Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGEFIELD P.U.D., PHASE I - FINAL ..... MAY 8, 1995 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 45-94A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Vosburg replied that speed bumps were often thought of as a traffic calming measure, but create serious problems for emergency vehicles. It is not a practice that they would not want to set a precedent, even with this experimental development. Mr. Vosburg did not think there would be a speed problem on Raccoon Circle. It is a very narrow street and is curvlinear. Chairman Clements asked if the motion included the plan as is with the one-way. Member Walker responded that was correct. Chairman Clements commented that she thought that this was an innovative project and was excited about a project that reduces the amount of asphalt and pavement put in this development. Member Strom commented on the safety issue and that he did not feel that sidewalks on the interior of the project would not make a difference and keep children out of the street. Member Walker thought that the speed on Raccoon Circle would be would be self - enforcing by the residents that live in the development. Member Cottier hoped that there would be a channel that the results of this development would get back to other developers showing this type of development can work. The motion was approved 5-0. Milan PUD - Preliminary and Final. #11-95 Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommending approval including a variance to Criteria 4 of the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Uses Point Chart. It should also include the standard engineering condition that was not listed in the staff report. Mr. Ludwig noted two changes to the plan. One on the landscape plan, the 20 foot setback on North College has been changed. There would now be a 10-foot grass strip between the proposed curb on North College, a 4 foot sidewalk and a 6 foot planter. The pedestrian access on College would be improved with this change. Mr. Ludwig noted the other change being on the plan where the City is no longer receiving a 20- foot dedication for future right-of-way. The Engineering Departments analysis could not require that at this time due to the change of use not causing that for mitigation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 10 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CLOSED Chairman Clements asked about the street lighting issue and how would the experiment in Indian Hills development impact this development. Mr. Prouty replied that the Indian Hills experiment was not occurring in the Indian Hills development, but on the existing residence that is being used for sales and construction office. This project was designed to meet City standards in all respects. Member Walker supported the one-way on Raccoon Circle and would serve to mitigate the safety concerns. Member Walker moved for a granting of the Variance of the three streets that are dead -ended in a non-standard method. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Walker moved for approval of Bridgefield PUD, Phase I, Final with the two conditions as listed by staff. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Carnes asked for a friendly amendment that the sidewalks on Raccoon Circle be re -configured to be on the interior of the project. Member Walker did not accept the amendment feeling it is a workable proposal. Member Walker asked if there was a posted speed limit on Raccoon Circle. Mr. Prouty suggested a 15 mph speed limit. Tom Vosburg, Transportation Department stated that the basic speed limit that is applied across the city is 25 mph. Mr. Vosburg thought it would be possible to post a lower speed limit. Member Walker added a condition of approval that the speed limit be posted as 15 mph throughout the development. Member Strom accepted as the second. Member Cames would also like to see speed bumps also on Raccoon Circle. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Prouty replied that the experts in the Engineering Department would know what would be most suitable. Member Carnes asked about the alternative walkway and where was the other pedestrian way. Mr. Prouty replied that the altemative was the alternative to the conventional sidewalk that would be on the opposite side of the street along the house frontages. Member Carnes asked if at preliminary, Mr. Prouty showed the pedestrian walkway on the interior of the circle. Mr. Prouty replied no. Member Carnes commented that this was a very unsafe arrangement for children. • Member Carnes asked for Mr. Prouty's and staffs views of the safety of that innovative feature. Mr. Prouty responded that the one-way would provide for safety in that regard, and a 15 mph speed limit, which is not uncommon in denser communities in Fort Collins is highly desirable. The primary safety element inherent in this plan was the extreme low density of the neighborhood with single family houses fronting on a single loaded street. Mr. Olt replied that from staffs standpoint was that at the time of preliminary, staff felt there were safety concerns and staff did not support the sidewalk on the outside and staff recommended that a sidewalk be placed internally along the front yards on the inside of the street. The approval of the Board was in character with what you are seeing now. Member Carnes commented that he was not happy with the plan. Chairman Clements recalled that part of the reason that the majority of the Board voted on the plan before us was we are trying to reduce the amount of asphalt and hard surface in this urban density neighborhood. Having a sidewalk in front of a house does not guarantee that kids are not going to play out in the street. • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Association, stated their Association supported the final approval of Bridgefield PUD, Phase I. Ms. Smith commended all the people who have worked on this proposal and also the hard work that went into the City acquisition of the open space. Ms. Smith asked for approval of Bridgefield PUD. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Olt replied no. The detention for Phase I will occur on the down side of the ditch whether the City owns it, or whether the applicant owns the property. What it would do would be to reconfigure Phase II. Member Carnes asked about the surface on the pedestrian walkway and recalled previous discussions regarding the sidewalk and was it a sidewalk on the outside or was it a painted strip? Mr. Herzig gave a brief history from preliminary, and that the Board had approved the roadway, Raccoon Circle, to be 16 feet wide of asphalt paved area with a 4 foot additional to the outside that would be a hard surface, which staff understood to be concrete; and, which shows a different material that would be used as a walkway in lieu of requiring a walkway in front of these houses. The idea the developer wanted to use that with, was to encourage walking along the natural areas that border this site. To provide the feeling of being with the natural area. Mr. Herzig also asked the Board to clarify whether the walkway should be compacted gravel, as the developer has interpreted, or something more like concrete that would be a maintainable surface. Mr. Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Company, applicant on the project handed out materials to the Board including drawings of the project and other informational material to follow in his presentation. Mr. Prouty gave the applicant presentation and stated that the open space purchase had been approved by City Council after a very successful negotiation. Member Walker asked about what the hard surface would be around Raccoon Circle? Mr. Prouty responded that it would not be asphalt, the final conclusion should rest with Engineering and Natural Resources. Obviously the compatibility with the natural area is one consideration, and the maintenance and safety is another. Member Walker asked if the intent was for it to be part of the street to meet minimum street standard. Mr. Prouty replied that the 4 feet would be used in certain safety considerations to provide 2 10-foot lanes and passage for fire equipment. Member Walker asked about the one-way on Raccoon Circle and was it to minimize auto traffic use? • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 7 1. The standard final PUD condition regarding final utility plans and development agreement with the Engineering Department. 2. The design and resulting mitigation measures for storm drainage facilities, on both the Phase I and Phase II portions of Bridgefield PUD, shall be approved by the Stormwater Utility and the Natural Resources Division prior to approval of the utility plans. Also, the utility plans must be reviewed and approved (with signatures) by the New Mercer and Larimer County Canal No. 2 ditch companies prior to final utility plan approval by the City of Fort Collins. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department discussed the memo the Board received April 20 regarding street standards on this project. Mr. Herzig went over the street layouts in the project and discussed the hammerhead locations and the variances that the applicant was asking for. Member Walker asked based on his analysis and based on the memo, the only thing that has not been resolved was the one-way street. Mr. Herzig replied that was correct. Member Walker asked about the garage entrances, with the setbacks three feet from the curb. Member Walker asked what units that would be. Mr. Herzig pointed out the 7 units he was concerned about. Mr. Herzig added that the intention was to have 27 feet of drive through rather than 20 feet, plus an additional 7 feet for each of the parking bays on the south side. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt to review the eight conditions of preliminary approval. Member Cottier asked about the Natural Resource conditions, and if something would happen and the purchase of the other 9 acres falls through, would they have to re -look at the conditions. Did he feel 100% sure the purchase would go through. Mr. Olt responded that he was not 100% sure. The conditions deal more with the effects on Phase II and the canal. He felt there was no danger in approving Phase I regardless of the conditions. Member Carnes asked about the retention on the property next to this and if the City did not pick the property up, would it have any effect on the phase they were looking at now in terms of where the retention would be located. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 8, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Ward replied yes, just one. Member Cottier asked when the last time we allowed neon was. Mr. Olt replied Applebee's has neon and that was about two years old. Kenny Rogers was negotiated out of having neon. Mr. Olt gave other examples of neon lighting. Member Walker moved for approval of Ruby Tuesday at Shopko Final with the staff recommendations, that would delete the neon highlights and the standard final PUD condition. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Walker concurred with the staff in that we are moving away from the neon highlights. He did feel that the lighting standards set by other approvals was not out of character with what Ruby Tuesday was proposing. Member Walker suggested that more detail with regards to lighting be provided and would be helpful. Member Carnes commented on the lighting, and the colors of the building. He encouraged the staff to have more information on colors and lighting options. He felt that with the elevation, it would be exposed on all sides. Member Strom stated that he has gone along on many occasions with these, however, tonight he would not be supporting the motion. The criteria is not as strong as he would like, but is strong enough to say that this does not meet them. He cited All Development Criteria 2.7. He felt that the colors of the building have no relationship with the Shopko PUD. He did not agree that this was blending into the neighborhood. Member Cottier commented on the Shopko building and that we do not want to replicate Shopko. She felt this building would took better than if it looked like Shopko. She stated that with the Superstore guidelines, we would not be seeing another Shopko. She felt that would go a long way in solving this type of problem. The motion was approved 3-2 with Members Carnes and Strom voting no. Bridqefield PUD Phase 1 - Final. #45-95A Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation of the project stating that all eight conditions of preliminary approval have been addressed and staff was recommending approval with two conditions: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES Continuation of the April 24, 1995 Meeting May 8,1995 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairman: Rene Clements Phone: 221-0406 Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone 221-3953 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rene Clements at 6:30 p.m. Board Members present included Gary Carnes, Rene Clements, Jan Cottier, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker. Members Bell and Fontane were absent. Staff Present included Blanchard, Olt, Vosburg, Eckman, Ashbeck, Wamhoff, Deines, Herzig, Ludwig. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning, reviewed the continued discussion agenda items from April 24th: 15. #1-9313 Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final 16. #45-94A Bridgefield PUD, Phase I - Final 17. #8-95 Glenmoor Property Rezoning (Continued) 18. #11-95 Milan PUD - Preliminary and Final Ruby Tuesday at Shopko PUD - Final. #1-931B Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval with the following conditions. 1. The red neon tube lighting proposed to be located under the wood trim cornice around the building be deleted. 2. The standard final approval condition with regards to final utility plans and development agreement with the Engineering Department Member Walker was also concerned with the satellite dish on the roof and the screening of the dish.