Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMERHILL PUD FINAL SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING - 41 93A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 15 Member Winfree commented that because the Board moves for approval of this project does not mean that citizen input is not heard or there is no care about the concerns. As a member of the Board, each development is judged by the LDGS. As a guide, LDGS states that this is a project appropriate for the area, therefore, she supported the motion. Chair Clements asked for point of clarification if the motion included the condition. Member Cottier stated that it did. Chair Clements also restated that city policies are given through the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) that requires the Board to measure these proposals. No where in the LDGS does it (a) say we can look at populations, such as students, and (b) say that the Board can arbitrarily determine that there is enough density in the area and that this project cannot go through, that power is not the Board's. The LDGS approved by City Council is used to help the Board members guide decisions. She supported the motion. Motion carried 5-0. BROOKSIDE VILLAGE AT ROCK CREEK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 016-89E Planner Shepard read the staff report and recommended approval. He stated that a neighborhood planning information meeting had been held and the minutes of that meeting were in the Board's packets. As a result of that meeting, the staff has added two more conditions to the plan, the first that the rezoning be passed by Council. The other two conditions are in regard to fencing and discharge of flows to a detention area. There will be a slide presentation. Mr. Eldon Ward gave a presentation of the plans and changes since the neighborhood meeting. He mentioned that the T-transition zoning will be considered by Council in December. Within the ODP, the only issue needing further discussion is the relationship along the south property line. He described in detail the characteristic of the adjoining border to the south of the development and showed related slides, stated that most existing homes are over 1,000 feet away from the proposed new development. Some revisions to the plan have been made: (1) a redesign of a cul-de-sac, (2) one less home, to realign to Timberline, (3) there is no conflict with staff's conditions stated in their report to the Board. He described the creation of a swale along the rear lot line to collect the new development drainage and overflow to convey it the east. The proposal is to offset it to the fence. To put the concern of drainage overflow to rest, the developer agrees to convey the flows and a fence that will allow that to happen and to allow access from the south to the swale. He demonstrated other successful plans for drainage in other Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 14 Chair Clements said there has been a proposal to put together a proposal for a neighborhood plan for the planning department, if so when will that begin? Planner Clark answered that there is a neighborhood plan and background work for development of an attitude survey underway. She addressed Mr. McMasters that the study area includes his neighborhood, issues with respect to density in the Prospect -Shields area will be addressed and opportunities for citizen input. The anticipated time -frame for that project is for the survey to go out early December to return in two weeks, prior to students leaving the community because there is need to get input from students living in the area. After the first of the year, the data analysis and public participation efforts would be started. Chair Clements said Mr. Hammond had concerns regarding plans for areas that are vacant parcels of land, indicating there will be an overall plan for the area including his neighborhood for public input. Member Walker commented on the density of the project and future project plans. He noted the project was an anchor point for multi -family density, because on the east side of Shields, it remains mainly residential, with some vacant lots. The open space areas along the importation canal serve as a buffer, will have other multi -family projects planned for development. He believes it is important to plan well for the mitigation with citizens and developers in future proposals. He felt a positive attribute of the project is the plan to use the open space adjacent to the site. He mentioned 204 bedrooms added to this part of town, and is germane to how they are rented. The project is in compliance and provides transition in its location, but careful planning is needed for future development locations along South Shields. Member Cottier moved for approval of Summerhill Final and will make further comments if the motion is seconded. Member Fontane seconded the motion and stated she agreed that it is in a location highly taxed for use, but pointed out that multi -family exists on two sides and an arterial on the north side. It has open space on the south side, these are all important to have for this type use, it is a good design and merits approval. Member Cottier commented the plan is consistent with preliminary plan as an infill project and city policies direct the Board that it is appropriate to have higher densities, specifically it is important to have higher densities in these areas because of the proximity to CSU and because proximity to employment centers and its location on an arterial. This is not likely an appropriate location for single family with the multi -family on both sides. It is an improvement over the existing approval, and is a reasonable plan with open space accessed for the entire neighborhood and residents of Fort Collins. These are reasons for approval on final. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 13 insufficient for the number of units. The sentiment in the area is that the development of the neighborhood is still too high in density for the existing area. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chair Clements addressed the concerns of the citizens with regard to open space and natural areas and how this project will impact these areas. Has Natural Resources been working with planning staff on this project and have their concerns been addressed? Planner Olt stated Natural Resources was involved in the review process from the outset. They had no concerns other than maintaining a public access to the area. There are unknowns as to how the residents will use this access to the open space until it is in place. Because of its natural undeveloped state, it will not be utilized in the same manner as planned and developed open spaces. Natural Resources did not feel this open space area would be impacted adversely. Chair Clements further asked about the planned landscaping on Prospect to buffer homes across the street. Mr. Ward replied the approach that is being taken rather than a solid fence or wall, there will be small walled -in patio areas behind the units, then berming and landscaping beyond that. What is proposed is more intense than what was done at the Bridges, for example. The noise concern is from Prospect, rather, than noisy residents. The planning staff and City Forester have reviewed these plans with satisfaction. Member Winfree asked what the setback was from the sidewalk to the buildings. Mr. Ward stated that it was increased from the old PUD and is between 25 and 30 feet from the back of the walk to the buildings. Mr. Ward wanted to clear up a technical question regarding the statement that the Preliminary Approval was rendered invalid. It was his understanding that the notification which had been provided had some errors and the developer agreed to have another neighborhood meeting to have questions reopened that are restricted to a preliminary plan. Does that make the preliminary approval invalid? Attorney Eckman recalled there was much discussion of inadequacy of notification and Mr. Ward, on behalf of his client, agreed to waive any rights that might have arisen in regard to layout and density of the plan. The residents concerned would not have issue with regard to notice but that other issues pertaining to this plan were available for discussion of substantive issues, including layout and density. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 12 open space as overflow condo resident activities was valid." She said this kind of thinking undermines the value of the struggle for the past 3 years where hundreds of residents campaigned to establish this area as a wetlands and wildlife habitat. This attitude does not well represent the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan to protect wetlands open space and wildlife refuge areas within the city limits from encroachment. It is time for developers to be more responsible for the planning of internal open space areas for their residents, instead of expecting local parks and natural open spaces to be available for unsupervised babysitting and dog runs. The Summerhill PUD project would be compatible to the area if its density level of 68 units would be reduced to 4 or 8 units to allow for internal open spaces which the residents can use for routine outdoor activities, instead of negatively impacting the natural open space south. The other concern is the future make-up of the entire Prospect -Shields area. Project planners are looking at this area as individual parcels rather than seeing it as a whole. At this time it seems that the plan is to turn all remaining parcels of open land into high -density condo projects which will greatly impact the value and make-up of present single-family residential neighborhoods in this area, it will tax existing facilities like the Rolland Moore Park and the Spring Creek bike trail, increase traffic congestion at the convergence of these two streets. Although I would like to see a veto of all projects in this area, it would be unrealistic. It is not unrealistic to hope developers would practice civic virtue and work with us for the common good of the area by reducing the density of the units in proposals and helping preserve the open residential characteristics of the neighborhoods. Hugh Hammond - 1505 Skyline Dr. - He appreciated the opportunity to be heard. He has lived in the area for 20 years and believes the project will increase the rental population and generate a burden on our streets, schools, etc. The 68-units are planned to be family units, but he believed that they would be occupied by students, increasing the population of drivers and traffic. He stated that there were more open areas along Prospect and would like to see planning for low -density structures. Marjorie Clyma - 1405 Skyline Dr. - She agreed with previous comments regarding high density. She had some concerns regarding landscaping planted on the land joining Prospect to cut down on the noise that will be generated. She questioned what the builders have done in the last two years in the area of building on this property. Greg McMaster - 1409 Skyline Dr. - He indicated he had met with Mr. Ward at a neighborhood meeting and wanted to address some of the ideas from that meeting. (1) Preliminary Approval was rendered invalid by the Board because of improper notification. He sensed there was no movement directed to alleviating concerns that have been expressed. He stressed the number of existing multi -family buildings and their impact in regard to the character of the neighborhood. (2) He agreed that the proposed project is better than what had previously been planned. He felt the density proposed is still too high. (3) He believed that this project would have an obvious impact on the traffic in the area. (4) Parking was also believed to be Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 15, 1993 Page 11 available to advise the Board as to how long it would take for these design guidelines to be developed in a complete format to be presented to the Council. Perhaps it should be left for the Council to decide after staff has had a chance to give Council input. Member Cottier asked if the Board is recommending to Council they adopt a moratorium and Council could adopt this re -zoning change. Mr. Eckman said that the Board is making a recommendation to Council only. Member Walker commented his sense of a time line is performance based, when the design guidelines are implemented, then the moratorium would come off. The original plan was set up with two criteria, one of which is not implemented. This has caused failure to our neighborhoods and needs to be corrected at this time. The motion passed 5-0. Planner Steve Olt gave the staff report and recommendation to the Board. Applicant Eldon Ward gave a presentation and reported the discussion among neighbors of the area. He believed there were no new issues raised that were not part of the staff review and P & Z Board original review when the preliminary was approved in August. We would, therefore, request that the Board approve the reduction in density to allow a transition between the higher density to the east and west rather than the existing Underhill plan. Member Walker asked how "The Bridges," a higher density plan area, would be characterized. Mr. Ward recalled it was in the 14 units per acre range. The Summerhill is 9-1/2 units per acre. There are tandem parking spaces available in this new plan. CITIZEN INPUT Sandy Hendrickson - 1636 W. Stuart - She is a resident of the Prospect -Shields neighborhood. She is not totally opposed to the development, but there are a few concerns: (1) the impact of 68 condominiums squeezed into so small an area, (2) the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins, as amended in 1990: "protection of open and green spaces important in neighborhoods and protection and maintenance of environment and restriction of growth encroaching upon open space areas," and (3) as discussed at the June 30 meeting, wildlife open space area south of the New Mercer Ditch. One presenter indicated that the use of the • 0 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 15, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The November 15, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Rene` Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree. Members Jim Klataske and Bernie Strom were absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark in Planning Director Tom Peterson's absence, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Kate Malers, Ken Waido and Carolyn Worden. AGENDA REVIEW Planner CIark reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of 'September 27, October 25 and November 1, 1993; Item 2 Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD - Overall Development Plan, #66-93A; Item 3 - Windtrail Townhomes PUD - Preliminary, #66-93; Item 4 - Miramont PUD, Tennis & Fitness Center - Preliminary, #54-87K; Item 5 - Save-Mor Self Storage PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final; Item 6 - Raintree Townhomes PUD - Final, #42-93A; Item 8 - 601-603 Mathews Street PUD., Preliminary and Final, #68-93; Item 9 - A Big A Storage PUD, Final, #57-93A; Item 10 - Resolution PZ93-14 Access Easement Vacation; Item 11 - Resolution PZ93-15 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 12 - Resolution PZ93-16 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 13 - Modification of Conditions of Approval. Planner CIark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 15 - Summerbill PUD - Final, #41-93A; Item 17 - Brookside Village at Rock Creek PUD - Preliminary, #16-89E; Item 19 - Spring Creek Farms Third (English Ranch ODP) - Amended Overall Development Plan, #75-86K; Item 20 - English Ranch Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary, #75-86L; Item 21 - Harmony Village PUD - Overall Development Plan, #65-93; Item 22 - Harmony Crossing PUD - Preliminary, #65-93A; Recommendation to Council Item 23 - Amendment to the N-C-M Zone, #37-90. Planner Clark stated there were requests for the N-C-M Zone to be moved up earlier in the Discussion Agenda by several residents. Chair Clements asked Attorney Eckman if it would be appropriate for the Board to change the agenda. Attorney Eckman replied if it was the pleasure of the Board, however, it would take a vote of the Board.