HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/15/1998. CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Meeting Minutes
January 15, 1998
U
Cl
Gwen Bell, Chair
Glen Colton, Vice Chair
Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
City Council Liaison: Mike Byrne
Members present: Gwen Bell, Alex Chapman, Glen Colton, Sally Craig, Bob
Davidson, Jerry Gavaldon, and Karen Weitkunat.
Agenda Review: Director of current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agenda's:
1. Minutes of the February 24, and March 10, 1997
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued)
2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval.
3. Resolution PZ98-1 Easement Vacation.
4. Resolution PZ98-2 Easement Vacation.
5. #72-82B Willox Crossing PUD (McDonalds) - Final
6. #25-97 Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza, Heart of the Rockies
Christian Church - PDP
7. #7-82J Collindale Business Park, 3rd Filing, Lot SA, Healing
Arts Institute - PDP
Discussion Agenda:
8. #55-95 Nauta Rezoning
9. #55-95H Recommendation to City Council Regarding Changes to
the Land Use Code. (Moved to the Consent Agenda)
10. #23-97 Vencor-Fort Collins Nursing Care Center - PDP
Jeff Right, pastor of Heart of the Rockies Christian Church, asked the Board to
pull Agenda No. 6 from the consent agenda.
Moved by Mr. Gavaldon, seconded by Mr. Davidson: To approve Agenda
Item 5, 7282B Willox Crossing PUD, McDonald's final. Motion passed
unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Mr. Davidson: To approve Agenda
Items 2, 3, 4, and 9. Motion passed unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of January 15, 1998
Page 2
The remaining agenda for the evening consisted of Items 6, 7, 8, and 10.
Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza Heart of the Rockies Christian Church -
Proiect Development Plan #25-97
Jeff Right, pastor of Heart of the Rockies Christian Church, spoke of his
concerns on Agenda No. 6. He informed the Board that they were using the GK
Gymnastics building temporarily for services, and that they had plans to build
and move into a new building.
He discussed that they were contracted with GK Gymnastics and that it put them
in the position of having to add two landscape interior parking islands. They
were willing to put in more trees for exchange. Other concerns were that adding
those parking islands will adversely affect the traffic in the parking lot as well as
putting pedestrians in the parking lot at greater risks. He didn't feel to ask for
that modification was going to significantly alter the Board's task to protect the
public interests and purposes.
He also stated that they understood that financial reasons were not to be a
primary reason; but if the strict adherence to the standards is kept and makes it
unfeasible and impractical to do the project, then that is a possibility for the
Board to reconsider the project.
The project planner spoke to the Board on why the Staff felt that Agenda No.6
was appropriate. The Staff reviewed the Land Use Code and its compliance with
Section 3.2.1 E5, Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements. The Code states that
for parking lots that have less than 100 parking spaces, the interior parking lot
landscaping must be at least six percent of the interior space of the parking lot.
The Staff did not feel that adding a few trees and additional landscaping to
what's already in place right now would increase the percent of interior
landscaping and felt that it would not meet the intent of the Land Use Code.
The Planning Director informed the Board that the analysis was based on the
criteria in the Code. Jeff Right stated that their understanding during that
process of the use -by -right that there was an agreement that those two parking
areas did not need to be built as long as there was a trade at that point made for
more landscaping. The new Land Use Code had not been put in at that point
under the use -by -right. The Planning Director did not know of an agreement
because that was done through the Zoning Department.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of January 15, 1998
Page 3
•
Ms. Bell noted that it was the responsibility of the people that owned the property
and that operate the building, but because of the change -of -use, this is the
reason the Heart of the Rockies Church was the applicant. Therefore, the
applicant was to respond to any conditions that the Board ultimately passed on.
Mr. Gavaldon stated he was in favor of the project.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Mr. Gavaldon: to approve the
recommendation of Agenda No. 6. Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Mr. Gavaldon: That the Board agrees
with the Staff report that the Heart of the Rockies Christian Church project
investment plan does not comply with Section 3.2.1E5 or 3.2.2C4, and that
they should not grant those modifications. Motion passed 6-1.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Gavaldon: To approve of Fossil Creek
Commercial Plaza, Heart of the Rockies Church Project plan 97, with
conditions as stated in the Staff report. Motion approved unanimously.
Collindale Business Park, 3rd Filing, Lot 5A, Healing Arts Institute - Project
Development Plan. #7-82J
Mr. Gavaldon asked questions of the applicant on employees, class size, student
enrollment. Gary Salinger, one of the owners of the Healing Arts Institute,
explained that they had five full-time employees. In addition to the full-time
employees, they had a teaching staff of approximately 20 teachers. The
maximum amount of classes at any given time was three. About eight
employees would be at the institute at one time. The average class size was 10
to 20 students. The classes were generally in the daytime from 9:00 until 5:00,
and 6:00 until 10:00 for the evening program. They generally enrolled about 120
to 150 students in a yearly basis.
Ms. Weitkunat recommended approval of the modification requests of the
Healing Arts Institute, section 3.5.313213, as it was not detrimental to the public
good; that it exceeded the standard of the plan or better; and to adopt the finding
contained in the Staff report. The recommendation was seconded by Mr.
Chapman.
Moved by Ms. Weitkunat, seconded by Mr. Chapman: To approve the
Collindale Business Park, Third Filing, Healing Arts Institute Project
Investment Plan, #7-282J with modification, finding that it meets the facts
• and conclusions drawn in the Staff report. Motion passed unanimously.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of January 15, 1998
Page 4
Nauta Rezoning, #55-95D
Ken Waido gave a Staff report on Item 8, the Nauta rezoning. He stated that the
request was to rezone about five acres of land located north of East Vine Drive
and slightly east of Lemay Avenue. The request is to rezone the land from the T,
transition, Zone to the I, industrial, Zone. He also stated that in March, the
property owners requested a C, commercial, zone and submitted an application
for that. In further discussion, it was pointed out that current pieces of the
property perhaps best fit the I, industrial, Zone.
The Staff recommended the LMN Zone and did send that information to the
applicant. The reason Staff recommended the LMN Zone is based upon the City
structure plan. The Staff did add some uses in the LMN Zone, and those uses
are only allowed within a certain distances of East Vine Drive. There was no
requirement to change the property from the T, transitional, Zone. He also
pointed out that there is a sub -area plan and that the property may be going
through another rezoning for this area as a result of this plan.
Ray Nauta voiced his concerns on the rezoning. He felt that this land should not
go to housing because he felt that the city might possibly turn East Vine Street
into a main artery. He felt if the Board elected to change to a LMN Zone that that
would change the value of his property. Judy Nauta stated that the Nautas
would like to have the 1, industrial, Zone. She felt that the land fell perfectly in
the I Zone.
Mr. Waido added that there would not be a charge to the Nautas to pursue
rezoning within one year after the adoption of the City Plan. If at the end of one
year the Nautas were to leave the property in the T Zone, and the City didn't
have a sub -area plan and they wanted to rezone, then there would be
application fees to get the rezoning.
Moved by Ms. Weltkunat, seconded by Mr. Chapman: To recommend to
Council denial of the request for the I zone, and approval of the LMN Zone
on the Nauta Rezoning, #55-95D.
Mr. Chapman explained that he felt from the Nauta's position that the property
did fit the I Zone, but that it preempts the possibility of an LMN Zone, which is on
the City structure plan. Mr. Gavaidon stated he supported the LMN Zone. Ms.
Craig also supported the motion, but she preferred the property be kept into
transition until the sub -area plan was put in place.
Motion approved 6-1.
` Planning and Zoning Board•
Meeting of January 15, 1998
Page 5
Vencor-Fort Collins Nursing Care Center - Project Development Plan #23-
97
The project planner gave a Staff report on Agenda Item 10, Vencor, Fort Collins
Nursing Care Center, Project Investment Plan. The plan was for a long-term
nursing facility on the southwest comer of Southwest Green Boulevard and
South Lemay Avenue. The project included a 120-bed facility, inpatient and
outpatient rehabilitation services. The site was approximately 10.3 acres and is
proposed to be a one-story, 17,672 square -foot building. Also included is 124
parking spaces as well as additional medical office buildings or uses on site.
The facility was a permitted use in the LMN Zone district.
The request complied with the requirements of the Land Use Code with the
exception of section 4.4E2B, 4AE2D, 4AE2E. The Staff felt that the plan as
submitted was equal or better and complies with the requirements of the Land
Use Code. Staff did recommend approval of all three modification requests on
the Vencor Fort Collins Nursing Care Center, #23-97.
Linda Ripley spoke on behalf of VF Ripley and Associates. She also informed
. the Board of the people involved with the plan. She addressed the Board with
some background on the health care industry and changes that have taken place
in the last few years that helped design the facility.
Ms. Ripley felt the plans would meet the needs of the community by providing
long-term residential care, short-term inpatient subacute care, and also provide
out -patient and day -patient services. She informed the Board of the
specifications of the building, landscaping, and the fencing.
Chuck Washington spoke as a supporter of Item #10. He is a resident located
across the street from this proposed plan.
Dr. Gerald Weiss stated his concerns on the safety and comfort of the patients.
By safety, he was concerned about the fences and wondered what precautions
were taken on the windows, as far as patients being able to leave the building.
He also wanted to know where the kitchen was located and what fire precautions
were being taken. He felt that there was tremendous amounts of noise on
Lemay Avenue and wondered how that was going to affect the patients.
Ms. Ripley explained that the windows opened only slightly and had locking
devices. The building as a whole had a fire sprinkler system and the kitchen had
an additional fire safety system. She also explained that the position of the
building was lower than Lemay, so she felt the noise would be deflected by the
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of January 16, 1998
Page 6
pitch of the roof. She also pointed out that many trees and bushes would be
surrounding the property to also help deflect the noise.
Ms. Craig asked how this project qualified for affordable housing. Ms. Ripley
said it was unclear at this point whether or not the State will grant them the
Medicaid certification, and that they have made efforts to be certified, but they
would not know for another several months.
Mr. Gavaldon addressed his concerns on whether there should be a full traffic
study.
Mr. Bracke thought that from a traffic perspective, the traffic was minor. He
explained that you could not compare this facility to what goes on in the area of
Robertson and Lemay. He felt the trips in and out of this facility were minor and
did not have the impact that other developments would normally have.
Matt Delich stated that he prepared the traffic impact study for this particular
project. He felt that the use being proposed was significantly less. He felt the
analysis in the memo was very thorough and complete.
Mr. Gavaldon disagreed. He felt that looking at the size of the parking lot, the
number of employees, and visitors, that the parking lot was small relative to what
was transpiring there. Mr. Bracke was unclear as to how many more details Mr.
Gavaldon wanted in the traffic impact study. Mr. Gavaldon stated that he was
hoping for a more detailed transportation report to get a better view of the
project.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: That the Board approve
the request for modification of Section 4.4E2B. Motion passed 6-1.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: That the Board approve
the request for modification of Section 4.4E2D.
Mr. Chapman wanted to explain the reasons for supporting these modifications.
He said that the Code called for the footprint of the building not to exceed 20,000
square feet. The building was a proposed 67,220 square feet. He felt that
because of the pentagon, it fit the LMN Zone. He also felt with the pitched roof
that it was not a detriment to the public good or City Plan.
Motion passed 6-1.
r Planning and Zoning Board •
Meeting of January 15, 1998
Page 7
0
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: That the Board approve
the request for modification of Section 4.4E2E.
Ms. Bell stated she was very pleased with how the members of the project and
the neighborhood came together to find solutions to the project. She was in full
support. Mr. Davidson was also supported the project.
Motion passed 6-1.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve Vencor Fort
Collins Nursing Care Center Project Plan No. 23-27 be approved.
Mr. Colton stated that he felt the project was well done, and thought it would add
to the area. He thanked Mr. Gavaldon for his concerns on the traffic and that
they were well noted.
Ms. Craig was concerned that there would not be a transit service extended
down Lemay until at least 2015. She wanted to know if there were plans the try
to mitigate some of the traffic problems that may occur in the near future. Shelly,
the administrator, stated she shared her concerns about transit and was hoping
that they would be able to work with the city on the possible traffic.
Motion passed 6-1.
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned.
0