Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/28/1994PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 28, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The February 28, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, and Carolyn Worden. ►A91;IaI17M:i4'� Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. The minutes of January 24 and 31 were tabled for approval since they were not included in the Board packets. Items 22, 23 and 26 were continued to the March 7, 1994 P & Z Board meeting. Chair Clements requested if there were items to be pulled from the staff and from the audience; Items 2, 3 12, 13, 14 and 15 were pulled for the discussion agenda. Member Strom moved to approve consent agenda Items 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 16 and 25 from the Discussion Agenda. Member Cottier seconded the motion, with the condition with the developer and/or property owner of South Glen PUD 4th Filing be responsible for the construction and on going maintenance of Tract A, being the detention area of the development. This commitment must be noted on the overall site plan for South Glen PUD 4th Filing prior to the recording of PUD documents. With a second condition that the developer and/or property owner of the Southglenn PUD 4th Filing, submit a landscape plan, Tract A to the Planning Department for an administrative review and approval prior to the PUD documents. Motions passed 5-0. Snrine Creek Manor PUD Mr. Charles Gish - 1800 Pawnee - The planned expansion does not include additional parking and he perceives it as a problem. The lot is not adequate with 45-50 existing parking stalls. He pointed out that the staff doesn't utilize the lot on a regular basis and instead uses street parking. He has witnessed parking in the red zones and also in his driveway. He would like to see additional parking added. Currently the overflow is heavy on Stuart and on Pawnee where he lives. Ms. Whetstone, project planner, indicated the proposed expansions do not significantly increase the volume of traffic at this site. The expansion is to take care of existing clients with a dining room addition, office spaces and a therapy room to provide a service to existing clients, as an added service. She believed there are two additional parking spaces on the north side by the therapy room. Mr. Gish further commented that because of the overflow, he would like to see parking resolved in some positive way. He submitted that they consider the addition of the parking lot and some of the deficiencies in the current lot. Loren Bley - Bley Associates Architects in Greeley - When this was planned with Living Center of America, the intent was that parking lot improvements off of Lemay to the north and northwest corner of the site for the therapy room addition would be done. According to the staff at the nursing home, there is not a net increase in out -patient therapy and no increase in parking demand. Chair Clements asked if any parking spaces were eliminated in the expansion. Mr. Bley said the only alterations as requested by Planning is a need to provide additional handicap stalls on the east parking tot --a request for 4 stalls, off of Lemay. He repeated there is not an increase in use or decrease in parking. Member Strom asked if the applicant has observed the parking situation and if he felt there is a problem that needs to be addressed? Do you see opportunities for adding some parking? He has personally observed casually driving by a lot of parking on Stuart street. Is this an opportunity to improve the situation somewhat? Mr. Bley replied in terms of percentage of the site plan, they are somewhat close to the optimum for parking, for providing additional covered area for parking. If additional parking could be installed it would be immediately north, with a net increase of 6 parking stalls. Member Strom asked if he had studied the parking situation? Mr. Bley replied he did not. The facilities operator from Greeley desired to make an improvement in the turnaround on the northwest corner for ease of getting in and out but no discussion about changing parking on the south side of the access along Stuart Street. Ms. Whetstone indicated she had been there on several occasions taking site shots and observed that often, much of the north parking lot was unused. There is parking activity on Stuart Street, which is not signed "no parking". She had a phone call from a resident about staff parking on the street. Staff leaves at 11:00 p.m. at night and some had left cars running at night before leaving. This information will be discussed with the director at Spring Creek Manor. It is an operations issue, as there is plenty of parking. Also, it may not be convenient or safe for staff to park in the provided parking area. Member Strom asked, so you think there is sufficient parking provided, it is just not being used effectively? Ms. Whetstone said yes. Mr. Bley added that LCA has indicated that deliveries coming and going are to take place via the access egress onto Lemay. Stuart.Street is not to be used by delivery trucks. Mr. Gish said it is clear that the parking issue has not been seriously considered. It would take away existing parking spaces and not add to the parking. By and large, the service trucks use the Stuart Street access to make deliveries. Some do use the Lemay side, but his observation over 8 years that parking is a problem because Spring Creek staff do not use the parking lot provided and there are not currently adequate parking slots to handle current staff on an average day. Member Fontane recommended to Mr. Gish that he speak to management concerning this issue. Mr. Gish said he had on several occasions, with no resolution. Member Strom moved to approve the project with a condition that the City Planning Staff work with the management of the center to try to resolve the parking problem, and to the extent that is necessary, the Transportation Department work to help eliminate the long-term parking on Stuart Street to help enforce staff use of the parking lot. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Windtrail on Spring Creek P D Phase 2 - Preliminary Mr. Ted Shepard read the staff report with recommendations from the Storm Drainage Department for approval. Ms. Kay Force, of Jim Sell Design representing the developer of Windtrail, gave a brief presentation. It was her understanding that the neighbors would like to see what the final is since the neighborhood meeting. In her presentation, she mentioned details of the site area with open space, accesses, density, buffering, and emergency fire/permanent bike trail combination access to Spring Creek trail. Mr. Rick Steadman - President of Hillpond Homeowners Association - which is located directly west of the proposal. He said the homeowners had no opposition to the development. He said their major concern was traffic, the same as with another townhome development planned for the area. He mentioned traffic safety and the "real unknown" that is involved with Tract J. He brings this up because there will be a neighborhood meeting on another development in the southern portion of Tract J across of Rolland Moore Park and how it pertains to traffic. The neighborhood, developer and the city are all concerned about traffic patterns, safety going on in this area as it develops. He pointed out traffic, as it relates to Hillpond that intersects at Shields, will increase. The homeowners question the potential use of Tract J for construction traffic. Will there be construction traffic through their neighborhood streets in the next two years of building? Chair Clements commented that some of the potential traffic concerns of Tract J could be addressed by Rick Ensdorff of the Transportation Department. Mr. Ensdorff said he could spccifically address the intersection of Shields and Hillpond. Some of the trees that cause sight distance problems are scheduled to be removed in the next week while maintaining a substantial part of the canopy. He is working with CSURF to come up with an adequate street system, the pieces are not in place yet, including a traffic signal and connections with Centre Street. Chair Clements asked if they were working with the homeowner's association on these issues. Mr. Ensdorff said he would be. Chair Clements also asked about the construction traffic generated from Tract J. Mr. Sell said this topic came up in the neighborhood meeting, but has had no discussion on CSURF for the use for temporary construction. It is their plan to use Shire and Hillpond and did not expect any excessive use of those streets. He did not foresee pursuing the use of Tract J for construction at this point. Member Cottier asked what the condition was on the last phase? Mr. Shepard said that he didn't have the written condition with him but in substance that utility plans, drainage reports, plats and PUD documents be in final shape before a building permit is issued. Three of the trees for site distance are scheduled to be removed in the immediate future. Mr. Steadman said that the condition stated that the City and developer would work with the neighborhood association concerning traffic issues being considered. The idea was working together on traffic as it relates specifically to Hillpond and Shields. Member Foutane made a motion to approve the Windtrail and Spring Creek PUD, Phase II preliminary with the condition in the staff report and that the City Transportatloa Department and the homeowner's association and the developer get together to discuss the Impacts of the property as it is development and construction traffic gad site distance. Member Strom Indicated that be seconded the motion in particular reference to findiags of fact In the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Eckman said there was something he noticed in the staff report that there was a variance request too. Member Strom said he would make a separate motion that the Board acknowledge and recommend the variance based on the fact that the parcel is part of the larger ODP and does meet the density staadard. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Willow Springs (Lval Nelson Property) Annexation and Zoning. Mr. Shepard read the staff report with conditions for approval. Chair Clements clarified that the Board was not discussing any proposed development, only the annexation and zoning. Mr. Shepard said that was correct. Mr. Sell, of Jim Sell Design, said this project meets qualifications and there are positive benefits to the annexation, one of them being the extension of Keenland to Timberline Road. There will be a utility water line to be extended to Timberline which will help equalize and stabilize water pressures this newly proposed developments to the north and east of this development. Additionally, in the master transportation plan for the City, it is proposing that Timberline Road will become 4 lanes, this is coming about because of other developments. These will benefit the greater area. I Gary Thomas - Resident of Oakridge development to the west of the proposed site area and represented as president the Homeowners of 7th Filing of Oakridge and eight other associations, 350 homes. He did not believe the annexation to be a benefit to the area. A major concern was the extension of Keenland Drive over the railroad tracks. He asked for clarity of the extension of the road over the tracks, the use of it as a collector street --to increase from 200 to 4,000 car trips per day. He explained the route of the street and the name change to Boardwalk by the shopping center at Harmony, then its extension all the way to College. He reasoned that it was no longer a collector street but an arterial, and believed the proposal is outside the guidelines for what the City has defined as a collector street. His next concern was for the safety of children in the neighborhood especially by the park area, adjacent to the railroad track north of Keenland. It is an 11-acre park and privately owned by the homeowners of the 7th and 8th filing; he indicated that people travel at much higher rates of speed than required by the city speed limits. He also presented a concern of protection of the park and felt the homeowners run the risk of liability from children who run the risk from the proposed annexed area and will use that particular space. Mr. Thomas also indicated his understanding that the developer of Willow Creek is being forced to include the roadway as part of the plan without much discussion. There is not the kind of communication between the Planning and Transportation Departments and the developer with the condition of the road extension. He believes that when the road is complete, it will extent eastward potentially 4 miles. This is a major impact to be considered. He believes that a road extension near Lemay and Harmony to Trilby that was blocked in a nearby area to Oakridge for the protection of the neighborhood and would ask the same consideration for this proposal. Mr. Thomas also mentioned property values that would be affected negatively. Vern Mobley - resides in the immediate vicinity to the east of the subdivision - his main concern was compatibility. Chair Clements indicated this was a time when comments concerning only annexation and zoning were to be heard. Mr. Mobley said he was opposed to the annexation and rezoning because the compatibility of the area does not exist. He pointed out that the railroad track has a 200 foot right-of-way, the neighborhoods would be 300 feet apart and is of a higher density than in the existing area. He indicated the current subdivision being built in the county, Homestead Subdivision, is compatible situation and would like to see that considered in planning. Bobbie Douglas - east side of County Road 36 - Opposes this area as an annexation into the City of Fort Collins, primarily because of incompatibility to existing uses in the area. She also stated opposition to the extension of Keenland over the railroad tracks and into Timberline. She mentioned the railroad track as a logical barrier to divide subdivisions that are areas dramatically different to existing uses. Kristi Bennitt - resides in Oakridge on Quail Court that has greenbelt area which fronts along Keenland Drive, with almost three acres that are used by children to play. The development of Keenland Drive brings up safety issues. There are other access points (Timberline crossing .7 miles away and Trilby crossing) along the railroad tracts, so she concluded another access point wasn't necessary. She opposed the extension of Keenland Drive. Shirley Mobley - of County Road 36, east of the property - She was opposed to the annexation for (1) compatibility and (2) wildlife and rural setting. She referred to the letter sent to the local residents that the citizen's opinions and concerns entered greatly into decisions made by the Board. She trusted this was a true statement. This subdivision is not compatible to their way of life. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED, Chair Clements addressed her question to Mr. Eckman concerning all these citizens concerns and how the Board bases their decisions for recommendation to City Council. Mr. Eckman said he recalled from the statutes that the Board looks to see if there is contiguity, community of interest of the urban area and the area to be proposed, look for the area to be kept in agricultural use for a certain period of time. One thing the Board should be aware of if the road is to be extended over the railroad tracks, that would take the permission of the Public Utilities Commission to cross with a hearing process. Chair Clements asked planning staff regarding this proposal as an annexation and zoning and how does Keenland Drive fit into this annexation and zoning recommendation. Mr. Shepard said it really does not until there is an overall development plan or a preliminary PUD plan which would then describe and layout, density, access circulation and things of that nature. The request at this meeting is this an appropriate parcel to bring into the municipal boundaries. The information neighborhood meeting mentioned the potential PUD coming in if the project is annexed. That decision has not been made, therefore, the annexation request does not include, preclude, commit or not commit an extension of Keenland. Chair Clements stated that at this time the Board is entrusted to make recommendation to City Council about the owners of this property wanting to come into the city. Mr. Shepard said that is correct. The annexation, meeting the policies of Latimer County in the urban growth area and the inter -governmental agreement is before the Board for recommendation. Member Fontane asked a question of the Transportation Department concerning long range planning of the street system for this annexation proposal and the full impact of development in the area 10 years from now. Mr. Shepard said his understanding for this Keenland extension, along with McMurry and Wheaton are collector streets that serve a large mixed use planned community. The master plan done for Oakridge and subsequent filings indicate that Keenland is not cul-de-sac at its end, and stops short of the tracks, but could possibly go over or under the tracks in the future. Mr. Eckman referred directly to the statutes and reported that contiguity is the first item the Board looks for in an annexation request, there needs to be a community of interest, but if there is contiguity there is presumed to be a community of interest between land proposed to be in the city and unless at least 2 of the following 3 things are found to exist: (1) less than 50 percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipalities. A list consists of recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial or commercial. And less than 25 percent of said area adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents of the time of the hearing, that standard will not apply. [Mr. Eckman said he did not believed there are any residents in this area.] (2) Half or more of the land in the area in the proposed area is agricultural and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than 5 years. (Mr. Eckman said the applicant had not desired this.] (3) It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are provided to such citizens. This standard states "shall not apply to the extent to any portion of the area proposed to be annexed is provided with, or will within the reasonably near future be provided, with any service by through a quasi -municipal corporation" (Mr. Eckman thought some of the utility services in this area are provided through special districts.] Member Cottier asked in easier terms if the conditions just read give the Board any grounds for disapproving this annexation request? Mr. Eckman said he did not believe they gave grounds for disapproving as far as the community interest is concerned, as far as the contiguity is concerned, he believed staff is represented that it exists, there are no adult residents, the owners have not stated they intend to devote the land to agricultural use for not less than 5 years, and the municipal services are available and it is physically practicable to deliver those services. That does not mean the Board has to annex. The annexation is a legislative decision and the Council has the ability to make the decision for or against even if the conditions are met it is within their prerogative. The Board has its own prerogative as well, but based upon those statutory provisions, you make a recommend to annex. Chair Clements pointed out the Board is not the final decision makers rather City Council. Member Strom moved approval of annexation and zoning in so doing site the findings of fact In the staff report including consistency with policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins regarding the later -governmental growth agreement regarding the Fort Collins urban growth area, the criteria which the State Law that Mr. Eckman just stated, the City Council's resolution setting forth the hearing date, the fact that the requested zoning was RLP with PUD condition meets the Land Use Policy Plan. Member Strom commented in the process of making this motion, as part of the urban growth area, the community interest has been established in terms of policies and guidelines that the Planning and Zoning Board is operating under. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Steve Olt read the staff report and recommended approval by the Board. The staff report reflected "Carryall Lane" and he noted this was incorrect for the record. He continued to read the report. Dick Rutherford - Stuart and Associates - representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Lawler in this annexation. The annexation is similar to the previous one. It has contiguity, has the City of Fort Collins boundary on the south side of Spaulding Lane, it is inside the urban growth area, it has utilities available to be developed, it is contiguous to urban density development and is compatible to size and density in an RP zone CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. Don Mussard - Resident next to proposed annexation on Ford Lane. He said that it is difficult to separate the annexation from the development project. If any property is annexed and, for whatever the reason, the developer is not able to continue the development under the plans that were presented in a neighborhood meeting, then the land is agriculture in the City and seems incongruent. There are issues related to traffic, access, availability of services from the city. Chair Clements said the Board, under State law, cannot look at the issues of traffic, access, availability of services, etc. Mr. Eckman stated the question of development to be the following issues: there is no plan to look at, streets if they are not physically able to extend to the area to be annexed it is an urban service the Board can consider; the agricultural aspect --farming in the city is not a use prohibited, there are places where this occurs and it would be eligible for annexation. Chair Clements asked that questions about the infra -structure of the road leading to this area need to be addressed to her and staff later will answer the questions. Mr. Mussard asked for clarification as the annexation relates to Ford Lane. Mr. Olt said that on the location map it appears not go to Ford Lane. The east boundary of the annexation property would be to the center -line or the west right-of-way of Ford Lane. The applicants said now they will be purchasing property to Ford Lane. Mr. Mussard asked what kind of impact does this have the on residents of Ford Lane. If there is additional traffic on Ford Lane, which has been proposed by the developer, what does that do for or against the residents? There is the question of road maintenance. Will there be more taxes placed on the local residents, etc. He stated that it impacts the neighborhood negatively because of the impact of traffic on Ford Lane. Mr. Mussard continued to state that traffic is a problem along Country Club Road, especially with pedestrian and biking traffic. There are not sidewalks, there are deep ditches. Only cars can travel along this road, usually speeds in excess of the speed limit. Mr. Mussard said this was "piece -meal" development and was opposed to it as a disadvantage to the residents. He asked what the advantage to the residents or city to have a piece of property annexed into the city. He did not understand why the owner was not the applicant. The developers are the applicant and the property is simply under contract for purchase. He was curious about the property owners feelings about the annexation. What was the time frame for the adjoining residents for formulating thoughts, believing the residents will have no other impacts upon the decision by Council. It would be helpful to think over the new information gathered this evening and get it organized to present. He questioned the statutes regarding the utilities existing to the property. It appears strange that the City would annex a property that has no direct connection by street to the city. There is no access to the city from the property unless there is access through the County or private property. The Larimer County right-of- way seems unusual, but understood it was under statute, for the City to cooperate in this type of annexation which did not seem right to him. Do the property owners have any right along Spaulding Lane? Ms. Jeannine Hammond - lives at the corner of Ford Lane and Country Club Road - She had two concerns: (1) Traffic - Increase in traffic along Ford Lane, an increase of 100 cars per day is too much for the existing street. 1 (2) Residential Setting - The change in the rural openness is the motivation for locating her home in the area and would like to see low density to be compatible to the existing residential area. Mr. Ed Mestas - resident of Ford Lane - He agreed with the previous residents comments and especially the issue of traffic on Ford Lane. The idea of the increase of car and pedestrian traffic is not adequate to be handled as it exists today. He is opposed to the annexation. Mr. Jerry Manning - resident of Ford Lane - He disagreed with the annexation plan, mostly because of the development, which he recognized he could not address at this meeting. He has resided in this area for eight years and agrees it would change the country setting residents presently enjoy. He also has a hearing impaired child, which was one of the reasons for locating to the area. He was opposed to the annexation. Mr. Carl Spaulding - owns property to the west of the area. He said until traffic issues are resolved, there should be no annexation. There is no reasonable plan for the traffic patterns that will develop in this area. This needs to be studied closely. Mr. Bob Powers - property owner to the west of the project. The neighbors understand that the zoning is RP with a condition that the property be zoned PUD. He needed a confirmation on that plan for zoning. He understood that a traffic study would be completed, a utility study would be completed and a drainage study completed with definite plans, including subdivision, lot layout and a better understanding of density issues. Chair Clements commented that the Board does not have a proposed plan so traffic flow cannot be addressed at this meeting. This annexation brings only the property into the city, and the State statute sets the guidelines for review. She emphasized that traffic is a concern to the neighbors. Should this be zoned RP with a PUD condition? What does that entail? Mr. Olt stated that it is being recommended that all three parcels constituting the Sherman - Lawler annexations be zoned Planned Residential with a planned unit development condition at this time. Should the property be annexed by the City Council, it would then have a PUD condition attached to the ordinance of the annexation. Chair Clements said with the PUD condition, if a proposal comes in, there is criteria to meet such as storm water drainage report, utility reports, etc. Mr. Olt stated that when a development proposal submittal is made to the City as a PUD it would include a site plan or subdivision plat that would lay out the property, lot by lot. The street network, landscape, utility, drainage, and traffic plans would definitively define the requirements of the development. Chair Clements asked about sidewalks in that area, road maintenance and improvements, and the responsibility for them. Mr. Olt said as an annexation and zoning request, the Board is not looking at improvements to Ford Lane at this time. If, in fact, during the development plan formation, the traffic impact analysis would play a large part in the review of who would be responsible for improvements. Chair Clements asked if there are concrete advantages to the residents with the annexation of this property. Mr. Phillips stated that the advantages of annexation is in the eye of the landowner for whatever reason they desire to annex to the city. There are additional services available to the property that are not available to the property outside the city limits, but the advantages would be for the property owner to list. Chair Clements stated again, that the Board is only making a recommendation to Council and is not the final authority. If the citizens would like to address this issue again it would be before the City Council, is that correct? Mr. Olt said yes that is correct. The annexations will go to Council March 15 for first reading and April 5 for second reading; so there will be two opportunities for the public to address this issue. Member Cottier questioned the RP designation relative to the RLP zoning? Mr. Olt replied that they are essentially identical and read from the Zoning Code. The Code reads, "use and building placement" in RP district and in RLP district it reads "use, density and building placement" making it the same requirements. They are both low density residential districts. The reason RP was requested is that there are other areas in the area zoned RP for consistency. Member Cottier commented that perhaps the two zonings should be redefined or consider one designation. Member Klataske asked how the City arrives at 1/6th contiguity on the first annexation? Mr. Olt used the map to explain boundaries to city limits and location of 1/6 contiguity, including Spaulding Lane with other portions already in the City. Subsequently, each annexation will gain contiguity. Member Cottier asked about the issue of annexation of land into the city without road access. She did not recall other annexations when that has been brought up, with the exception of Anheuser-Busch. Mr. Eckman said as far as the statutes are concerned, it has no relevance; contiguity with respect to Colorado Statutes is the key and only issue for annexation. He must meet the 1/6 contiguity and signatures for owners for appropriate land ownership, then there is the ability to annex the property. Unless two conditions exist, and rarely two exist, the contiguity is the primary issue. Extension of city streets is not a criteria that must be met for annexation eligibility. Mr. Olt commented from inter -governmental agreement for the Urban Growth Area that the annexation is based upon. Under Section 2.10 - Annexation: "said city agrees to petition any undeveloped parcels of land"._"nor shall the city be required to annex any such county road if such road is primarily used by county development." In this case, Country Club Road would be servicing a number of County subdivisions at this time. The City is not required to annex the streets, and the inter -governmental agreement allows that decision. Member Cottier suggested that it would be appropriate to annex Ford Lane if the majority of traffic on Ford Lane were generated there. Does that not follow? Mr. Eckman said since the annexation is contiguous to Ford Lane and, with the County's consent, as in the case of Spaulding Lane, the County is the applicant for the annexation of that portion of the street. Mr. Olt clarified that the City is the applicant and the County is the owner of the Spaulding Lane right-of-way. Member Cottier asked why wouldn't all of Ford Lane be included in the annexation and become a city street? Mr. Phillips replied that the language is permissive on the annexation of streets and road and is not directive. The decision is really up to the City. At some point, it may be appropriate to annex it but it is not required or necessary. Mr. Eckman stated that the Statutes require that if any part of a County road is annexed, the entire road is annexed, not to divide jurisdictions down the road. Member Klataske asked if Spaulding Lane, west of the annexation, is in the City or County? Mr. Olt replied it is in the County. Member Strom asked if there should be three motions. Mr. Eckman replied there should be three motions for the three separate annexations. Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler First Annexation and Zoning with the condition that, it be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Blataske seconded the motion. Member Strom stated that all of the discussion about Statutes is establishing eligibility and what the Board is really guided by, in terms of decision making, is City policy. It was his understanding of urban growth area boundaries and agreement that gradually in a step-by-step rational manner the City intends to eventually to include the entire urban growth area within the City limits. In response to Mr. Mussard's comment about access through the City in this regard, what happens is little by little there are applications and the Board takes them one at a time to review them. It was his understanding of City policy as adopted by Council that we will continue to annex properties as it makes sense to do so within the urban growth area. Recognizing that we don't have all the answers to questions, we are operating under a policy that does not allow the Board to review proposed development plans until the land is annexed and zoned formally by the City. He didn't think it was the best policy, but was what the Board is operating under at this time. Chair Clement said she thought it was interesting that Mr. Mussard brought up the fact that he felt the way annexation and zoning is proceeding by virtue the Board is seeing the annexation and zoning without a parallel process that what maybe proposed on this site. The way it is currently operating under is the fact that annexation and zonings are looked at first. As Mr. Mussard has pointed out you can't separate the two. Mr. Strom said we are making our recommendations to City Council under this policy. This is an example that we might be able to show Council that problems are created and perhaps one member of the community would like to see regarding annexations and zonings. Member Cottier said the Board usually does approve annexation requests that meet all our policies, which this one does. She has shared some of the concerns that Mr. Mussard brought out and thinks that Ford Lane be studied and thought it inappropriate for development to leave it as a County road. She sees that as receiving a lot of traffic from the proposed development. She encouraged citizens to bring their concerns to Council as they review this proposal for annexation. Motion carried 5-0. Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation and Zoning with the condition that It be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Member Strom moved to recommend the Sherman -Lawler Third Annexation and Zoning with the condition that it be placed in the neighborhood sign district. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Clements mentioned that the following items for discussion will be postponed to March 7, 1994: Item 22 Waterglen PUD - Preliminary, Item 23 Waterglen - PUD Preliminary and Item 26 Proposed Amendments to the Appeals Provision of the City Code. Horsetooth West PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan. #14-88 . Mr. Shepard said that he would like the Board to consider Item 19 Silver Oaks PUD, Commercial - Preliminary and Item 20 Silver Oaks PUD, Paired Housing - Preliminary, #14-88J together with the Horsetooth West PUD, #14-88K, since they are related under the overall development plan. The Board will accept each item, however, separately. Mr. Shepard then read the staff report. Ric Hattman - Gefroh-Hattman - The overall master plan was presented with a slide presentation describing the properties and location in detail. A day care facility was relocated closer to a different intersection to keep the morning and afternoon traffic dispersed and to reduce the length of trip time to the area. The multiple family area will be directly adjacent to the school site, with 3-units to the acre for the entire parcel. The Commercial area of Taft Hill and Horsetooth with office buildings, day care center, convenience center and car wash. With generous setbacks from arterials, screened parking by buildings, and canopy functions. Features included outdoor areas near office buildings, all buildings are single -story in height, wood siding on all structures. He showed slides of a near by gas/market station and did not consider it a shopping center pointing out that it was not of their quality their project would have. He stated that points should not be withheld for the project's location. CITIZEN INPUT. Glenn Church - Dalton Street in the Springfield Housing Subdivision - How are the units going to be owned? How will these units be occupied, rentals? Mr. Hattman said it is the intention of the developers to sell the duplexes in a condominium fashion, each half to one person. It is looked at a owner -occupied situation; as in the City, there may be rentals from time to time, but it is not intended to be a rental or a project maintained by the developer to rent. Member Cottier asked Mr. Shepard with respect to the commercial area, why wouldn't it be preferable to have access on Taft? Wouldn't that keep more traffic out of the neighborhood? Mr. Shepard said the primary reason is that Bronson is not sufficiently separated from the intersection of Horsetooth and Taft. That distance is needed for southbound left turn stacking. To introduce a curbcut in the area would probably add some unnecessary congestion to the area. Bronson Street can serve that function, placing the curbcut there the flow is freed on the arterial. Member Klataske mentioned that this project did not receive points for being an office park in a commercial area. Where does the definition for office park come from? Is there any basis for the number of buildings that would constitute an office park? Mr. Shepard said it is a definition out of the LDGS, definition section. He thought the units were calculated to promote these centers for locating in as large of a concentration of offices as possible so customers would be users on site without a lot of driving. The original calculating formula was done in 1981 and he had no background knowledge of how those numbers were arrived at in formulating them. Member Klataske also asked about the convenience center canopy lighting issue been settled? Is the developer aware of what will be permitted as far as downlighting? Mr. Shepard said there is a note on the PUD as far as the under canopy lighting being flush with the under canopy light not protruding. That the under canopy surface itself be painted in an off-white or beige or tan. With those two considerations will be a lessening of the off -site illumination that is seen in some centers. Member Klataske asked why it is preferable to have a day care center located in a commercial setting versus the location closer to the elementary school? Mr. Shepard said the day care acts as a buffer for the retail office buildings, accessible not only to residents within Silver Oaks but to anyone who is using Taft or Horsetooth, outside the square mile section. Chair Clements said the staff report states the condition concerning the operating hours of the car wash. Is it only the car wash or would it include the convenience store? Mr. Shepard said it pertains only to the car wash. Mr. Eckman said there should be three separate motions and on Item 19, he called the Board's attention to the variance to the requirement of 65% on point chart J, a variance. On page 5 there are staff findings to recommend that a one -day automatic car wash be considered allowable and of similar character, a finding as part of a motion. Member Cottier asked about finding No. 4? Mr. Shepard said the justification of the variance satisfies the neighborhood land use policies for a shopping center and that by making the finding on the variance, it satisfies the locations] provision. Member Klataske moved for approval of Horsetooth Overall Development, Second Amendment. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Chair Clements reminded the Board that it has a condition regarding the operation of the car wash and a variance to Point Chart J and the findings would need to be stated that the car wash of similar or like use. Member Klataske made a motion as stated by Chair Clements. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Member Cottier asked if we could clarify that the car was is not a self -serve one. Mr. Shepard said this was an important issue and for clarification purposes should be made part of the preliminary PUD, requiring the active participation of the store clerk and not a 24 hour self -serve. Mr. Eckman asked for clarification if the motion contained a finding that the one -day automatic car wash was like or similar character, includes the variance and condition in the staff report. Member Klataske said that is correct. Member Strom agreed. Motion passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved for approval of Silver Oaks Paired Housing Preliminary. Member Foutane seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Item 21 - Boston Chicken PUD - Preliminary. 079-93, Ms. Whetstone read the staff report. She presented to the Board several letters that had arrived today concerning the access issue, and revised conditions of the staff report. Mr. Ed Zdenek - ZTI Group - Made comments regarding the positive aspects that it is an inf ill development. He went to great length in describing the layout and design with corresponding drawings, siting sidewalk and open green space, buffering parking with berming, and ingress and egress accesses to the property. There was lengthy discussion among Board members, staff, Rick Ensdorff of Transportation and the developer concerning specifically the ingress and egress points accessing the development. There are potential accesses to neighboring properties (medical office park and a church site) and future planning for these accesses seemed appropriate. Also there was the issue of a stop on the southern border, more planning for parking layout and additional landscaping. Traffic flows from one business to the next were examined as were placement of access traffic and flow design circulation. There are 49 spaces, above City standards, for parking. There will be areas for seating inside the restaurant as well as a drive -through. Concern was expressed by several members of the Board for the stop sign area and parking. The new light should take pressure off of the site and other acesses will disburse traffic. The developer remained flexible to changes if acceptable to the Transportation Department. Mr. Matt Delich commented on access points between the parking lots. Further planning and sicussion is needed to look at the cross access issues. Member Strom voiced concern about the amount of asphalt and the need for more landscaping, the amount of accesses, and concern for pedestrians. The developer remained flexible to negotiating these concerns. Mr. Ensdorff addressed single loading parking and stated the purpose of the site design to accomplish a circulation system for all the surrounding developments. The developer was asked to not use double -loading parking, to create a circulation system and access points which, in the future, could be taken advantage of. There are ways to move the parking closer to the building. Member Fontane expressed concern about closing circulation off, what is the negative effect? Mr. Zdenek spoke of several probable ways to come in and out of the parking area and remained flexible to some change and would be happy to take out a few more spaces and add more green. Mr. Phillips said if the overall access plan was viewed, there are three businesses and two access points off of Lemay. He explained the traffic flow from neighboring businesses to Boston Chicken. Member Strom had more discussion with the developer regarding traffic flows, required setbacks, and set accesses. He made some observations: (1) The existing neighbors do not want to open access to Boston Chicken at this time. (2) Redevelopment is fairly speculative. (3) When facilitating future access points, there should be consideration of aligning existing travel lanes. (4) There is desire for double loaded parking driveways (presently single loading). Mr. Ensdorff stated that the surrounding businesses were not interested in making efforts to comply to these ideas, the dialysis center has elderly people accessing their business and are concerned about pedestrian safety issues. It is speculative to keep access open. The plan is to keep the options open for these access consideration otherwise everyone will have individual curbcuts. The site plan does not give the optimum solutions. Frontages, access points, amd driveway alignments were further discussed. The Vineyard, in the very near future will likely need to access this project property. From the Planning Department's perspective, it is important to consider this in detail. Member Strom stated that there needs to be a rational basis for connection points and further reasonable detailed be planned. He needed to be convinced, also landscaping needs to be developed. The access points needs to be worked out with the neighbors. Further discussion occurred for alternative parking with direct connections. The discussion among Board members, staff and the developer concluded that all aspects of the traffic flows, access points and parking needed to be studied carefully and impacts weighed. The future access points would be barricaded until they would be opened for use. Pedestrian issues need to be addressed in careful planning. Mr. Zdenek addressed the issue of the northern access as being the most important access where the others could be negotiated. He addressed other areas of concern to the Board for resolution but wouldn't want to jump to conclusions immediately what all the solutions would be. Chair Clements pointed to the conditions in the staff report and new ones given tonight in replacement of the previous ones. Member Fontane made a motion to approved the Boston Chicken PUD Preliminary with the two revised conditions stated In the staff report. Chair Clements asked if there needed to be a condition regarding revisiting the parking circulation issues that were discussed this evening. Member Fontane said she didn't see that as necessarily an issue to be placed in the condition. It seemed the intent was to look at those issues and address them without a condition. Member Strom said he disagreed and said the Board has some serious concerns about the site and his preference would be to delay 30-days and return with a revised preliminary. He would accept preliminary approval with a stiff enough condition that the Board is not binding to the existing site plan. Mr. Zdenek agreed to this statement. Ms. Whetstone pointed out that Condition 2 states that "therefore this preliminary approval is conditioned upon the reservation and right by the Board to change the layout at the time of consideration of the final phase." It gives the Board the ability to change the layout at the f inal. Chair Clements stated that a condition needed to be made regarding circulation and parking to be revisited, or is parking or circulation considered a layout? Mr. Eckman said the condition refers to parking spaces and drive isles may need to be altered accordingly. The Board needs to decide if this refers to what the discussion was concerning. Parking does have to do with layout. Member Cotner said she would second the motion with am amendment that circulation, parking and additional greenspace be reviewed at final. Member Strom asked about looking at lighting during preliminary? Ms. Whetstone said that is done at the final for final compatibility to address criterion A2.7 of the All Development Chart. Member Strom asked about signage and if it is in the residential sign district? Ms. Whetstone said it is not in the district. At the time of final, if the new sign code is approved, signage will be reviewed by that code. Mr. Eckman asked the developer about the layout issue. Density and layout are not established on the final, but the Board is proposing that in this motion that the Board will have another opportunity to look at the layout and perhaps even change the layout of the site plan. He wanted to make sure it is okay by the applicant. Mr. Zdenek said he did understand but did ask for help in the areas of clarification of connection into the adjacent parking lot, should they be secondary to an internal situation? Is that correct for the entire Board? Member Strom commented it makes sense to make future access connections if that works out, the priority is to make this site work well and to the degree that it is possible to provide future access rationally connect and facilitate future access. It is admirable and desirable. Mr. Zdenek asked if he is correct in understanding "less asphalt and more landscaping" for some of the goals? Member Strom said yes and the way circulation works too. Member Fontane said she didn't see as much of an issue with the circulation and other alterations. Chair Clements said she appreciated Member Strom's comments and asked the applicant to take them into consideration. Member Cottier said she agreed and has questions about the wisdom of the access opportunities to other areas with the uses already developed. Member Fontane said she could see some benefits to the accesses. Member Strom addressed the pedestrian situation and there is much more likeliness to generate from the existing uses. Mr. Zdenek said they were willing to pay for pedestrian access to adjacent properties, and will continue to pursue that. Motion carried 5-0. Item 24 - Annexation and Development Review Sched.dlne Chair Clements commented that this item has been before the Board one other time and there had been amendments. Mr. Ron Phillips read the staff report with recommendations. There has been a suggestion by members of Council to modify the ordinance, which, if adopted, would allow projects to proceed with the accelerated procedure that was in place before December 22, 1993, if those projects are located within the boundaries of a neighborhood or corridor planning area where an adopted plan has been completed and approved by the Council. The proposed ordinance has been redrafted to include that provision and is what is under review this evening. Calla Pott - She asked if this Review Scheduling concerns properties that are coming before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council for annexation, and are there proposals for property going through a review process concurrently? Mr. Phillips responded yes. Ms. Pott's concern was the REA annexation this evening and also referred to the Spradley-Barr proposal, for property not yet annexed into the city. She believed if proposals were allowed in this manner, "the cart is before the horse." She believed the annexation should occur first and then the proposal because the proposal may never happen. Ms. Pott said in light of the previous annexation, growth and development can been seen as an opportunity for the Planning and Zoning Board and the Department to move cautiously, yet forward with growth. She indicated that she was raised in Boston, and that after 100 years, there is not much you can do within a community after development. She suggested taking one step at a time and allow for more citizen input and a careful study of the development area. She would not like to see tax dollars wasted by the Planning and Zoning Department on proposals that never occur. Q Member Strom commented that if the policy is to be put into effect, modification suggested by Council, makes sense. He stated that, in response to Ms. Pott's comments, in every current annexation petition, issues were not really the annexation, rather, they were development --density, the plan, traffic, etc. When there is an application for a piece of ground that is trying to be annexed, it made sense to have the plan on the table where it will get discussed. The point of "wasting staff time" if you will, on proposals that do not come to fruition if the zoning doesn't occur is a valid one, but the reality is policies that the Board is operating under concerning annexation, have historically not been turned down because they met criteria, perhaps one since he has been on the Board. The annexation within the urban growth boundaries, meeting the criteria of the State Statutes, meeting the criteria of the urban growth area of the county, the annexation portion of it is almost proforma, really practically a "rubber stamp;". If the policy is to be changed and if the Board is going to look at annexation in a different way, then there needs to be discussion and how it will be done. Under the current conditions, the Board has been operating under a policy for number of years that says, little by little the City will be developing the urban growth area and, it has been the City's preference that this development occur to City standards under City regulations. One of the primary objectives has been to annex and try to deal with proposals as best we can under the regulations. He wanted entered into the record the comments made at the last discussion. He thinks operating under current policies cuts off a tot of information that is really at the core of issues that people are concerned about, rather than the annexation per se. Member Fontane asked how often has an annexation come in without having a project following it close behind? Mr. Phillips said not often. Member Fontane said she was thinking about the REA proposal and the issues that are dealt with concerning density. She referred to the Spradley-Harr/ REA project which, may not be desired by the community, so the annexation is refused. She thought this is a cheapened way to make a decision, and it was not a proper way to do business in decision making policies. She asked for insight from Board experience. Chair Clements said her feeling was that someone will not annex property unless they have some idea or reason for the property to be annexed. She referred to Member Strom's earlier comments regarding annexation review. The Board needed to took at how we are going to do it. She felt that is a key point "we, the Planning and Zoning Board", City Council and interested citizens in the community, how are, "we" going to look at this review process. The Board's recommendation last time was that the City Council take 90 days to bring interested parties to the table and visit this policy, not saying the policy was good or bad, but to take a look at it and get down to the "nitty gritty" and find out what is best for this community. We put a 90-day time limit on it so it would not be perceived that the Board studies everything to death. It is her understanding that the recommendation never got to City Council. Mr. Phillips replied the agenda item summary was given to the Council and the item was withdrawn with the modification suggested. Chair Clements said it had been 60 days, roughly, and that the Board could have been looking at this issue. She has also had the opportunity to talk to a few City Council Members who have shared with her information regarding, not only this proposed ordinance and change, but some more that are coming down the pike and how they are all inter -related, and what the justifications were. She found it very helpful, although, it also, to her, had a communication breakdown. If there are justifiable reasons as to why City Council is doing what they are doing, she is not hearing them all. Some of what was shared by the Council Members she met with, was helpful and that needed to be continued, and the Board needed to be included in the review of the annexations. Chair Clements also appreciated what Ms. Pott had to say, and also Mr. Mussard. She believed there were extremes that needed to be looked at and she felt the last recommendation to Council was a good one. Member Cottier said she assumed Council would be getting the last record completely and she would like to emphasize the point that if the neighborhood is asked to respond to just an annexation, the Board will not hear objections. When the development proposal comes, then the neighborhood will be "up in arms" saying you didn't let us know what was going on here and the property is already in the City. She believed there was a real point to having the annexation and proposal come in concurrently, and not keeping the Board and neighbors artificially in the dark about what is going on. This is a disadvantage and would lose a lot in the process by not having them combined. She reiterated that she believed that it was not appropriate to implement interim policy before the ordinance is passed. It is a significant policy and does warrant further consideration and she did not believe the policy should be enacted before the ordinance is passed. Member Fontane commented when the Board is making decisions and recommendations on zoning, even when the proposal (such as Spradley-Barr) is available, that the decision made is going to be good for the property even if it is not approved. If the recommendation the Board is making and making good enough judgments that would be appropriate down the line. Member Strom indicated the Board should not just look at the development proposal that might come along with an annexation application and agreed with that. When the Board is talking about rezoning a property, even though the zoning is flexible, the Board needs to think of it in terms of the property, not just a specific project. Given the fact that in most cases the property owner -applicant has something in mind, and chances are the Board and neighbors will know something about it. It is best to have the information on the table where it can be responded to appropriately and information brought to bear on the issue. Member Fontane agreed. Member Klataske said if he were a property owner, he would not see the advantage to go through the procedure to have the land annexed and not know what the use is. That usually doesn't happen. If there is a plan, present it, if it is not approved withdraw --it makes more sense to have them submitted concurrently. Chair Clements observed that sometimes citizens perceive that an applicant will come to the table with a project that they know they are going to have to change, that is going to workable- -such as parking spaces. The game, as she sees it, is here is an annexation before the City but we are not going to tell you what is coming in as a proposal, causing rumors to fly. She sees that will exacerbate the problem instead of making it alleviated. Member Hlataske said his recommendation would be to continue this discussion perhaps in a work session or a community forum, getting together with land owners that their land is not annexed into the City, and discuss the perceived benefit of what is proposed by Council at this point. He suggested the 90-day period. Chair Clements stated she liked taking the leadership role. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Cottier recommended that the Board eliminate the temporary policies that have been Implemented in this regard. Member %lataske said that was acceptable. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Phillips indicated that there was no further business and there was a Board work session Thursday, March 10, 1994. Meeting adjourned 11:22 p.m.