Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD - PRELIMINARY - 46-88C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES4e t Member Walker moved to approve Poudre Valley Hospital PUD with the three conditions as noted by staff, namely clarifying the future use of the eight residential properties, the interim striping plan for Elizabeth/McHugh and Elizabeth/Patton, and the final drainage report with outstanding drainage concerns being addressed at final. Member Carroll stated that the first condition about the use and procedures stated "shall be added to the final site plan." He asked if this meant that this will come back before the Board on final. Mr. Peterson responded yes. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 6-0. Park South PUD Overall Development Plan - #46-88B Park South PUD - Preliminary - #46-88C Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the descriptions for both Park South items. She stated that there was a new condition placed on the preliminary which stated: "A four foot detached sidewalk be required along the west side of Manhattan Avenue as part of the development of Park South PUD Preliminary." Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that staff was initially not certain as to whether they could require the developer to construct and install this sidewalk at the time of development of the site. After further review of the development agreements and a discussion with the City Attorney, staff believed that they do have the ability to require this sidewalk which was only along one side of Manhattan Avenue and along the frontage of this proposed preliminary plan. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the preliminary subject to that one condition. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated that this project was brought before the Board and was denied in 1988 based on the negative traffic impact and negative neighborhood compatibility. He briefly discussed what was proposed in the 1988 project and what changes have been made in this overall development plan noting the increase of 3 acres of the total acreage, the decrease of the non-residential area which is Parcel A and B, the increase of Parcel C, and the reduction of acreage and change from a community shopping center to a neighborhood convenience shopping center of Parcel A. He stated that Parcel B was a transitional area and Parcel C contained 121 lots. Member Walker asked if it was just a concept in the report that mentioned the access off of Horsetooth with left turns from the westbound lanes. Mr. Vaught replied that this was just a concept and not a consideration in the overall development plan. Member Walker asked why the car wash and detail was on the list for potential uses. Mr. Vaught stated that if this could be made to be architecturally compatible, they believed it could be an acceptable use. However, this could be deferred to the preliminary plan. 17 Member Walker had concerns with the intensity of the use of the 7 plus acres/ 80,000 square foot area and the higher use than prescribed. Mr. Vaught replied that they believed this was not a neighborhood shopping center with a food store anchor. This has the potential to be a healthy center and needed to incorporate an anchor of some sort into the center which could be a 30,000 square foot anchor. If this were limited to 50,000 total square feet with an anchor that would be the drawing card, there would not be enough support square footage in the smaller shops. Ruth Burrier represented the Four Seasons Homeowners' Association. She stated that the association's main concerns in 1988 were the traffic impact and having no need for a neighborhood convenience center. She stated that they have no objections to the increase in residential housing, office buildings but they were opposed to having a neighborhood shopping center. She stated that she had met with Mr. Shepard and Mr. Middel and an agreement was made with the concern of the number of residential housing. Mr. Middel agreed to make the homes along Benthaven part of the Four Seasons Homeowners' Association. She stated that they had a concern with the lot size and drainage easement of the lot next to Leisure Village. She stated that after discussing this with Mr. Middel, he agreed to put that particular house directly on the easement line which would still create a 40 foot house frontage plus the five foot required adjacent to the next property. Susan Shaw, 3725 Benthaven, had concerns about nine lots that would be directly across the street from her home. She also had concerns about the increased traffic impact that this development would create on Benthaven. Loren Dilsaver, property owner of land on other side of Manhattan Avenue, stated that he was concerned about the density in the residential area, the sewer capacity and the increased runoff of the detention pond. Norm Meyer, resident of The Village, stated that the number of homes between Dennison and Bonita, on the east side of Benthaven, should be no greater than the number of homes on the west side of Benthaven between Dennison and Bonita. Member Klataske asked if the detention pond capacity and the sewer line have been addressed at this point. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, stated that they have not been addressed at the master plan level. He stated that this would need to be investigated and where the flow would go at the time of development. He stated that there was a master plan in terms of drainage and if the capacity was not in that detention, then the developer upstream would have to detain more on site. He stated that the sewers were master planned for anticipating densities. Member Klataske asked if the detention pond east of Manhattan would drain into the proposed detention pond. Mr. Herzig replied that he was not familiar with that and could not recall if all of detention for Park South would be on that location. He stated that he could not respond to the question without further investigation but this would be done with the preliminary and final development. Member Klataske asked if the detention was considered with the preliminary residential area. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the Water and Sewer Department responded to the sewer issue by stating that most of the mains were existing and some services were currently installed. Mark Middel, developer, stated that the City Storm Drainage Department and Stewart & Associates have discussed this and they all agreed that there were no problems with the detention pond. He stated that there was a 36 inch storm drain along the west side of Manhattan which was a sub -surface pipe which allowed for the discharge of water at any one point and not restricted by gravity flow. He stated that the City was looking at additional storm drainage capacity in the South Glen pond. Member Cottier asked for clarification of the number of homes on Benthaven. Mr. Middel replied that there would be nine homes on Benthaven. All of the lots would be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Member Walker asked for the rationale behind the small lot sizes. Mr. Middel stated that the current plat on the property was 143 sites. This property was zoned and annexed under a forced annexation with the city. In that agreement, this subdivision could be approved and developed as those 4,000 square foot lots without any City curb or gutter. A resolution has been agreed upon that the site could be developed with City standards which would make the lots larger and in conformance with the current standards. The style and size of homes has changed to make lots appear deeper which would make better use of the land. He stated that they would put in curb and gutter to upgrade the proposed site. Member Walker asked for staff perspective on this issue. Ms. Albertson -Clark added that the key to a PUD was the offer of flexibility. She stated that slightly over half of the lots for this proposed development were under 6,000 square feet but they were internal to the site. She stated that staff believed that this was a buildable plan and was an improvement and upgrade to the already approved plan that was in place today. Member Carroll asked if the land east of Manhattan was zoned Highway Business and if it had a current plan for it. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that at one time there was a plan for the Minerva Business Park but this has expired. She stated that currently this property had no plan approved but could develop as a use -by -right. Member Carroll stated that he had concerns with the potential development of the property east of Manhattan Avenue and the collector and arterial street connections. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this was one of the criterion that is reviewed by staff on the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center point chart. Staff did not feel that it was appropriate to do the point chart and include it in the packet. She stated that staff does not evaluate a neighborhood convenience shopping center as part of an overall development plan. She noted that in 1988 staff struggled with the definition of what the proposal was then and whether it played a community -serving role. She stated that the discussion was centered on particular square footage that was proposed at the master plan level. The difficulty now was delineating between a neighborhood convenience shopping center and a neighborhood center. 19 Chairman Strom asked if the projected traffic impact level of service is based on the 80,000 square foot commercial space and, if so, could it be clarified where the level of service would be. Ms. Albertson -Clark referred the traffic impact portion of Chairman Strom's question to the Traffic Engineer. She stated that staff believed that the existing traffic system could handle the traffic that would be generated by the center. She stated that on the 1988 plan, another concern was that Manhattan was primarily a residential -serving collector street and Staff was concerned about the level of service. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Lee, Traffic Engineer, if the traffic projections assumed 80,000 square feet of commercial. Mr. Lee responded yes. Member Cottier stated that the PUD guidelines discouraged from locating within 3/4 of a mile from another convenience center. This proposal was within 3/4 of a mile of another center and 1 /2 mile from commercial areas on College Avenue. She asked how, from a planning perspective, would the closeness to another shopping center be justified. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the convenience center Member Cottier was referring to was the one at Cunningham Corners. This center may not qualify under the definition of a convenience center because it would be based on the amount of retail sales of gas versus the amount that qualify from other non -gas sales. The evaluation of the overall development plan portion was to focus on the kinds of uses that were listed on the ODP as uses in the neighborhood convenience shopping center and, with the exception of the car wash and detailing, staff believed these were the kinds of uses that were neighborhood -serving. There were also some potential pedestrian -connections proposed. Member Clements -Cooney asked when traffic signals would be installed at Manhattan and Horsetooth. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that these would be installed when warranted. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not see a change for transition and believed that this needed to be addressed. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that typically with lower density residential uses developing first, the higher intensity use would carry a greater burden for buffering to the residential units. Member Klataske commented that he hoped the developer would not have the expectation that the Board would approve anything up to 80,000 square feet, when the stated policy was 50,000 square feet. He also commented that there should be a reduction in the possible improvements of square footage of the shopping center. Member Walker commented that the car wash and detailing potential use should be stricken from the overall development . plan. He also had concerns with the 80,000 square foot expectation and buffering of the single family to the south. Member Carroll asked, if this was approved, would the Board be approving an 80,000 square foot shopping center. W Ms. Albertson -Clark replied technically no. She read a note that is typically placed on overall development plans which stated "The proposed land uses and density shown on this plan are estimates of development potential. Approval of this plan, by the City, does not constitute the final approval for these land uses, design, or density. Rather, any further land uses must be approved according to the procedures, processes, and criteria of the Planned Unit Development regulations and other relevant City policies and standards." Chairman Strom commented that approving an ODP does not commit the applicant to 80,000 square feet but he believed that it created an expectation. He stated that he would rather create an expectation that will meet a typical guideline. If a more detailed proposal that could justify 80,000 square feet were submitted, he would feel more comfortable considering it at that stage. Member Walker moved to approve the Park South Overall Development Plan with the modification that the car wash and detail facility be removed from the list of possible uses of the convenience center and that the neighborhood convenience shopping center be shown on the Overall Development Plan as 50,000 square feet and 7.3 acres. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she would support the motion but had reservations about the commercial activity and would hope that the future neighborhood convenience center would reflect the lower level of intensity and that the 50,000 square feet would be taken as a serious guideline. Motion to approve Park South Overall Development Plan carried 5-1 with Member Clements - Cooney voting no. Member Cottier moved to approve Park South Amended Preliminary PUD with the condition that the homes on Benthaven be part of the Four Seasons Homeowners Association and be designated on the final and that the four foot detached sidewalk be required along the west side of Manhattan Avenue as part of the development. She commented that this was a much improved plan from what was submitted in 1988 and was more compatible with the neighborhood. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve Park South Amended Preliminary PUD carried 6-0. Country Club Corners PUD Overall Development Plan - #72-84A Country Club Corners PUD - Preliminary - #72-84B Kirsten Whetstone gave descriptions of both Country Club items with staff recommending approval of the preliminary with the following conditions: 1) that the College Avenue access issue be resolved with the State Highway Department and the City Transportation Department prior to approval of the final plan; 2) and that final storm drainage grading and erosion control plans be approved to City staff satisfaction prior to review of a final plan. Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman Architects, briefly discussed the proposed projects stating that the build -out would be over the next 7 to 10 years, depending upon the economic conditions of 21