. Gordon replied yes. Member Fontane asked if the land is purchased, is what is left of the project continue and that piece be taken out. Ms. Gordon replied that was correct. Chairman Clements thought this sounded like a very important piece of land to Natural Resources, however, as a board, they do not have any say so as to the go ahead for negotiation or purchase, and how is that handled? Ms. Gordon replied that the Natural Areas Fund is administered by the Natural Resource Department with advice from the Natural Resource Advisory Board. There is a set of priority acquisitions that they are trying to acquire. Chairman Clements point being that there is sometimes a misconception that this board has the authority to give Natural Resources permission to negotiate. Ms. Gordon replied that is not the situation at all. Council has the final decision on acquisitions. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONTINUATION OF THE NOVEMBER 14t 1994 HEARING NOVEMBER 21, 1994 STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Chairman Rene Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Fontane, Clements, Cottier, Walker. Member Strom (arrived at 6:38 p.m.). Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Gordon, Olt, Herzig, Vosburg, Schlueter, Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Blanchard reviewed the consent agenda, which included the following item: 1. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 26f 1994 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING. DISCUSSION AGENDA: 17. #45-94 BRIDGEFIELD PUD - PRELIMINARY. 19. #29-90 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. 20. #54-94 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE SCALE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS. Member Walker moved for approval of consent Item 1. Member Carnes seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. Member Strom was absent. BRIDGEFIELD P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY, #45-94 Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the staff report on this proposal for 99 single family and duplex dwelling units on 16.93 acres and recommended denial based on All Development Criteria A-2.4, A-2.5, A-2.6, and A-3.2. Chairman Clements asked to hear from the Natural Resource Division about the negotiation on this parcel, and if there is still an active negotiation. Susie Gordon, Natural Resource Division, stated that the City has been working hard to put together an acquisition plan for this property. They have not been successful so far. They are still interested in pursuing it. That was the most she could tell the board at this point. Chairman Clements asked if it was dead in the water.