Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONEBRIDGE GARDEN APARTMENTS PRELIM PUD - 82 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 19 - - - - -- -- - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Olt reflected that the statement of Mr. Walker, being "the whole purpose of the study is the location of the access point" is true in part. The way it reads was that the area -wide transportation study was not done just to determine the access point. That was only a portion of it. Motion to approve carried 6-1 with INDIAN HILLS VILLAGE PUD - PRELIMINARY - Case #81- Ms. Whetstone gave the staff report. [Staff conditions related to: buffer landscaping on the east, west, and south boundaries; drainage; replacement program for trees throughout the whole site; on -street parking site widths. Staff recommended approval of this innovative design.] John Prouty - President of Lagunitas Company, area resident for 7 years and in the construction business for 20 years, gave a presentation of the development proposal. He explained the cottage concept, street layout, and streetscape with parking, and other site plan elements. (1) The cottage concept started about 50 years ago. It is characterized by parking at the rear and used by alleys. It has received nation-wide interest because of the pedestrian nature, neighborhood scale and re -definition of rear access. He cited locations in Seattle, Washington where this concept has been used lately. The layout and scale of streets is more attractive because of the elimination of garages facing the street. Street trees, short lawn, gables and front porches contribute to the pedestrian scale. Space and windows are used to give a more open space feeling. He had good and poor examples of developments using this concept. (2) The 43 foot right -of --way, with parking offsets to the right and left, provide parking in front of every unit. There is also on -site parking at the rear for two cars. Functionally, the street will look much smaller in scale because of the landscape offsets. In the Board's packet there is a variance on street standards, reducing parking space from 8-foot to 7-foot parking spaces. He outlined some technical aspects of the variance request and showed slides examples of parking. Sidewalks are on both sides of the project street. Offsets for the parking are concrete, with a rolled curb. (3) He reviewed the drainage plan and discussed flow lines. There is a 100-year flood line over one corner of the property. Setbacks to existing houses are of concern at three points, and range from 37 to 48 feet. The setbacks and landscape buffer were positively placed on site with the existing houses in mind. (4) There are 11 significant living trees on the site, 5-6 will be saved. The consensus of Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 18 Chair Clements stated the Board is very frustrated mainly because there is no one from the Transportation Division, although Mike Herzig was asked to represent the traffic issues. He doesn't have all the answers the Board needs for this particular project. Member Strom said, with the permission of the second, he would withdraw the motion. He further stated that the concern about the traffic study is overstated. He was frustrated as information has come forth, his conclusion has changed. It seems regardless of what the traffic study says, if the only issue the Board is concerned about is where the driveway location is, it is better now than at Monte Carlo. This seems to be the key question in the context of this project and the traffic issues; consequently, regardless of what the traffic study might show, he would be better able to say this is a better location, anyway. He desired to make a second motion without the traffic study condition. Member Winfree seconded. Member Winfree asked Mr. Delich why the traffic study was not submitted. Mr. Delich said it was submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Olt said it was reviewed by Transportation all along, but the traffic study is not normally included in the Board's packets. Member Winfree asked if the comprehensive traffic analysis by the Transportation Division was their recommendation. Mr. Olt said yes. Member Winfree further asked if the location of the access onto Wheaton from the project site would not be in the proper location to use a left turn signal at Wheaton/Harmony. Mr. Delich said it may not, but it would need to be viewed in light of the King Soopers site. Member Strom moved that the project be approved. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker made comment on the condition of the staff report, saying the whole purpose of the comprehensive traffic study was to decide where the access point should be. He believed that where the access has been proposed is appropriate from a planning perspective. The details can be worked through for other traffic patterns and flows. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 17 Member Strom specifically asked Mr. Delich if he evaluated a commercial use on this site? Mr. Delich replied he used the Harmony Road Access plan which included commercial development on the site in 1988. It was his understanding that the number then was even higher than the proposed development. Member Strom asked the impact on McMurray/Harmony access? Mr. Delich said that is the key. In conjunction with this particular development, I did not evaluate that intersection because the amount of traffic generated from the development would probably be less than 3 percent at that intersection and wasn't necessary to evaluate it. Member Strom pointed out that it was the only way to proceed east on Harmony out of this site. Mr. Delich replied that it is most likely but not the only and, again, stated that the impact of the development was so small, that it in his judgment and transportation at the city, the evaluation of the intersections agreed upon were made. Prior to all of this information regarding the King Soopers site, the McMurray intersection with Harmony was not deemed necessary to evaluate at this time. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt asked how King Soopers differed on that site based on the ODP which has always been defined as neighborhood/commercial. Mr. Olt stated that the approved neighborhood shopping center in 1984, took into consideration the standard components of a neighborhood/ supermarket based shopping center with smaller auxiliary uses possibly, some business and office uses, etc. He was unaware of any uses other than the King Soopers Market large store proposal. More information needs to be available to evaluate it. Member Cottier asked Mr. Olt if a traffic study after the King Soopers site development is adequate for the scope of the project. Mr. Olt said he didn't think the Transportation Division would be able to admit that, stating that Mr. Ensdorff has stated a comprehensive traffic impact study is needed for that area, which includes the area from Lemay to McMurray along Harmony and its functioning. Member Strom asked how they could have possibly said that to Mr. Delich, and why wouldn't he have done that study if that was what he was told to do. Mr. Olt said he couldn't answer that question. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 16 Member Fontane said she supports the project because of its quality the multi -family densities, and the developer's flexibility of the traffic access point. She hoped the transportation study doesn't delay the project. Mr. Eckman asked Member Strom for a point of clarification to make sure all board members understand that the condition is such that if, at the time of final, the traffic analysis still shows there is a problem with the layout, that the layout has to be adjusted in order to address any traffic problems. Then there is no vested right at the time of preliminary to the layout that is before the Board presently. Is that a fair statement? Member Strom said yes. Mr. Eckman said the Land Development Guidance System says that layout and densities are established at preliminaries and they can't be changed at final. The Board can make a conditional approval, to hold back that layout question as it specifically relates to traffic, if the Board desires. Was that the intent to layout of the condition to the motion. Because under the LDGS the layout is usually set at Preliminary, the Board needs to consider the question for this particular project to reserve the right to change layout if that is the Board's intention. Member Strom said we have to deal with the ramifications of the traffic study at the time the information is available. Chair Clements said if this project is requested to do a comprehensive impact analysis, what will the King Soopers people have to do ... the same analysis? Mr. Olt said there is really only one that is needed to be done. Chair Clements asked why this project will have to take on the responsibility? The real impact of traffic will be generated from the King Soopers project and she thought the request was backwards and felt it wasn't the developer's responsibility. Member Strom said ordinarily he would say that comment was correct but in this case, it was his opinion that a traffic analysis could not be done without considering the land use next to it. Chair Clements asked if Mr. Delich had taken this impact into account. Mr. Delich clarified that he did not specifically include the King Soopers development because it was not available when the study was conducted, but what he included in the analysis were increases in background traffic commensurate with the overall Golden Meadows and other increases in the area. Therefore, the traffic increases on Harmony Road, on Lemay, and on Wheaton were on the order of the whole development of the area. The increases shown did include order magnitude of those developments. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 15 Member Strom then asked how long that was going to take? Mr. Olt said that will vary. However, the Matterhorn PUD South College Access was a matter of months. It must go to the Department of Transportation in Greeley, then to Denver. It is difficult to predict their review time and approval. Member Strom said he was not willing to make the developer wait a matter of months, but at least have the Colorado Department of Transportation have some sense of what their reaction is to the plan before the final is reviewed. Mr. Olt said that is the staff recommendation, and the City will follow through on this. Member Strom was frustrated that the Transportation staff person was not present at this meeting since this is the major issue of the project. Member Winfree asked for clarification of Member Strom's motion as it is written? Member Strom said the minor amendment to the condition as written, not that it be formally approved by the Colorado State Transportation Department, but that there be a preliminary reading after their review. The developer then can proceed with work on the final application. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman stated that before this project is approved on final the Board will have an opportunity to look at traffic criteria to see if you still believe criteria has been met and if they have not because of the traffic impact analysis, at that time the project can be rejected. It should be made clear that the traffic impact analysis has nothing to do with layout and densities. The Board may be able to adjust densities because of traffic impact findings. Sometimes these studies overlap especially with regard to layout. Member Cottier said she supported the motion but lost sight of the qualities of the project. It is appropriate in its location with higher densities. Her personal feeling regarding the traffic is that the existing street network is adequate to handle the traffic of this proposed project. She had reservations of tying the commercial use to what this site should be allowed to do. She agreed the traffic study should factor in the numbers on the potential commercial development to the east and supported the idea of a more detailed traffic study. Member Walker commended the applicant for responding to the neighborhood concerns and desires and has done a fine job modifying plans. The access onto Wheaton was in response to the neighborhood concerns. The street network can manage the traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 14 Chair Clements added that the staff recommendation of "comprehensive impact analysis" has left many questions unanswered. She found it frustrating that Mr. Ensdorff of the Transportation Division was present at the work session and did not have answers and is now not present when being asked to approve the preliminary. Member Winfree commented that she agreed with comments made. We cannot consider this project with only a site specific traffic study and ignore the surrounding areas and total impacts. Member Strom moved approval of the preliminary P.U.D. considering the criteria, and reserve the right at the final to disapprove the project. If the traffic study doesn't give the necessary back-up for the traffic safety criteria. This proposal is weak in substantiating this criteria and the rest of the proposal is a very fine project. It has excellent site design, layout, setbacks. The traffic generation from this site cannot be the only consideration for impact. Member Collier asked for clarification. Is the traffic impact study for a broad scope or just factors neighborhood development on the site to the east? Member Strom said he wasn't sure what was meant by a much broader traffic impact study. It seems that four major intersections need to be looked at in order to evaluate the site. At a minimum, the Wheaton/Lemay, Lemay/Harmony, Wheaton/Harmony and McMurray/Harmony intersections. Chair Clements asked if Member Strom, in his motion, included the condition of the staff report as stated or revision of the condition. Mr. Olt stated that at a work session on Friday, minor changes have been made and there is revised condition before the Board, page 8 and 9 that replaces the original pages in the staff report. He explained how it differs by pointing out "the analysis must assume for purposes of its calculations, the existing proposed land uses in the area, their impacts rather than their effects on the transportation network." He said where the sentence beginning with "Also" should read "This area -wide transportation study will be used to determine whether the Stonebridge access point...." This is part of the overall comprehensive traffic impact analysis. Member Strom said the new wording is fine. He needed clarification as to what the interaction is with the Colorado Department of Transportation and how that impacts traffic studies and, ultimately, the project. Mr. Olt stated the Colorado Department of Transportation will have to review the traffic study if it were to propose an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Access Control Plan. For example, if there were a stop light proposed, or additional access points onto Harmony Road, then the Department would have to review and approve that amendment to the plan. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 13 Mr. Olt said "there is not". The neighborhood information minutes were delivered to the Board this evening. There has not been response since the neighborhood meeting. 19 people out of 300 residents notified attended. The initial neighborhood meeting concluded with acceptance of this project. There have been a few people come in and express a general concern about the area, but generally support of the project, design and accepted as a neighbor to the community. There is follow-up neighborhood meeting January 26 concerning this project. Member Winfree referred to the ODP and the site that was approved having a commercial area. Was there no traffic study done in relation to the ODP approval? Mr. Olt said the ODP was approved on June 27, 1984 that included 209,000 square feet of commercial uses on Phase IV of the neighborhood shopping site and 590 multi -family dwelling units in the surrounding area. He assumed there was one done but he has not seen it. Normally there is one done for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve an Overall Development Plan at that time. Member Klataske questioned the overall height of the buildings, with the minutes indicating 26 feet and the staff report 35 feet. Mr. Olt said he was unaware of the minutes stating this. Perhaps the end sections are being referred to, being ones that would be facing the residential neighborhoods. There is now an indication that the three story will be a maximum of 33 feet. Member Strom asked if part of the traffic study included Wheaton and Lemay and Harmony intersections? Mr. Olt said that there was not a Transportation representative at the meeting, so that is an assumption. Mr. Delich said the three intersections that were examined in the study were Wheaton/Harmony, Wheaton/Lemay and Harmony/Lemay. At the present time, the only signal is at Harmony and Lemay. The larger context of the traffic report shows there would be a rather insignificant impact of this development on the McMurray intersection because of its proximity. In the short- range future, without the development of the King Soopers shopping center, a signal is not warranted at Wheaton and Lemay. The need for the signal would be solely upon the development of the shopping center, if it occurred. Member Strom commented that the traffic study that was conducted left out a major portion of background traffic impact. He could not understand how this project could not include the himpacts of the shopping center. He concluded that a traffic study needs to be conducted before the project is finalized. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 12 Ms. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, said what has changed is that the Golden Meadows Master Plan has been built out and people are living there and are being vocal about the additional traffic on Monte Carlo and the school are factors that weren't always in place. The Harmony Road Access Plan should still be valid. She stated the plan is still viable. CITIZEN INPUT Tim Dolan from the Golden Meadows Homeowner's Association - At the meeting last Thursday regarding the Kings Soopers project, Rick Ensdorff made the statement that he would do a traffic study in conjunction with these two projects. The association recognizes that they are separate projects for the most part and accepts the apartment project. There is concern about the traffic and traffic patterns. The association would like this study to take place. The project is being contested because the overall effect of its development in their neighborhood. Bob Penny - 4401 San Remos - His concern was the children from the neighborhood walking down Wheaton to the school. He did not agree that the 1,200 commuter trips generated from the apartment complex were at different times from the school hours. The King Soopers project will increase car trips by 9,000. It is very important that this project be considered with the King Soopers project because of neighborhood concern. Over 300 people were at the neighborhood meeting and desire that the two projects be considered together. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements stated the traffic study and the proposed King Soopers development are generating the concern. She asked Mr. Olt where the potential project stood. Mr. Olt said to date the proposed King Soopers project has been to conceptual review about a month ago, the neighborhood information meeting has been held January 20, and was not sure of the timing for formal submittal of their project. Ted Shepard is the project planner in the City offices for the King Soopers project. Chair Clements said there are many unknowns. Member Strom stated he was surprised that the traffic study was not in the packets. Mr. Olt stated he will refer the questions to Matt Delich who prepared the study. Also, it is rare that the report is included. Member Cottier asked in regard to neighborhood compatibility why the neighborhood meetings notes were not included in the packet, but Mr. Youngee's letter summarized the neighborhood issues were setbacks, building scale, adequate landscaping, and location of the entrance. Mr. Dolan said the neighborhood generally supported this project. Is there any negative issue outside the traffic issue related to King Soopers? Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 11 Mr. Delich said he did not, because basically there was really nothing intended on the site at the time he did the study. It has always been commercial. He had made contact with the people developing the site and could not get any definitive answers regarding their proposal. Since then, more has developed, specifically the King Soopers site. This site will generate 9,000 daily trip ends at the site. This project will generate 1,000-1,200 daily trip ends, resulting in 10 percent of the new traffic. Member Strom asked if was typical to leave out a site even if it is undeveloped. Mr. Delich said that it was not. The problem was there was no information at the time of the analysis, so he proceeded with the consent of staff, with the Harmony Road access in place. Since the King Soopers site planning is active, Mr. Ensdorff thought there needed to be some adjustments to the Harmony Road access plan. That opens other issues. Member Strom asked for input in terms of range of possibilities. What is the difference from the traffic standpoint if Wheaton is signalized rather than just operating with the existing signal at McMurray? Mr. Delich said all the traffic to the east, with the shopping site, will put a burden on the McMurray signal, necessitating double -turn lanes in the southbound direction. The Wheaton signal would take some burden off. Member Strom concluded that existing Harmony access plan is based, to a fair degree, to move traffic on Harmony Road. Mr. Delich said there is involvement of a charge of the State of Colorado to move traffic on Harmony. He discussed technical details of State involvement and City. Member Strom asked how much difference is it going to make on Harmony Road with signalization. Mr. Delich stated one-half mile increments along the corridor in the future. There were several areas that will be signalized. There would be extra lanes and a lowering of the speed zones. Member Fontane asked if left turn lights at Wheaton and Lemay were feasible (and a possible cul-de-sac). Why is there concern about access on Harmony from Wheaton. Theoretically, the two developments were considered in these plans. Mr. Delich indicated that the plans did consider this. What is happening now is a sensitivity to the neighbors to the north and try to bring the traffic in and out of the commercial portion of the Golden Meadows area, rather than filtering through the neighborhood. Member Cottier directed her question to staff for answer. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 10 Mr. Youngee further stated that plans, whether signalized or not, have been researched for the Wheaton/Harmony intersection. However, if the proposed location of the access needs to be moved, they are willing to work that out with staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. The plan is clearly considering use of the access of the shopping center with the alignment of the two driveways. The owners are prepared to build this year and would not want the project delayed. Member Walker asked if the location of the access would be the best guess to provide alignment with any future development across the road to the east. Mr. Youngee said he will work with the developers toward an agreement and that he attended the neighborhood meeting of January 27, 1994, where nearly 300 people attended to voice concerns. No accesses would be granted to Monte Carlo, one access to Wheaton Dr. one to the east, and none to the Harmony. The developer stated they were flexible in the location of the access road. Member Strom asked if a traffic study had been conducted. Mr. Matt Delich stated he conducted a traffic study for this site. What the City is asking for now is a comprehensive impact analysis for the entire area extending to S. Lemay Ave., E. Harmony Road, McMurray Road to the east, Golden Meadows residential area to the north. He stated that this development is not the problem and would also invite a traffic signal there, if necessary. Wheaton Drive has always been designed as a collector street, with no parking allowed. Member Walker understood that this project is to be considered without plans for the shopping center and has the City approved this access point to Wheaton. Mr. Youngee replied yes. He supposed in Mr. Ensdorff's mind will it then work if there is a traffic signal. The designers of this project, respecting neighborhood input, made its location south of Monte Carlo. Mr. Delich conducted the traffic study for this project and the distance between intersections being discussed is 250 feet. The issue considers the Harmony access without the signal. In the traffic study, it shows there would be no left turn at that point to the east. The logical route is through McMurray. If there is a signal proposed, the overlapping left turn lanes would have to be redesigned. Member Walker if the signals are placed, where would the access be moved to? Mr. Delich said it would have to be in compliance with the larger traffic study made. Member Strom asked when the traffic study was made, did you use some kind of traffic generation off the Phase IV site. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 9 with some changes to the staff recommendation. There was a neighborhood meeting prior to submission of any proposal. The intent to build a multi -family project has always been up front to the neighborhood to build out the Courtney Park to the west. The proposed plan has 168- units, 16-units to the acre, and meets the LDGS, with 110% for increased density. The proposal is within the general guidelines of the PUD master plan because there had originally been 154 units planned to the north of the retail site, which has been was built as 54 single-family sites. The current master plan states 20 to 30 units less than had originally been planned. The three issues of the neighborhood were: Traffic. The original PUD had two access points. The neighbors preference was one access from the site. They requested that it not be aligned with Monte Carlo. There was a request for the green space and a one-story clubhouse close to the intersection to give maximum setbacks, open space, and minimal impact of multi- family units. 2. Building Mass. There were changes in the buildings as they front along Wheaton, to include smaller buildings along the border of the site. There was a request for internal parking and landscaping external to the site. All buildings have no more than two stories adjacent to the street, with three stories to the center of the project. The technical report refines the height of the buildings to be 33 feet in height. 3. Landscaping. The merit of the plan is 50 percent of the site is in green space. This is achieved by 50 garage units being within the buildings, at the ends of them or at the center of the buildings. They are residential in character, with slopped roofs, stone and wood sidings to be compatible with the neighborhood. Off -site landscaping includes 7 existing shade trees and the neighborhood was asked if it would be of assistance to do off -site landscaping and berming. They agreed, and staff has supported it as part of the project. Mr. Youngee stated a concern from the standpoint of density, which leads to traffic. The project is in harmony with the Master Plan of the overall PUD in Phases I, II, and III. He believed the general purpose of a PUD is to have a "give and take" of project amenities versus merit to the neighborhood. He said their changes in the proposal have merit and justifies the PUD. The traffic issue seems to be the obstacle remaining. He felt it unfair that this issue would hold up the project, because his project is a "stand alone project" with an already master PUD. They are simply building out the east half of a project which had already been approved and this request should not be held back because of a proposed shopping center. The location of the driveway to the south of Monte Carlo mitigates the impact the traffic may have on the residential neighborhood. Further, the pedestrian traffic for the school children that are coming to the school stays to the north side of the street. A peak period for auto traffic, from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. leaving the site and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. returning to the site, is at different times than school hours. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting January 24, 1994 Minutes Page 8 STONEBRIDGE GARDEN APARTMENTS PUD - PRELIMINARY - Case #82-93 Mr. Olt gave the staff report, with slides, and conditions to the Board. Member Walker had a question regarding the location of the access drive. What criteria is used to determine the location? His concern stemmed from the school children and traffic flows in the area. Mr. Olt said that Transportation had indicated there are two points of access being considered: Mid -point between Monte Carlo and Harmony Road. Another consideration is directly across from the intersection of Monte Carlo. The shopping center to the east needs to be considered. At this time, the development plans are not far enough along to know where its access will occur. Distance from Harmony Road is a factor, potential turn lanes must be considered, potential street light at Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive. With the two uses, multi -family and shopping center, it is probable that a stop light would be considered. As it looks presently, the traffic flow would most likely move from the multi -family area to Wheaton to Monte Carlo to McMurray for access eastbound on Harmony. Member Walker said it is unclear about the potential for the light at Wheaton and Harmony. Member Fontane asked about the time frame for the impact analysis of traffic. Mr. Olt said with the shopping center still in the early planning phases, it is difficult to determine what the time frame would be for that impact study. Member Fontane said it was difficult to envision how traffic patterns would develop. Mr. Olt stated under the circumstances, the Transportation Department believes these two projects should be viewed together regarding traffic impacts. Chair Clements said she is trying to recall when deciding access on one site was dependant upon the location of another site access. It somewhat concerns her why the Transportation Division cannot make a decision. Mr. Olt commented said he was not prepared to speak for the Transportation Division at this time in terms of alienating this project from the contextual view in the area, based on the knowledge today that the shopping center will occur in the near future. Chair Clements had some serious concerns regarding this. Jim Youngee, planner for the project, 9630 E. Powers Place in Greenwood Village. Co -planner Linda Ripely, Jim Loftus, traffic planner Matt Delich were all present to make a brief presentation to the Board. He stated that their wish was that the Board approve this application J PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 24, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The January 24, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone and Carolyn Worden. Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda which consisted of: Consent Agenda: Item 1, Approval of December 13 and December 16, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes; Item 2, Johnson Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #83-93; Item 3, Lopez Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #84-93; Item 4, *East Drake Terrace Office Park PUD - Final, #58-93A; Item 5, Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Preliminary, #21-92F; Item 6, Harmony Crossing PUD - Final, #65-93B; Item 7, Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Final, #66-93A; Item 8, *Stetson Creek PUD (Formerly Rock Creek) - Final, #16-89F; Item 9, Resolution PZ93-18 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10, Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11, *Total Petroleum West Prospect - Non -Conforming Use Expansion - Final, #78-93, and; Item 13, Recommendation to City Council for Fox Hills Annexation and Zoning, #36-93A,B. Discussion Agenda: Item 14, Stonebridge Garden Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #82-93; Item 15, Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary, #81-93, and; Item 16, Coventry Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93. Mr. Eckman pointed out Ordinance 151 was passed by Council on final reading in December and now the changes for the Land Development Guidance System are applicable for the first time. Member Cottier requested to pull the December 16, 1993 meeting minutes and suggested to review the wording of the motion for Spring Creek Project. Because of the appeal. Chair Clements asked to pull Item 5 Stoneridge PUD and Item 6 Harmony Crossing PUD because of conflict of interest. It was requested from the audience that Item 7 Windtrail Homes PUD, Final, be pulled.