Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/29/1994PLANNING i ZONING BOARD NESTING MINUTES August 29, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The August 29, 1994, 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. Roll call was answered by: Chair Clements, and Members Bell, Carnes, Cottier, Fontane, Strom, and Walker. Staff Members Present: Eckman, Ensdorff, Hamdan, Herzig, Olt, Phillips, and Worden. Mr. Phillips read the agenda review. Item 13, Platinum Auto Brokers PUD, Final, #36-94. Item 16, Spring Creek Village PUD, Preliminary, #2-87M. Item 17, Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Final,#7-948. . ITEM 13. PLATINUM AUTO BROKERS, PUD, FINAL, #36-94. Chair Clements called for a motion of the reconsideration of Item 13. Member Bell :loved to reconsider Platinum Auto Brokers, PUD. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman said, "At this point, the Board needs to have some discussion among members if you wish to reconsider, before a vote is taken. All it takes is a simple majority to pass the motion; then, if the motion is passed, the Board could consider the main motion which is whether to approve or deny, or approve with conditions, the Platinum Auto Brokers PUD at this meeting, or the Board could consider to postpone the main motion until the next regular meeting, giving perhaps more time to study various alternatives. It will require two motions." There was discussion among Board members at this time concerning the direction to have a record of the issues for reconsideration. Member Cottier said rezoning and design standards need to come up to a higher standard and she proposed a compromise to be restricted to this particular business only, Platinum Auto is Brokers. The next change of use on this site would allow for improvements. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 29, 1994 Page 2 Motion carried 7-0. Chair Clements referred to a memo from Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, dated August 29, 1994. Mr. Farkas indicated that he was not opposed to improvements to meet the PUD standard, he was not in favor to postpone his project. He was willing meet the standards from the last meeting and was surprised at further delay. He was frustrated at the delay. Ms. Cottier stated for the record that she was not opposed to the business but rather the appearance and the standard for improvements that are to be achieved on North College. After some discussion, Mr. Phillips offered that Mr. Farkas operate his business until the final PUD could be reviewed by staff and be brought before the Board at the September meeting. The improvements would not be made as soon as anticipated. The zoning now on -going on the property is illegal, and the Zoning Administrator could issue an order to cease and desist. This enforcement action is not taking place to allow Mr. Farkas operation until an acceptable PUD is finalized. Member Fontane made a motion to continue the Platinum Auto Brokers PUD until the nest meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, September 26, 1994. Member Carnes seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. ITEM 16 SPRING CREEK VILLAGE PUD - PRELIMINARY Chair Clements had a conflict of interest regarding the PUD and left the chambers, assigning Vice -Chair Cottier to conduct the meeting. Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner, read the staff report with staff recommendations, reporting the point chart results, transporta- tion concerns, land -use density and layout. These concerns will be determined at a later time. He recommended approval with the following two conditions: 1. The applicant must provide a revised traffic impact. analysis meeting all the City•s criteria including appropriate locally developed trip generation rates. 2. The preliminary PUD approval shall not be deemed to constitute the vesting of any right to the projects density, general layout, land uses and/or design Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . August 29, 1994 Page 3 elements to the extent that such elements relate to or are affected by the traffic impacts of the project. Mr. Olt stated that he received a phone call from Virginia Baxter, a resident on W. Stuart Street, who has been involved in planning process, and said that had she asked about what impacts the traffic from S. Shields Street would have on W. Stuart Street. Mr. Ensdorff spoke of working with applicant concerning these issues and stated a preliminary traffic report has been submitted. More work and analysis needs to be made in regard to: (1) understanding historical traffic patterns, (2) the development impact of proposed increased traffic volumes and the nature of trip making, (3) Prospect/Shields intersection at an undesirable level service E, and (4) issues on W. Stuart Street. He was working with the applicant and neighbors to mitigate concerns. Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, representing HP Development Corp., spoke favorably of the project and the . cooperation that has been realized with neighborhood organiza- tions working together. He requested approval by the Board. Member Walker asked about prohibiting fast food restaurants, service stations, not allowing 24-hour service, and desiring it to be included in the plans. Mr. Vaught said they could agree to that in the plans. CITIZEN INPUT Mrs. Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association - She read from a prepared statement mentioning that the neighborhood organizations and developers can work together for the benefit of both parties. She requested preliminary approval with the final concerns being met for approval: 1. Consideration of the right -in, right -out only of Hobbit Street, due to the proximity of the Prospect/Shields intersection. 2. Hill Pond and the developer have worked on high berming and landscaping for the southwest quadrant of the project to protect Hill Pond residents from light and noise pollution entering and leaving the Spring Creek Village, requested assurance through wording in the plan regarding issues of retail usage and limited hours. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 29, 1994 Page 4 Mrs. Smith read the history of the development with the property owner, Mr. Albrecht, and the criteria of the needs of the neighborhood for development. Of a survey distributed, 34 percent were returned, results showing the neighborhood grocery, small retail and patio homes in the top three choices. She submitted Attachment B. She continued with a description of the area and the enhancement and balance of land use mixes of this area with the proposed development, neighborhood shopping, giving a sense of community. There was discussion among Board members and Mrs. Smith regarding limiting hours of business, possible enclave, bicycle -pedestrian access issues. Member Carnes asked if transit had been considered. She believed it to be a possibility they had not considered. Cindy Gabriel, resident on W. Stuart, stated concerns of the development plan's impact of traffic onto Stuart Street concerning traffic volumes, child safety, and speeds. She requested that the traffic studies be conducted after completion of construction on Shields. She clarified that the residents approving of the project were exclusive of her neighborhood because she did not live within 500 feet of the development. She spoke of the large square footage of the grocery outlet, speeds on Stuart, the designation of collector being used as a neighborhood street, the posted speed of 25 mph is not honored, reporting a study showing average speeds of 41 mph, and pedestrian safety. She spoke of increased traffic on Stuart from the proposed grocery site. She was prepared to collect a signed petition if it would be necessary. She was opposed to the grocery store. Rick Steadman - Resident of Hill Pond and President of Hill Pond Homeowner's Association. Mr. Steadman spoke of their location south of the site and indicated general support of the applicant's development. He shared areas of concern (1)-traffic concerns to be addressed and (2) neighborhood comments and questions (contained in the neighborhood minutes) to be addressed. He emphasized the issue of 24-hour businesses being prohibited, height of buildings, hours of traffic routing onto to the site for loading, etc., and prohibiting fast food and car wash businesses. The Hill Pond Homeowner's Association is not in opposition to this project as it stands. Ed Mullaney spoke on behalf of his mother, Ann Mullaney, property owner of the land on the southwest corner of Prospect and Shields. He stated that he would like to know the impact of this development for the future approval of development on his property. He stated.he has attended some of the neighborhood Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 29, 1994 Page 5 group meetings and met with planning staff concerning this project. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. Discussion proceeded with regard to specific issues concerning the project among Board members, staff and developer. The traffic concerns were discussed concerning the W. Stuart collector requiring an analysis for a left turn bay, that a traffic study be conducted specifically for the project final plans after improvements are made on Shields Street, that the right -in and right -out turn accesses to the site be implemented as requested by the neighborhoods, that the project be pedestrian and biker "friendly", and that access to the neighborhood to the east be disallowed. Also discussed were the commercial delivery times and business hours of the proposed commercial area, building heights, buffering mitigation between project site and neighborhood, traffic circulation within the site, common open green space being maintained by the homeowner's associations, etc. There was a request that all neighborhood concerns be addressed and specific notes concerning these issues be contained on the plans. The conditions of the project were also discussed with Mr. Ensdorff concerning City policy with respect to traffic. There was concerns expressed about Level Service E at this major intersection. The Board encouraged Mr. Mullaney to be involved in the planning process with the neighborhoods and staff. Vice -Chair Cottier indicated that pertinent traffic issues as it relates to this site will be analyzed in conjunction with the Spring Creek traffic study. Member Walker commended the cooperation of neighbors arriving at the plans presented. He commented on the neighborhood center aspect of the project, the land -use mix of this site, its access through various modes of transportation, adequate open space and value of this type of development. Member Walker moved to approve Spring Creek village PuD - Preliminary, #2-87N, With the two conditions of staff and two additional conditions regarding compatibility: 3. That limitations of retail type and hours be developed. 4. That limitations be noted on plan notes of the delivery hours (that late night hours be resolved). Member Strom seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 29, 1994 Page 6 Member Fontane highly praised the collaboration efforts of this project, specifically considering the history of opposition to proposals for this site by the neighborhoods, and the ultimate resolution arrived at was rewarding to see. This effort would be an example to the community how cooperation between developer and neighbors produces a high quality project. Member Strom agreed and stated what a fine example the project has been to include mixed land uses on an infill site, and he looked forward to seeing the final. Member Carnes this could be a "show case" of what can happen in a unique area in our community, saving energy and reducing congestion, and an area to be utilized by the surrounding neighborhood. Member Bell commented that it is a positive effort but expressed concern about the magnitude of traffic issues. She requested that a community -wide discussion forum be looked into for appropriate discussion and input on these ideas/issues. Vice -Chair Cottier agreed with the positive reactions of the Board and congratulations were extended to the developer and neighborhoods. She would like staff to document this process hoping to replicate it in other areas of future development within the community. Motion carried 6-0, with four conditions, and chair Clements abstaining for conflict of interest. ITEM 17. NORTHBROOK PATIO HOMES AT FAIRBROORE PUD - FINAL. Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner, read the staff report. He said that the preliminary was approved in March 1994, with access only on Hampshire Road and a request for staff to review the fencing issue. In April it was appealed to Council. The hearing was held in May where the Council upheld the Planning and Zoning Board decision with one modification (that access on Prospect be added back into the plan). At this time, the main issue is storm water drainage how it is conveyed through and around the project. The issues are resolved but are not reflected in the staff report. A letter from Mr. Drivers was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board requesting that a fence be placed on the south side of the project. Staff recommended approval with standard conditions. Member Walker asked for the rationale used for the access on Prospect. Mr. Blanchard responded that providing a second access would eliminate some pedestrian/automobile conflict that would occur on Hampshire. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes . August 29, 1994 Page 7 Basil Hampdan, Storm Water Utilities gave a brief report concerning storm water issues. He explained how water flows into and through the site and explained how the potential problems will be addressed. He is recommending that the 1988 study for Prospect Road be revised to reflect changed conditions and that curb and gutter be developed to control the flows to the City's detention area at Prospect and Shields, rather than onto the site. Approval would be given on how the drainage system works within the utility plan requirements. Chair Clements stated there are sometimes conflicts at preliminary approval where project land use is before the Board; however, some reviewing departments, such as Storm Water, need more details to accurately evaluate goals and objectives of that department at approval. Mechanisms are in place before a building permit can be issued to the developer. Member Carnes expressed concern of over 30 projects after final approval being delayed over the 60-day allotted period of time. Hopefully that will get more attention in the future. • Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, engineer for the project gave a brief report of the project and addressed the two points of access, and safety issues for children. He believed this is an improved access plan. He discussed other issues of the project, specifically the storm water issues. He indicated the developer would work towards meeting all conditions. Rob Clay - 704 Ponderosa - Mr. Clay stated he was at the preliminary hearing and was the one who appealed to City Council. He stated the process of resolving issues was very friendly and was satisfied with how traffic issues, building envelop and setbacks and southside drainage easement were addressed, and commended the Board. Rick Gonzales - 2218 Cedarwood - Mr. Gonzales thanked the Board and the City Council for assisting the neighbors for obtaining crossing lights for the students going to Bauder Elementary. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED. There was discussion between Board and staff regarding site lines at intersections and fence placements. Mr. Blanchard said the setback has been complied to within the plan. • Member Cottier moved for approval of Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooks PUD - Final, #7-94B, with conditions as stated by staff. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 29, 1994 Page 8 Member Fontana seconded the notion. Member Walker spoke of concern about the compromise of the access point onto Prospect. Motioned carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned 10:50 p.m. No Text