Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLANDS PUD - ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 27-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 20 Director Blanchard stated that the project, if the applicant chose to resubmit it, would. need to be processed as a Planned Unit Development Amendment, subject to the full nine -week Planning and Zoning Board review process. PROSPECT PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY - #21-95 Project Planner Ted Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the four conditions as outlined on Page 9 of the Staff Report. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates and representative of Ed Mullaney Sr. and Ed Mullaney Jr., gave a brief history of the property. She discussed the access to and from the project, pedestrian and bike circulation via sidewalks and bike trails, surrounding population, building orientations, landscaping and screening, the handling and integration of the wetland area, concerns of water quality, lighting which will be detailed at final, and the hours of operation of commercial properties. Ruth Clear, Transportation Consultant for this project, reviewed the traffic study that was performed for this project. Three intersections were studied on this project which included Prospect and Shields, Prospect at Stone Creek, and Shields at Stuart. They reviewed existing conditions, background conditions and total traffic conditions for 1997. She stated that they also performed a study of these conditions for the year 2010. Traffic counts showed that the existing intersections operated at Level of Service D with the exception of Prospect and Shields at the PM peak hour which operates at a Level of Service E. She added that they studied the direct impact of Spring Creek Village PUD, the Windtrail projects, the Preserve, the Fort Collins Senior Center and Prospect Il. In the year 2010 during the PM peak hours, Prospect/Shields intersection drops to Level of Service F, Shields/Stuart drops to an E, and Prospect/Stone Creek remained at F. One concern with the Prospect/Shields during the PM peak hour is the northbound left turn. To improve on this, she considered changing the left turn exit to another location and, in the future, install a dual northbound left turn. This would entail moving the southbound lane over one lane and the bridge would have to be widened. She stated that the City Transportation Department would consider this for the long- term future. The developer will dedicate the right-of-way for this possible improvement. CITIZEN INPUT Mike Byrne, 1505 S. Shields Street, had concerns with Shields Street being at traffic capacity. He stated that everything is car -oriented and had a large concern for pedestrian safety. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 19 Member Walker referred back to the issue of character, as related to the change in mix of bedrooms. He added that the pool and volleyball courts remained as part of this proposal, but that given the lapse in time and the change in potential clientele, something such as a child care center might be more appropriate. Member Walker added that in the applicant's attempt to keep the proposed project within the realm of a minor change, that some changes were in fact not made towards what might be the best possible project design. Member Cottier asked about the landscaping plan that went along with the project, and how it compared to the 1980 landscaping plan. Mr. Olt said based on his review, there were no significant changes in the landscaping plan. Member Bell asked for more specific information on the nature of the recreation center and the actual size of the active recreation part of the building. Mr. Sheppard stated that the recreational part of the building was 1600 square feet and included: a manager's office, leasing office, kitchen, retreat area and a small game room/assembly area. Member Bell asked if the recreation building was similar to community buildings that are found in area mobile home parks. Mr. Sheppard said that was correct. He added that the size was smaller than the applicant would have preferred, but that it was adequate. Member Bell stated that the center was more passively recreational than actively recreational. Mr. Shepard replied in the affirmative. Member Walker moved that the project be considered .a major change, based on the fact that the change in the bedroom mix represented a significant change in character. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Strom and Mickelson in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 18 Member Carnes asked about All -Development Criteria, and asked if the proposal would met the "point" requirements of that. Mr. Olt, said that the proposal did meet the points needed, and that the review based on applicable criteria and changes to the project only. Member Bell asked about the missing file. Director Blanchard clarified that the former Chief Planner and Division Head made a handwritten note to the file three years ago, that based on infrastructure improvements -- the owner held vested property rights and the approved project remained a valid PUD. He noted that although the file for final approval is missing, that there is no written indication of any possible conditions tied to final approval Member Bell asked for clarification on envelope versus perimeter measurements on the buildings. Mr. Olt explained the methods for measurement on open space, and said they were essentially the same. Member Bell asked for clarification on the applicant's use of the term "large" when referring to bedroom size. Mr. Sheppard stated that he was referring to the original condominium units. [In reference to the missing file] Member Cottier asked if a copy of the minutes of the August 1980 City Council hearing [at which the original project had been approved] had - been obtained. Mr. Olt said it had not. He added that the file had been reevaluated as recently as 1993. Member Cottier said she was concerned about the original conditions as they related to magnitude of change for the new project. Member Bell asked for clarification on the six percent (6%) landscaping requirement. She inquired whether a variance was needed. Mr. Olt said that as practice, a variance was not required within the PUD setting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 17 Member Walker asked for clarification regarding the issue of "change of character". Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the term "change of character" has fairly broad connotations. He stated that synonyms might include: "characteristics", "attributes" or "fundamental features". He noted that "change in character" was not limited to a change in land use. He said that in making a determination, it might be helpful for Board members to ask themselves: "Why is the provision in the code"?. He said that it could be assumed that the Criterion was included to protect against negative impacts on neighboring property. He then advised the Board that the resident/owner composition of the project [owner -occupant vs. occupants with fee or leasehold interests] should NOT be part of the Board's consideration in making a decision, since it would be speculative. Chairperson Clements asked for clarification on affordability as related to the landscaping requirements. Mr. Olt stated that there was five percent (5%) interior landscaping. He said, however, that the LDGS allows some latitude in review of a PUD [Section A, 2.4 (Vehicular Circulation and Parking -- All Development Criteria)]. He stated that the review guidelines contain subjective statements. He said that when the nature of changes proposed provide an increase in character of quality in the new development, then a decrease in actual percentage of landscaping is justified. Member Cottier raised the issue of this situation being the first time an approved PUD has attempted to become active 15 years later, and that there has been a considerable change in the traffic situation over that time period. Mr. Vosburg deferred to Director Blanchard and Deputy City Attorney Eckman in stating what regulatory provisions were in place for requiring a traffic study. He added that he would communicate with them to see what would need to be done to ensure that. Mr. Olt clarified for Member Cottier the designated points of vehicular access for the two projects, which were identical. Member Carnes raised then issue of "process" pertaining to administrative approvals which required conditions. Mr. Olt said that administrative change approvals frequently contain conditions, if those conditions are warranted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Vosburg said that the second issue was to consider how a proposal such as this would interact with traffic on the street "today", given the current conditions. He stated that the City did need to see a traffic study. Mr. Vosburg said that the amount of congestion at the two key intersections [Starflower/Harmony and Wakerobin/Shields] would be the focus of the traffic study. He stated that the developer had committed to providing that study. Mr. Vosburg noted that staffs approval of administrative changes is conditioned on that traffic study showing that the "Level of Service" at the two key intersections would operate at Level D or better -- which is the City's adopted standard (measure of delay). He said that if Level D is not met, then the project would have to be changed to lessen the impact, or mitigation measures would need to be instigated to relieve congestion. Member Strom asked if the developer would need to do a traffic study with the existing approved plan. Mr. Vosburg replied that they would not need to do a traffic study. Mr. Vosburg, in explaining the reasons why there would be little change in traffic impact between the two projects, also clarified the methods of analysis used to determine traffic impact. Chairperson Clements asked whether there were any statistics on affordable housing occupancy and traffic impact. Mr. Vosburg said that there were no statistics which differentiated trip generation by socio-economic status. Member Walker asked whether the housing affordability or the low-income issue came into the decision making at any point in time on review of the project. Mr. Olt said that the affordability or the low-income aspect of the clientele was not considered during the review of the administrative change. Member Walker stated that six percent (6%) landscaping should then be required, since affordability was not part of the review process. Member Walker clarified some items regarding change in traffic impact, as related to major or minor change to the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 15 related to the change from condos to apartments, traffic concerns and safety. He expressed concerns related to decreased property values. Elizabeth MacRitchie, 4406 Rosecrown Court, said she believed the paramount issue was safety. She said she was particularly concerned about children going to school, riding bikes, and going to other parts of the neighborhood to play with friends. She stated that when driving, she had to take a left hand turn onto Harmony -- and that she averaged six to ten minutes in making the turn. Dan Pohle, 4461 Hollyhock Street, expressed concerns surrounding "process" in terms of the proposed development. He said he believed that approval of the project was "ramrod-ed" through. He said he did not have concerns regarding the switch from condominiums to apartments. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Clements made two points of clarification. She referred to Mr. Herrera's allegation that at the neighborhood meeting, City staff made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. She clarified that this was a misperception; staffs role was to provide information for the Board and to facilitate neighborhood meetings. She stated that the City was working hard to change that perception. Chairperson Clements added that if wording on the neighborhood meeting letter gave the impression that the project was being "ramrod-ed" through, that was also a misperception. Chairperson Clements [in reference to Mr. Smith's comments regarding her former residency and neighborhood involvement in opposing a prior proposal on the same property] stated that for the record, she was no longer a neighborhood resident -- and that therefore, there was no conflict of interest. Chairperson Clements asked Tom Vosburg, former Transportation Planner, to clarify issues concerning traffic. Mr. Vosburg stated that there were two important points regarding traffic related to this project. He said that first, review of the project must consider the following: "How do the changes proposed by the developer compare with the traffic that would have been generated by the development as it stands currently approved?". He stated that there would be no change in traffic impact between the project as it is being proposed and what is already approved. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Carlson stated that the current project was being proposed as a type of housing that was consistent with the, nature of the original proposal, had been extensively reviewed by staff, fit within the criteria of.the LDGS, and would supply a need within the housing market: He urged approval of the project by the Board. Eric Sunness, 4406 Rosecrown Court, shared that he had a number of concerns. He said that the switch from condominiums to apartments represented a major change, and that increased traffic was a problem.. He stated thatleft hand turns from Starflower onto Harmony Road, and Wakerobin onto Shields, were at the present time unnavigable. He also said that safety to school children was a concern. He added that at a neighborhood meeting in February, the developers said that they would have an independent traffic study performed. He said that to his knowledge, no such study had been performed. He brought forth allegations over what he believed to be inappropriate behavior and dishonesty on the part of public officials and the developer. He stated that neighborhood residents were mislead into believing that they had no basis to challenge the project, which they were informed had already received administrative approval. He also cited the original project file, which had been misplaced. He said the missing file made it difficult to determine if any conditions had been placed on the original proposal. He implored the Board to consider the neighborhood concerns regarding the project. Linda Smith, 4430 Hollyhock Street, reiterated concerns regarding traffic. She stated that when she purchased her property ten years ago, she was told that the project which had been approved on the subject property consisted of one- and two -bedroom condominiums. She believed that the additional bedrooms represented a drastic change. She added that she did not believe the recreation center was large enough to service the possible number of tenants. Wylie Smith, 4430 Hollyhock Street, believed that the change from condominiums to apartments represented a change to the character of the neighborhood, since condos tend to be more owner occupied and apartments represent rental housing. He added that it has been a close-knit neighborhood, but that five houses are currently for sale. He said that at the last neighborhood meeting, residents were told that students would not be allowed -- and now at tonight's meeting, it was stated that students might be allowed, if they met certain requirements. He reiterated traffic concerns expressed by others. Mark Ball, 4443 Hollyhock Street, urged the Board to consider items regarding process, and added that he believed the project represented a major change, especially in terms of "quality of life". He said he believed that the impacting factors on quality of life were Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 13 Member Carnes asked Mr. Sheppard why he believed his allusion to housing affordability and tax credits was relevant. Mr. Sheppard replied that he believed it was relevant because of the tremendous need for affordable housing in the City of Fort Collins, which included affordable multi - housing. Member Carnes asked whether tax credits had been secured and how the applicant defined affordable housing. Mr. Sheppard stated that the applicant applied for tax credits in the second round of the Colorado Housing Finance Authority's tax credit program, and was not successful. He added that the applicant was currently pursuing another option and applying for non- competitive tax credits. Mr. Sheppard explained that one hundred percent (100%) of the units would be rented to tenants whose income was less than sixty percent (60%) of the area's gross median income, and that twenty percent (20%) of the units would be rented to tenants whose income was less than fifty.percent (50%) of the area's gross median income. Chairperson Clements deferred to Deputy City Attorney Eckman in clarifying that the housing affordability issue was not part of the Board's consideration in reviewing the appeal. Mr. Sheppard stated that the affordability component was applicable, since it was tied to the six percent (6%) landscaping consideration. CITIZEN INPUT Scott Carlson, P.O. Box 247, Eastlake, CO., spoke representing the property owners, which he said consisted of a partnership between his father, his brothers and himself. He stated they acquired property in 1987. In 1988, his family went through a 1'/2-year process seeking to rezone the property to commercial, and were unsuccessful in that attempt. He stated that the neighborhood residents at that time were opposed to commercial use, and believed that the multi -family housing use would have less impact on the neighborhood. He added that in his recent contacts with neighborhood residents, people had allegedly shared that their predominant concern was with the low-income nature of the housing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Sheppard said that Tom Vosburg, former Transportation Planner, had indicated to him that traffic would not be impacted to the degree that there would have to be a change at the corner of Shields and Harmony. He said that to satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood, the applicant had volunteered to have a traffic study performed at its own expense. Mr. Sheppard said that Mr. Olt addressed the six percent (6%) landscape issue in his staff report. He added that all 116 units are affordable housing units for low income households. Mr. Sheppard spoke to the applicant's commitment to the project, citing some financial and "track record" statistics. Mr. Sheppard clarified that there would not be a lot of students in the housing units. Due to tax credit status requirements for the project, students would need to be married, filing jointly and full-time students. He said that the applicant performed an independent market study, and found that there was a tremendous need for three - bedroom units in Fort Collins. He stated that the Housing Authority waiting list had nearly 2500 people who were looking for housing. Mr. Sheppard spoke to the changes over time from the original Master Plan for the area. He said that a portion had subsequently been down zoned from proposed townhomes to single family homes, which decreased the density of the Master Plan. Mr. Sheppard stated that in order to meet minor changes, the applicant was going to take four more units away, but that multi -family housing was needed to maintain the overall density of the Master Plan. Mr. Sheppard explained the reasons for the seventy-four bedroom increase. He said that the original 1980 plan had one- and two- bedroom units. He shared that apartments were built much differently then, and were much larger units. The new proposed units have smaller square footage, are much more efficient, and help keep the affordability component. Mr. Sheppard said that there was increased total square footage, but decreased gross leasable floor space. He added that no matter what definition was used for commercial residential, the proposal has less square footage, and therefore it was not increased by two percent (2%). Mr. Sheppard said the proposed project increased the total square footage of buildings, and therefore did not increase open space. He shared that the new proposal stays below the height limit. It is at forty feet, which is below the approved PUD level of 41.5 to 44.5 feet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Herrera referred to Page Four of the appeal letter, which cited that Building D appeared to encroach into the setback along Shields Street. He said that fact was borne out in the approval, which was also conditioned on proper setbacks to the property line. He added that although. it was a .minor item, that.the plan should conform to Code requirements before approval and without condition. Mr. Herrera said his clients' calculations on the six percent (6%) interior landscaping showed it as appearing not to meet the standard. Mr. Herrera said that he was not advocating against a housing project, but rather was advocating for "process", and that such a project should not be presented to the neighborhood as a fait accompli. Mr. Herrera said that his clients agreed that Criterion 5 was not applicable, since there was not a greater -than -one -percent (1%) change in the number of residential dwelling units. He said that the other four criteria did, however, apply. In particular, he argued that Criterion 1, regarding change of character in the project, did apply; he said the change in character on the project was significant enough to warrant full Planning and Zoning Board review. Mr. Herrera concluded by stating that utilities and traffic impact changes were -- in and of themselves -- major changes, and should therefore subject the project to full Planning and Zoning Board review. Mr. Kipling Sheppard, representing Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, reviewed the application process for those present. He said Kaufman and Broad first applied for an administrative change in February, did not understand the five Review Criteria, and were at fault for such. He said that on the February application, the applicant made what it thought was an improvement to the project by: keeping the seven buildings existing as they were; adding an additional building as a residential building, and; changing one building to a recreation center. He said the applicant believed it was essential to provide a recreation center for a community of 120 units in order to efficiently and successfully manage the property. Mr. Sheppard said that after the administrative change denial, the applicant weighed between choosing to go through a lengthy public hearing process versus revisiting the plan in order to make changes that would conform to the minor change framework. He stated that Kaufman and Broad decided to revise the plan by keeping the same number of buildings, decreasing the number of units by four and providing a recreation center. He stated that the bottom line was that the applicant now met the five Criteria for a minor change. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Herrera stated that the original project was submitted and approved as a condominium project. He said it was his understanding that the record [file] from 1980 was misplaced, and that it was therefore unclear whether there were conditions that were imposed in 1980. If -so, it was also unclear whether or not those conditions were satisfied. He suggested that some inquiry would need to be made into the matter. Mr. Herrera stated that there were some modifications to the building types, including the addition of a recreation/office building. He said that he disagreed with Mr. Olt's interpretation that the recreation building was not eligible and therefore did not increase the gross leasable floor space. He cited Page 95 of the LDGS, which refers to gross leasable floor space occurring in either commercial or residential Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Herrera cited the addition of seventy-four (74) bedrooms as a significant change. Mr. Herrera alleged that a difference in methodology in calculating open space (building envelopes vs. perimeters of buildings) may have led to a misrepresentation in amount of actual open space difference between the two projects. He stated that "active" and "residual" open space were not clearly defined terms, and that one or the other needed to be used in making open space determinations. Mr. Herrera stated that the other changes included changes to the type of building and number of on -site parking spaces. Mr. Herrera referred to the fact that staff had required a traffic study as a condition of approval on the administrative change. He said that a staff decision had been made prior to knowing the results of the traffic study, which was tied to one of the review criteria in determining whether the project constituted a major or minor change. Mr. Herrera stated that he achieved different results when calculating building and other measurements based on site plan information. He referred to materials submitted with the appeal when referring to the figures. Mr. Herrera stated, in reference to the building envelope issue, that the Zoning Division's approval was given with the condition that the revised site plan be submitted showing the building envelope dimensions. He said he believed it suggested that they did not have the building envelope dimensions at the time of approval, and that it was therefore not possible to determine whether there had been excessive encroachment into the open space. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 9 against criteria established for projects approved prior to March 13, 1981 [a different set of criteria is used for projects approved after that date]. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained the decision outline (flowchart), which was distributed to Board members to help guide them in their decision -making process on the appeal. He advised the Board to make two different motions: 1) regarding the magnitude of change (major/minor); and 2) regarding staffs review of the project (if the Board determined the change to be minor). Member Carnes asked for clarification on the difference between the two sets of criteria used to review administrative changes for projects before or after March 13, 1981. Deputy City Attorney Eckman referred to page 94 of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) section in explaining the differences. Attorney David Herrera, representing several homeowners in the neighborhood affected by the application, said he was asked by his clients to evaluate the applicant's proposal to staff, and to comment whether or not he believed it to be a major or a minor change from the approved PUD. He noted that an application to administratively amend the approved PUD was submitted in February, 1995. He added that at the time, staff determined that that particular proposal constituted a major change, and the application was denied. Mr. Herrera alleged that there were some procedural problems with the project. He said that there were some neighborhood questions which have been unanswered. He stated that the neighbors, based on the information given them, and calculations made therefrom, believed the project to constitute a major change, subject to full Board review. He stated that it was unclear whether all five of the criteria -- or any one of the five criteria -- constitute a major change. He stated that his interpretation was that any one of the five criteria would constitute a major change. He noted that the application form for projects did not include any place to check for any type of review other than administrative. Mr. Herrera referred to his appeal letter. He clarified a mistake on Page Two, Paragraph Nine. He stated that the minimum number of required off -site [sic] parking spaces necessary to conform to code without variance should correctly read as: "208.5" [misidentified as "215"]. He stated that the applicant, in the new application, did have 211 parking spaces, and that therefore the parking requirement was not an element of this appeal.. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 8 5) an increase by greater than one percent (1 %) in the approved number of residential dwelling units. Mr. Olt stated that staffs decision to approve the changes administratively was based on the following: • there were no changes in layout, bulk, or mass; • the project still contained seven buildings in essentially in the same location; . • the project still contained three-story buildings that did not exceed forty feet in height; • the buildings were still the same in terms of scale, mass, and materials; • the parking and driveway layout was still the same, with the exception of 15 additional parking spaces; • there were no changes in public utility needs; • there were no changes in increased traffic circulation compared to the original project; • there was no reduction in open space based on the same methodology used to measure the original building envelopes; • Criterion 4 (percentage changes in gross leasable floor area) was not used in . review, since the City does not consider multi -family housing a commercial use (the recreation building is considered an auxiliary use); and • Criterion 5 is not applicable; there are actually four less dwelling units. Chairperson Clements clarified the fact that there is an approved plan on the parcel for which a building permit can be obtained at any time. Mr. Olt concurred. He added that the plan had been evaluated a number of times over the past three years, and that both the Current Planning Department and the Engineering Department consider the approved plan of August, 1980 to be valid and carry with it a vested right. Submittal of updated utility plans would be required, to see if they are in conformance with today's standards. Chairperson Clements asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to provide an overview of the legal aspects of the appeal review. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that Section 2, 353 of the Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Board to hear appeals from any decision made by an administrative official which pertains to any planning item which was previously approved or reviewed by the Board. He stated that this PUD did meet the Code criteria for the Board to hear the appeal, and that review of the major or minor change would be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 7 system is complete, another bridge will be required to be constructed. This will be incorporated into the Development Agreement. The design quality of the bridge will be a normal pedestrian/bike bridge. Member Walker commented that all the issues that have been discussed are policies that are being met in this plan. Member Walker moved to approve Fairbrooke Heights PUD Preliminary. Member Carnes seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. WOODLANDS PUD - APPEAL OF AN APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - #27-95 Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that in August 1980, a plan for 120 multi -family dwelling units on 9.8 acres was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The development, as approved, undertook significant activity within the prescribed two-year time period. Mr. Olt noted that the approved PUD plan is still considered to be a valid plan with a vested right to construct that project. The Planning Department received an administrative change request on May 4, 1995 and approved it on May 12, 1995. Mr. Olt said that the proposed change included: a request to change the name to Woodlands Apartments; the elimination of four dwelling units in one building; provision for an office/leasing/recreation building; and a switch from one- and two -bedroom dwelling units to one-, two- and three -bedroom dwelling units. He stated that the appeal was received on May 26, 1995. Mr. Olt outlined the criteria for determining minor changes for projects approved prior to March, 1981. Changes to a project cannot include any of the following: 1) a change in the character of the development; 2) an increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities; 3) a reduction by greater than three percent (3%) of the approved open space of the project; 4) an increase of greater than two percent (2%) of the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings in either residential or commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD's); or Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 16. #28-81B Fairbrooke Heights PUD - Preliminary 17. #27-95 Woodlands PUD - Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change 18. #21-95 Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary 19. #44-94C Woodland Park PUD - Final (Continued) Vice Chair Cottier pulled Consent Item 4 for a separate vote due to a conflict of interest. Chairperson Clements abstained from voting on Consent Items 5 and 8 due to a conflict of interest. Member Strom moved to approve Consent Items 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Member Mickelson seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Mickelson moved to approve Consent Item 4. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Member Mickelson moved to approve Consent Items 5 and 8. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. �::��._ . ■ � '; a '. Mike Ludwig, Project Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that the proposed development would cause a realignment of the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal. The realignment might cause the ditch access maintenance road to be relocated on the east side of the ditch. That, in turn, might cause a problem with certain encroachments into the ditch company's existing irrigation easements. He added that the applicant, the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company, and neighbors have yet to resolve the O PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting June 26, 1995 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairman: Rene Clements Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone: 221-0406 Phone: 221-3953 The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Chairperson Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Mickelson, Clements, Cottier, Strom and Walker. Staff Present: Byrne, Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Olt, Shepard, Vosburg, Hampden & Wamhoff, Phelps. Chairperson Clements and Vice Chair Cottier were presented service awards for the many years of service on the Planning and Zoning Board. Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows: 1. Minutes of the November 14, December 19, 1994 and January 23 and May 22, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #20-95 Sue's Hairtage PUD - Preliminary and Final 3. #90-85L Wild Wood Townhomes PUD - Preliminary 4. #1-88G Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 3rd Filing, Lots 1 & 2, M & O Tire Automotive - Preliminary and Final 5. #54-87AD Cottages at Miramont PUD - Final 6. #52-83E Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan (Continued) 7. #76-81D Pineview PUD, Tract "C", Preliminary - 2-Year Extension Request 8. 326-95 Loomis Building, Phase I - Building Height Over 40' Review 9. #18-92C Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, 1st Filing - Final 10. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval 11. Resolution PZ95-16 Easement Vacation 12. Resolution PZ95-17 Easement Vacation 13. Resolution PZ95-18 Easement Vacation 14. #25-96 Third Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation and Zoning 15. #22-95,A Snyder Annexation and Zoning