HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARAGON POINT PUD FINAL - 48 91B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
• March 23, 1992
Council Liaison: Gerry Horak
Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members
present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim
K lataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck,
Mike Herzig, Kayla Ballard and Patti Schneeberger.
Member Carroll moved to have Item E, Other Business, discussed prior to the reading of the
agenda. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Member Carroll stated that there have been several public comments about the sign erected by
CSU at the southeast corner of Elizabeth and Shields. He commented that the Board was not
aware of the particulars concerning this sign. Member Carroll moved to have staff present a
report to the Board regarding the signage at the regular April meeting stating in that report
the following: 1) the compliance, or non-compliance, of the sign with the City Sign Code and
if it does not comply, in what regards it does not comply; 2) the presentation of a report from
the City Police Services stating any traffic hazards that may or may not occur through the
installation of the sign, and; 3) comments from staff regarding the interaction and discussions
• between the City and CSU before the installation of the sign. Member Clements -Cooney
seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Member Carroll commented that he would welcome any comments from CSU staff at the April
meeting and extended an invitation for them to attend the meeting in April.
Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the
February 24, 1992 meeting; Item 2 -Pinewood Patio Homes PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case 04-
92A; Item 3 - Villages at Harmony West, Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #3-90D;
Item 4 - Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at Harmony West, Lot One,
Preliminary, Case #3-90E;Item 5 -Gates at Woodridge PUD 2nd Filing, Final, Case #55-87F;
Item 6 -Overlook at Woodridge PUD 2nd Filing, Final, Case #55-87G; Item 7 -Seven Lakes
Medical Office Building PUD, Phase 2, Final, Case #95-811; Item 8 - Park South PUD, 1st
Replat, Final, Case #46-88D;Item 9-Poudre Plains Subdivision, Two Year Extension, Case #72-
87A; Item 10 - Overland Hills Subdivision, 1st Filing, Final, Case #38-90B; Item 11 - North
Lemay Plaza PUD, One Year Extension, Case #57-87B; Item 12 - Resolution PZ92-3 Vacation
of Easements at Spring Creek Professional Park PUD; Item 13 - Resolution PZ92-4 Vacation
of Easements at Hickory Hill Village at Cunningham Corner PUD; Item 14 -Resolution PZ92-5
Vacation of Easements at Sunray Place PUD was continued to the April meeting; Item 15 -
Springwood Institute PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case #2-92.
Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 16 - Paragon Point
PUD, Final, Case #48-91B;Item 17 -Replat of it Portion of Tract A, Southridge Golf Course,
Case #9-82AE; Item 18 - Paragon Point PUD, 1st Replat, Final, Case #48-91C; Item 19 -
Housing Authority Facility PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case #28-89A; Item 20 - Laurie
Subdivision PUD, 2nd Filing, Final, Case #44-89E;Item 21 -Laurie Subdivision PUD, 1st Filing,
Amended Preliminary & Final, Case 044-89F; Item 22 - Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision,
• Final, Case #43-83D, and; Item 23 -Potts PUD, Preliminary, Case #6-92 was continued to the
April meeting.
P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 2
Chairman Strom pulled Item 4, Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at
Harmony West, Lot One, Preliminary.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
15. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 7-0. _
FORT COLLINS SECOND AND HARMONY PUD AT THE VILLAGES AT HARMONY WEST,
LOT ONE - PRELIMINARY - Case #3-90E `
Chairman Strom stated that he had a concern with the two access points on Harmony Road,
particularly in close proximity with the Regency Drive intersection. He stated that the City
usually resisted access along major arterials especially close to intersections and particularly _
one use with more than one access. He asked what kind of precedent the City would be setting. .
Kirsten Whetstone stated that the Transportation Department addressed this concern when the
project was brought forward at Conceptual Review and through the review process. The two
points of access were allowed at that time. The Transportation Department did not want
anything other than a church use to have access on Harmony at that point. If there were a
shared access on Harmony, this would allow uses on the adjacent lot to access Harmony. If the
church were to sell the building for some other use, they would lose access on Harmony. She
added that, in regards to setting a precedent, it is typical in Fort Collins for churches to have
access on major arterials. In this case, the two access points work for the church site and do
not create a conflict because the peak time for a church is the minimum time for rest of the
traffic. Two access points work better for circulation for a church use because the traffic is
so concentrated. She added that any change of use at this site would have to come before the
Board.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at
Harmony West, Lot One, Preliminary with the two conditions suggested by staff and with the
third condition that if there is any change of use or added use to this particular church, then
it must come back to the Planning Department to have the traffic impacts reviewed. Member
Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. _
PARAGON POINT PUD FINAL -Case #48-91B
Mr. Eckman stated that this project was tabled from last month's meeting to this month's
meeting. He stated that he sent a memorandum to the Board through Mr. Peterson regarding
the participation of Member O'Dell and Member Klataske and their absences from the last
meeting. He stated that if they were to participate in the discussion this evening, they would
need to have reviewed the video of last month's meeting in its entirety before participation this
evening. He suggested that Member O'Dell and Member Klataske indicate that they have
reviewed the tape so that they are familiar with the record. He added that, since the matter
was tabled, all of the record that was made at last month's meeting was still a part of the record
in the event of an appeal, as well as tonight's information.
Member O'Dell stated that she did review the tape and that she will be participating in the
discussion.
P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 3
Member Klataske stated that he also reviewed the tape and would be participating in the
discussion.
Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with the following
condition:
"The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the
condition that the Development Agreement for the planned unit development be negotiated
between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer, and that the utility plans
be fully executed and approved by the City prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting,
apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over the
provisions to be included in the Development Agreement and/or utility plans, the developer
may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next
succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both
the staff and the developer have had a reasonable time to present sufficient information to the
Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also
extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not
met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval
of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of
final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the
condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights."
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design and representative of the applicant, discussed the proposed project
stating that the development agreement has been agreed upon by the developer and the City.
He stated that they worked with the Natural Resources Division and used some of their
research material in their report. He stated that most of the 67 acres that would not be in a
conventional park would be in an area that they would not develop at this point. He presented
and discussed slides of the site and how they relate to the study. He stated that what they were
attempting to do in the process was create diversity on the site with vegetation and also create
diversity on the site with wildlife. He stated that water conservation was being addressed in
that native vegetation of the prairie zones and drought -tolerate types of grasses will be used,
the same as in the urbanized parks. He stated that human recreation uses are real and those
uses will be addressed in the urban park. However, some of them will be addressed in the
prairie area also. He stated that the conclusions that they arrived at are that they are
attempting to create balance on the project so that this will be an area identified as a prairie
study area and will have a population of prairie dogs that will be managed. The criteria for
management of the prairie dogs will be protection of the watershed and erosion control with
tree plantings and buffering. He added that they would locate perch sites and relocate dying
cottonwood trees until larger trees are developed. He briefly discussed the ponds and their
shorelines of marshy habitat, the riparian area along the stream, and the trail system.
PUBLIC INPUT
Bob O'Rourke, area resident, questioned how many prairie dogs will be destroyed and how
large a study area will encompass the prairie dog area. He commented that the Fossil Creek
corridor should remain largely intact because the open space that exists is a natural habitat for
birds, animals, insects and plants. He believed that this was an excellent opportunity for the
public to view nature that has existed for centuries. He did not believe that this area could be
improved upon by man and that if it was intruded upon, mistakes would be made such as
killing the animals and disruption of the plant life that would affect the web of life. He
P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 4
believed that the earth and the intimacy of living things has been abused. He believed that
judgements are made, such as putting animals in good categories and bad categories. He
referred to the handout that he presented to the Board (see attached) in speaking of the prairie
dogs and their history and habitat. He urged the Board to review the plan and how many
prairie dogs will be destroyed and how many will remain, and to set aside more acreage for the
prairie dogs and other natural habitat, and to think of generations to come.
Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time.
Chairman Strom asked for clarification of quantity and areas of the destroying of prairie dogs
and their method of management for the prairie dogs.
Mr. Sell stated that most of the 67 acres will be in natural condition and that they would
enhance this area. He stated that there was a lot of erosion potential as the site exists and there
were not native grasses on the site. He stated that the most accepted method of controlling
prairie dogs is destroying them, of which there are federally -approved methods of doing this,
which are addressed in this plan. He added that even under the best conditions, approximately
80-90% would not survive. He stated that this would occur throughout most of the site. The
site needs to be revegetated. He stated that they would have a prairie dog town on the site. He
stated that about 7.5 acres will have prairie dog protection.
Karen Manci, City Natural Resources Division, stated that the site currently has approximately
148 acres with the majority having prairie dogs on it, but with different densities. She added
that about 1 /4 of the site has no prairie dogs.
Mr. Sell stated that part of the process is balance and one thing that was not being considered
and not mentioned was parks. If they were to try and maintain prairie dogs over the entire
space, the cost would be substantial.
Member O'Dell asked if the number of prairie dogs would be reduced in the conservation
portion or will the prairie dogs be allowed to reproduce.
Mr. Sell stated that most of that particular area is not in bad condition in terms of vegetation.
Initially, they are not planning on removing prairie dogs from that area. From that time on,
it will be determined on the basis of if they are compromising the vegetation.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the applicant has any criteria as to what the decision would
be based on to maintain or eliminate prairie dogs without City approval.
Mr. Sell responded that several things could be used to base the decision on, such as the expense,
public perception of there being a threat. He stated that the applicant agreed to a three-year
experiment with the developer paying the bill to maintain the area. He believed that this area
should have as much wildlife as possible.
Member Clements -Cooney asked how potential homebuyers might learn about the resource
management plan and the development in this area.
Mr. Sell stated that there could be interpretive stations along the walkways to learn about the
different plant materials and wildlife habitat. This has been discussed by the developer and
the Natural Resources Division.
P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 5
Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director, stated that they suggested that this was an
important part of making this habitat management plan work and left open the possibility of
working together to implement that education program.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that, should this proposal be approved and the plan be
implemented, after the end of the three-year study an on -going communication between
Natural Resources and the developer should continue.
Chairman Strom asked for a brief clarification of the resource management plan.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that Natural Resources Division was supportive of the plan as an
integrated, balanced plan. He stated that it has some innovative techniques, the prairie area
is desirable, a positive wetlands restoration work. He stated that this plan was not without
trade-offs such as a reduction in the habitat available for the birds of prey. He stated that an
overall conservation plan needs to be developed and criteria to address this without bringing
in the conflicts that are sure to occur when residential areas are in close proximity to prairie
dog towns.
Member Walker asked if this habitat could support the types of birds that they are seeking to
maintain on the site.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that prairie dogs are an abundant food source for these birds.
Member Walker commented that if the public is going to have an effective way with the prairie
dogs in the environment, the City should review this in total. He believed that in integrating
animals into an urban environment, it should be recognized that there are difficulties with
that. The presence of houses would make a difference with the birds and how they feel toward
close contact with human activities. Regardless of what is done with the prairie dogs, if they
were to remain and houses were built, there would be some degradation of the habitat from the
fact that this property is being developed. He stated that one of the issues being dealt with was
Criteria 14 in the LDGS and he believed that this was being addressed in two ways: One in that
the prairie dog study area was being maintained; and two, that habitats are being created
which the animals can prey off of and other species are being introduced. He stated that
prairie dog towns have a certain aesthetic quality but not in a residential context. He believed
that in terms of Item 33, the habitat development plan does a good job addressing the overall
aesthetic quality.
Member Cottier commended the Natural Resources staff and the developer for arriving at this
plan. She believed that this could be used as a model for developments in the future where
there are other significant natural resources that can tie into the overall conservation plan for
all sorts of species and vegetation. She emphasized that it was important to recognize the
distinction between privately -owned and publicly -owned land and what would be reasonable
to be required for privately -owned land. In this situation where it is a privately -owned parcel,
she believed that the developer was making a significant contribution to the City in his efforts
to maintain this and go along with the three-year experiment.
Member O'Dell asked how many crossings there are, what kind of warnings there will be, and
increased traffic hazards for Southridge Greens Boulevard.
f
P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Olt stated that there are currently three golf cart crossings on Southridge Greens Boulevard
and this would add a fourth. There are approximately 40,000 crossings per golf season per
street crossing.
Member O'Dell asked if the golf cart crossings are marked.
Mr. Olt believed that there was some signage but was uncertain.
Mr. Peterson stated that staff has had discussions with the Parks and Recreation Department
that manages the golf course and the Transportation staff regarding these concerns. He stated
that staff will follow up on this issue and will make them available to the Board.
Mr. Herzig added that addressing the safety problems of site distance and visibility are handled
by special request by the Traffic Engineer.
Member Walker asked for clarification of what Council was requesting regarding Southridge
Greens Boulevard.
Mr. Olt replied that Council was requesting the Board to improve, in its entirety, Southridge
Greens Boulevard from Phase 1 of Paragon Point to Trilby with a paved section. What is
proposed by the developer is a gravel -based road at final grade from the first phase to Trilby
Road, which is acceptable to Poudre Fire Authority as an emergency access road. This road
will be maintained by the developer and will be barricaded at the north of end of Phase 1
adjacent to the golf course during the construction phase. When the first home is ready to be
occupied, Southridge Greens Boulevard would be opened from the north on the paved section
across the golf course. The barricade would then move to the south and become an emergency
access only until a subsequent phase requires the completion of Southridge Greens Boulevard
to Trilby Road.
Member Cottier suggested that their response to Council would be that the Board would not
require the road to be paved all the way to Trilby Road at this point.
Chairman Strom asked about the disposition of the existing emergency road across the golf
course.
Mr. Olt replied that he was unaware of the timing but when a second emergency access is
provided, either in final form or as the gravel based road through Paragon Point, then this
would eliminate the need for the existing emergency access through the golf course.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Parks and Recreation Department is not pleased with having the
gravel based road going through the golf course. They have indicated to the Planning staff
that they will monitor the situation.
Mr. Herzig stated that there was also a portion of that access that is on a tract between two
houses. The City will have to check to see who owns that tract and see what happens. The City
can vacate their interest in it, in terms of the emergency access easement.
Chairman Strom asked if a formal action needed to be taken in getting the development
agreement signed before final.
Mr. Eckman replied that a condition may be placed on the approval of this project.
' P&Z Meeting Minutes
March 23, 1992
Page 7
Member Walker moved to approve Paragon Point PUD, Final subject to the staff condition and
sited the fact that Criteria 14 and 33 were the relevant criteria that bear on this and his
decision. He commented that the gravel road extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard
satisfies Criteria 9. Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Chairman Strom commented that this was a unique site with interesting features. He
appreciated the efforts of City staff and the developer in working toward a resolution and
arriving at the Natural Resources Management Plan.
The motion for approval carried 7-0.
REPLAT OF A PORTION OF TRACT A SOUTHRIDGE GOLF COURSE -Case #9-82AE
PARAGON POINT PUD 1ST REPLAT - FINAL - Case #48-91C
Steve Olt gave a description of the two proposed projects recommending approval of both
replats.
Chairman Strom asked if this was a request of just adding to the right-of-way and not vacating
a portion of the other side of Southridge Greens Boulevard.
Mr. Olt replied that this was correct. A dedication of right-of-way can be done with the plat
and the vacation of right-of-way is required to be done through City Council.
Steve Humann, TST Consultants, stated that the alignment across the golf course could be
shifted further to the east and would allow the applicant to save what was determined to be
an important tee box. He stated that they have met with Parks and Recreation Department
staff and staff was in favor of this replat.
Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Replat of a Portion of Tract A, Southridge Golf
Course and the Paragon Point PUD, 1st Replat Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion.
The motion to approve both items carried 7-0.
HOUSING AUTHORITY FACILITY PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - Case #28-89A
Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval.
David Herrera, Fort Collins Housing Authority Director, stated that a meeting was held with
three of the neighbors with their concerns being when would the additions end. The Housing
Authority offered to stipulate on the plat that this was all the Housing Authority would do in
terms of additions to the site.
PUBLIC INPUT
John Messineo, 137 North Bryan, stated that a petition was submitted to the Board in February
stating that 90% of the neighborhood that he surveyed did not want another expansion to this
existing project. He did not believe that this addition for shop, storage, and parking was
residential in character. He gave a brief history of the existing facility and questioned what
would the proposed addition be used for and if more garage could be added in the future. He