Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/24/1993PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 24, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The May 24, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Rene Clements -Cooney, Bernie Strom, and Jan Cottier. Member Jim Klataske was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kea Waido and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Dakota Ridge Rezoning, #60-91I; Item 2 - Timberline Park Rezoning, #22-93; Item 3 - Minutes of the April 26, 1993 P&Z meeting; Item 4 - Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing Preliminary, #48- 91G; Item 5 - Dakota Ridge PUD Preliminary, #60-91H; Item 6 - Park Central PUD Tracts F, D & E, Referral of an Administrative Change, #24-80E was withdrawn by the applicant; Item 7 - A Replat of Tract D of the English Ranch Subdivision 2nd Filing, #75-86I; Item 8 - Resolution PZ93-5 Utility Easement Vacation, and; Item 9 - Modification of Conditions of Final Approval. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 10 - Timberline Storage PUD Final, #7-82F; Item 11 - Amigos at Arbor Plaza PUD Final, #137-80J; Item 12 - Paragon Point Amended Overall Development Plan, #48-91H; Item 13 - Poudre R-1 Facilities Master Plan, #24-93; Item 14 - Amendment to the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans for the Mountain Avenue and Remington Street Bikeway Project, #31- 93; Item 15 - Greenbriar Village Overall Development Plan, #19-93, and; Item 16 - Greenbriar Village First Filing Preliminary, #19-93A. Staff pulled Item 4, Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing Preliminary, to be discussed with Discussion Item 12, Paragon Point Amended Overall Development Plan. Chairman Walker asked if there was anyone from the Board or public that would like to pull an item for discussion. There was no response. Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 2 TIMBERLINE STORAGE PUD. FINAL - N7-82F Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, had a perceived conflict of interest regarding this item. John Duvall, Assistant City Attorney, represented the City for this item. Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, gave the Staff report recommending approval with the standard PUD condition. She briefly discussed concerns regarding water quality and water flow of the site. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the details regarding the shallow lip along the south end of the pavement need to be made a condition. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this was a. minor design detail and does not need to be made a condition of this project. Bill Vigor, the applicant, stated that he has met with the homeowners and has resolved some of their concerns regarding the buffering on the wetlands, the landscaping, and fencing. He stated that they have also resolved the concern regarding the stormwater flow design. Public Input Jenny Wilcock had concerns regarding the many changes made in the plans. She believed the surrounding neighborhood needed assistance and guidance from the City during the process. She asked that the City reconsider using the wetlands as buffers because once they are lost, they cannot be brought back. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates, stated that the lip on this curb was not only used as a spreader to make the water flow across the entire property but was also a containment in case there is a spill. Dwight Smith, resident in the proposed area, believed that this project was incompatible for this area. He believed that notice was given too late to adjoining property owners. Public Input Closed Rob Wilkinson, City Natural Resources Division, stated that he met with the Division of Wildlife who stated that the 100-300 foot buffer figure is used as a general guideline by the Wildlife Division. The Division believed that with some of the changes being seen on this plan, this size buffer would be appropriate for this site. He stated that the water quality issue has been satisfied with what has been proposed in that the bluegrass filter would be sufficient. Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 3 Chairman Walker asked for clarification of the process and how it could be improved in the future. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the comments about the process related to the appeal process. She stated that a property owner asked for information regarding the project within a week of its submittal, which she sent to him. She stated that she was on vacation when this project began which may have led to some of the problems. After sending the plans out, there was several discussions that took place in her absence with various planners which may have caused more frustration and confusion for the neighborhood. She stated that comments from the neighborhood were received several days later, during her absence. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 14. She believed that some of the frustration of the neighborhood was because they had not been involved with the development process before and the fact that this happened very quickly and they believed that they had several deadlines that needed to be met in a short amount of time. She stated that in terms of the appeal process, time was spent with Mr. Smith to provide him with what he needed in order to make an appeal. Mr. Duvall stated that the only recourse the neighborhood would have would be to appeal the decision itself if they believed proper procedure was not followed in notification of the hearing . that the decision came from. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of the concerns regarding the appeal procedure from the neighborhood and what their concerns were directly related to that procedure. Ms. Wilcock stated that the neighborhood did not realize that appeals are normally not pulled. It was their understanding that the could negotiate with Mr. Vigor or continue the appeal. She believed that they were getting pressure from Mr. Vigor to pull the appeal. Mr. Smith stated that certified letters had been sent out and received by some of the neighbors stating that if there were to be an appeal, it would have to be submitted by 9:00 am on May 17. Some of the neighbors did not receive the letter in time to meet this deadline. He believed that this item should not have been on the agenda this evening because of the appeal and amended appeal. Mr. Duvall stated the City Code sets the deadlines of when the appeal has to be filed and if any amended notice of appeal is needed when that must be filed. He stated that, as far as he knew, these two were followed. He believed that maybe the code could be reviewed to see if these time limits could be lengthened. Member Clements -Cooney encouraged the neighborhood to talk to the City Clerk's or City Attorney's office to address their concerns regarding the appeal process and the time limits 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 4 involved. She added that, currently, neighborhood meetings are a judgement call but this is being changed to provide more consistency in neighborhood meetings. Member Carroll commented that he had concerns last month regarding the short time that the neighborhood had to react to the project. He believed that, despite the shortness of time, the neighbors were able to assemble their concerns and present them. He stated that as far as the appeal is concerned, once the preliminary was approved by the Board, City ordinances and laws were being dealt with. He believed that there is more responsibility on the appellant to make sure that they are aware of the ordinances, the timing, etc., and it should be up to the City to make sure that this information is provided to the appellant. Member Strom moved to approve Timberline Storage PUD Final with the standard development agreement condition recommended by Staff. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Members O'Dell and Strom concurred that the conditions attached at the time of preliminary have been met and that the issues raised by the neighborhood had been effectively addressed. Chairman Walker commented that he understood the frustration by the neighborhood about learning the process. He expressed his appreciation to the neighborhood for sticking to the process and encouraged them to stay involved and participate in the process. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Clements -Cooney in the negative. AMIGO'S AT ARBOR PLAZA PUD. FINAL - #137-807 Mr. Eckman rejoined the meeting. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report which recommended approval with the conditions that a brown roof, preferably metal, be used on the Amigos restaurant and the standard development agreement condition. Member Carroll asked what was approved for the Backyard Burger Place building in Arbor Plaza. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the project was approved for a forest green color roof with an awning. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated that the architectural style of the proposed project with the adjoining development in Arbor Plaza was compatible. He presented slides of the • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page S existing buildings in the surrounding area emphasizing their building and roof material and color. He briefly discussed the location of the site in regards to distance from the other pad sites. Member Cottier asked if there was to be an accent color of blue. Mr. Vaught replied that there might be a neon sign with blue and the monument sign would contain a deep blue. Mike Henninger, Amigo's Restaurant representative, stated that this building was designed with a terra cotta tile roof and to change it to a brown metal roof would a distraction. He stated that this has been preliminarily approved with the terra cotta roof. He added that the terra cotta roof would separate them from the existing buildings but would still blend with the buildings. There was no public input. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification on the accent colors of blue tones. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there would be powder blue neon, two row borders on the . small mansard roof with the Amigo's logo incorporated. Member Strom asked if there would be neon borders on part of the roof. Mr. Vaught stated that there would be two bands of neon wrapped around the top of the parapet with the Amigo's sign being lit. Member Strom asked for details on where lighting would be, which direction it would face, and how strong the lighting would be. Mr. Henninger responded that the lighting would include parking lot lighting which would match the Wal-Mart pole parking lot lighting, a few lights located directly on the side of the building which would shine down, and the signs would be lit. Mr. Vaught stated that the parapet is taller to screen the roof to accommodate the screening of the mechanical equipment. Member O'Dell believed that changing the roof style and color would be compatible with the existing buildings. Member Strom believed that if the roof texture and color were not changed, this building would have a free-standing appearance, which would look like strip Commercial. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 6 Chairman Walker commented that both sides of this issue could be argued. He stated that when a PUD is being developed, some sort of continuity should be attempted to promote integrated commercial development. He believed that architectural character could still be achieved with a brown roof as with a terra cotta color roof. Member Cottier commented that the tile roof fits the style of the building but would prefer to see a brown roof rather than a red roof. She believed that the Wal-Mart design was not very attractive and having different design and colors of roofs might improve the appearance of this area overall. Member Carroll believed that this proposal would be compatible with the Wal-Mart Center and commented that he would like to see more of a brown roof rather than red. Member Carroll moved for approval only with the standard development agreement condition. Member Cottier seconded the motion with the amendment that a condition be placed that the roof tile be more of a brown color. Member Carroll withdrew his motion because he could not accept the amendment to the motion. Member Cottier moved for approval with the condition that the tile roof be a darker shade of brown more closely approximating the brown of the Wal-Mart building and the standard development agreement condition. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. PARAGON POINT AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN N48 91H PARAGON POINT PUD, 4TH FILING PRELIMINARY - #48-91G Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, gave Staff reports on the proposed projects. He recommended approval with conditions on the 4th Filing. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Designs, briefly discussed the history of the site, the density of the CDP and the 4th filing, the undevelopable floodplain and open space, the smaller size of the lots, the diversity of the architectural style of the 4th filing, and single family versus patio homes. There was no public input. Member Strom asked for clarification of the meaning of 79 units. is 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Shepard replied that when this project was submitted as a preliminary for the 4th filing, it contained 72 single family lots. When it was brought back later for staff review, it was reduced to 66 lots. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a definition of patio homes. Mr. Shepard stated that a standard single family home has a front yard, back yard, and two side yards with maintenance performed by the individual homeowner. A patio home is typically smaller lots, sometimes a zero side lot line, a reduced back yard and front yard with a heavy emphasis on homeowner maintenance sometimes up to the foundation front building line. He added that when this project was submitted, the Planning Staff was under the impression that this was a typical single family home product. Chairman Walker asked for Staff's interpretation of calculated density. Mr. Shepard stated that, typically, calculations that are removed are: 1) streets because they are dedicated to the city as right-of-way; 2) drainage areas because they are non -build areas; 3) dedication is requested for the 100-year floodplain which is dedicated to the Stormwater Utility; 4) the conservation easement because it is a non -build area; 5) the right-of-way along Lemay, that in the case of a PUD, landscaping has been added adjacent to the right-of-way for streetscaping, and; 6) private parks. Chairman Walker commented that residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densities, which is stated in the City's Land Use Policies Plan. He believed that market forces are not the only consideration. He had concerns that, by going to an entirely single family product on this site, the Land Use Policies Plan is not being met in the mix of housing densities and types. Member Cottier commented that it is becoming more and more of an issue when densities keep falling after a master plan is submitted. She believed that the calculations for computing densities need to be improved. Member O'Dell commented that this particular single family area achieves 55% on the Density Chart, which allows 5.5 DU/acre. She believed that this would not promote higher density developments that are beginning to development. Member Clements -Cooney commented that the original ODP represented mixed -use, mix of housing types, and a mix of housing densities. She had a concern that the ODP has been updated as early as January 1993. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 9 Member Cottier commented that the City does not have the rules in place to back up the demands of the City and that there is no clear direction. Member Strom commented that the downscaling of ODPs has been an issue. He had concerns about reducing densities and relegating this site to a single family project based on short-term market financial considerations. Member Carroll commented that there was a potential with this area that was previously termed commercial of three acres maintaining some of the density in multi -family. He had concerns with the approval of designating the ODP as commercial and the variances that have been requested. Member Clements -Cooney moved to deny Paragon Point Amended Overall Development Plan based on Land Use Policy #12, the encouragement of three or more dwelling units to the acre, and Land Use Policy #75, residential areas should provide to a mix of housing densities. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion for denial carried 5-1 with Member Cottier in the negative. Member Strom moved to deny Paragon Point PUD, 4th Filing Preliminary based on the fact that it does not concur with Paragon Point ODP. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed 6-0. POUDRE R-1 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - #24-93 Ken Waido, Chief Planner, gave the Staff report recommending adoption of the document as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and to recommend adoption of the plan by City Council. There was no public input. Member Carroll moved to adopt the Poudre R-1 Facilities Master Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommend adoption to City Council. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. AMENDMENT TO THE EASTSIDE AND WASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS FOR THE MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND REMINGTON STREET BIKEWAY PROTECT - #31-93 Rita Davis, City of Fort Collins Transportation Department, gave the staff report on the proposed project. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 9 The Board briefly discussed concerns regarding traffic jams that could be created with the reduction of the width of the street, people using alternative modes of transportation, the continuation of striping of the bike lanes on Oak Street, level of service analysis, and the possibility of changing the stop sign pattern on Oak Street. PUBLIC INPUT Brian Parsonnet commented on notification to the entire neighborhood and was opposed to the bikeway project on Mountain Avenue. Mary Kay Pixley stated that she was opposed to the bikeway project on Mountain Avenue. Jordan Honig stated that he was in favor of the project for Mountain Avenue. Jeff Lebesch stated that he was opposed to the conversion of the lanes on Mountain Avenue with the bike lanes along Mountain Avenue. Ed VanDriel commented that he was opposed to the project. Faith Swain stated that she was opposed to the Mountain Avenue bike lane project. Nancy York commented that she was opposed to the project and believed that more bicycle studies need to be done. Jeff Swain stated that he was opposed to the Mountain Avenue project. Dan Guhl stated that he was in favor of the project for Mountain Avenue. Keith Rodaway spoke in favor of the project. Will Smith spoke for the Choice City Cycling Coalition and stated that they strongly endorse the plan. Martin Fowler commented that he supported the plan, both as a cyclist and a driver. Becky McKuen stated that she supported the plan as designed. Tom Hilinski stated that he was in favor of the proposed project. Public input was closed at this time. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 10 The Board discussed with City staff the citizen participation process, comments received from citizens, the condition of Mountain Avenue and the parking lane, the Transportation Plan which includes the City Street Standards, the process for amending neighborhood plans, the possibility of altering the timing of the traffic signals at Shields/Mountain and Shields/Mulberry and the impacts of the current traffic gaps on the surrounding school crossings. Traffic counts on Mountain Avenue, future and current snow removal for the proposed Mountain Avenue and the existing Oak Street bike lanes, the goal of having a City Comprehensive Bicycle System, and the creation of a plan to evaluate and monitor how Mountain Avenue would function should the plan be adopted, the traffic volume on Remington, long range bike route on Remington by Fort Collins High School, and the linkage of the Remington bike paths with the existing bike paths were also discussed. Member Clements -Cooney moved to amend the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans for Mountain Avenue and Remington Street Bikeway Project with the condition that Staff present an evaluation to the Board in two years. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Board member comments included: The belief that alternative modes of transportation should be easily accessible, which this plan is attempting to accomplish; concerns regarding the citizen participation process; the continuation of working with the neighborhood once the plan has been implemented, and; concerns of displacing traffic onto Oak Street. The motion passed 5-1 with Member Cottier in the negative. GREENBRIAR VILLAGE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - #19-93 GREENBRIAR VILLAGE. FIRST FILING. PRELIMINARY - #19-93A Steve Olt, City Planner, gave Staff reports recommending denial of the ODP based on storm drainage information being submitted too late for City staff to evaluate the on -site and off -site storm drainage considerations for the entire development. 'He stated that staff was recommending approval of the first filing with two conditions: 1) the cul-de-sac at the east end of Butch Cassidy Court must conform to the City's street design standards or the applicant must submit a variance request to the Engineering Department, along with a design that provides for all the safety needs, with the Final PUD submittal, and; 2) the off-street parking provisions for Phases One and Two must meet the minimum off-street parking requirements as set forth in the City Code or the applicant must adjust the number of dwelling units to enable compliance with City Code prior to gaining final approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of the statement in the Staff report that the project was in a state of flux in regards to transportation. Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Olt replied that based on the traffic study, it does not appear to have any concerns from a Transportation standpoint. He stated that staff has concerns about the stormwater concerns. Member Carroll asked for clarification regarding the submittal of the ODP stormwater drainage report. Mr. Peterson stated that the agenda was published in the newspaper prior to staff discovering that sufficient storm drainage information was not submitted. Member Carroll asked Legal staff if this item could be considered without the storm drainage reports. Mr. Eckman stated that if a complete application is not presented to the Board, the project is not ready to be considered. If all the submittal requirements have been met, then the Board could consider the item. He added, however, if Staff did not agree with some of the conclusions of the submittal requirements, the issue would be up to the Board to decide whether this item should be approved or denied. Mr. Peterson stated that staff recommended denial because information was not submitted in a timely manner that met the deadline and that staff did not have sufficient time to make a recommendation to the Board. The applicant preferred to keep this item on the agenda. Member Cottier asked if the first filing request was being presented as the first filing of the ODP that has a recommendation of denial or is it being presented as the existing approved Sundance Hills. Mr. Olt replied that it was being presented as the first filing of the Greenbriar Village PUD, which is a new development and is not connected with Sundance Hills Second Filing. Member Colder asked if the ODP were not approved, would the First Filing request be a moot issue. Mr. Peterson replied that this was correct but action would still need to be taken on the First Filing. Ed Zdenek, ZTI Group, stated that a storm drainage report was submitted to the City Storm Drainage Department when requested, although it was an extension. He stated that it was important to the applicant that a final on the First Filing be heard by the Board in June and he believed that they could couple the preliminary and the final. He stated that he had concerns regarding the parking and whether they could support each other or if two more parking spaces 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 1993 Page 12 would need to be added. He also believed that this issue could be worked out on a staff level. He requested that the Board consider that the applicant couple the preliminary and final at the June meeting. There was no public input. Member Clements -Cooney commented that there seems to be more problems with this project than just storm drainage issues. She stated that she had no concerns with the applicant submitting the preliminary and final together. She added that she would like to see more consistency with this project. Member Carroll commented that the Board would act on this project whenever it was submitted providing that it was a complete application. Member Strom moved to postpone Greenbriar Village ODP until the June meeting of the Panning and Zoning Board. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to postpone passed 6-0. Member O'Dell moved to postpone the discussion of the Greenbriar Village PUD First Filing Preliminary until the June meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to postpone carried 6-0. Mr. Peterson informed the Board that on June 22, 1993 there will be work session with City Council regarding land use issues. There will also be a special work session of the Board on June 17 to establish criteria for the Staff Report to City Council regarding the land use issues. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. 0 0 . .... .. ... :::rREENBRIAR VILLj ......... NLM SAVE MORE SELF ... ...... .. . 424 6!EST OAK PUP FORT 0