Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/24/1988PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES r October 24, 1988 Minutes i The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of October 24, 1988 was called to order at 6:35 p.m, in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the meeting were Sandv Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Dave Edwards, Frank Groznik, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Alternate Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard,_ Ken 1Vaido, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman.. Chairperson O'Dell presented an award of appreciation to Bernie Strom who recentiv resigned as a Board member. Tom Peterson, Planning Director, reviewed the Agenda noting the following items were continued to the November meeting: 112-79K, FOUR SEASONS, 6th FILING PUD - Final; 99-79C, MEDICAL CENTER OF FORT COLLINS PUD - Final; 53-85V CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, llth FILING - Final; and 58-87, A, NOEL ANNEXATION AND ZONING. Item 73-88, PROSPECT PLAZA PUD - Preliminary and Final was moved to the Discussion Agenda from the Consent Agenda. Member Edwards noted the potential of a perceived conflict on 20-82C HARBOR WALK II PUD and Member Groznik on 86-83C, ANHEUSER-BUSCH PARCEL 4, SUPERBLOCK PLAN, and 86-83D, ANHEUSER-BUSCH CROP RESEARCII FACILITY PUD - Preliminary and Final. They declined to participate in voting on Cthe aforementioned items. Chairperson O'Dell noted on page 6 of the September minutes that the first para- graph should state, "drive through was NOT appropriate at this site." Member Edwards moved to approve the Consent Agenda, items 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 13; and Member Kern seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Kern moved to approve item 8 and Member Groznik seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Member Klataske moved to approve items 9 and 10, Member Shepard seconded. Motion carried 6-0. #73-88 PROSPECT PLAZA PUD - Preliminary and Final Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report on this project. She noted it was on .9 acres. The Board was concerned about granting both Preliminary and Final. Addi- tional material had been evaluated which had an analysis of parking redesign. It had been presented to the Board for consideration. George Haas, an attorney represented Henry Glisan. He indicated the project meets City requirements. The parking lot could be reconfigured to add landscaping along Prospect but at the cost of parking spaces. Mr. Haas requested approval as submitted. Sherry Albertson -Clark indicated the project met the basic criteria of the LDGS. The project had 16 spaces currently and if changed to angled could lose from 6-12 October 24, 1988 • Page 2 • / spaces. The 45 degree angled parking would reduce the amount to 9 spaces. Thcrc t was a need for convenient, close -in parking due to the types of tenants. the elimination of spaces was a concern to staff. Alan Lamborn, 1929 Sheeley Drive, represented the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood. He stated he had few specific questions as he had little information on the project. It was in the groups "area of interest" and the group expects notification on these projects. He then asked where the various tenants would be placed and for a brie) presentation the project. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a more detailed description of existing tenants stating there would be two two-way curbeuts. Staff would like additional landscaping on Prospect. Parking in the north and rear will remain unchanged. There were minor sign changes on the facade. The applicant will carry through the restau:.,a color scheme. Member Walker asked about the access from the parking area to the restaurant and laundromat. George Haas replied both have entrances on Prospect. Member Kern moved to grant preliminary approval to the project with the 45 degree angle parking aspect to be explored before final. Member Walker seconded after adding, with Member Kern's approval, a condition on additional landscaping to take advantage of the angled parking. Member Walker commented on the stark appearance of the building and hoped additional landscaping would improve the situation. He believed the additional landscaping was appropriate. He noted 4 percent of the site was landscaped and other projects have from 25-30 percent of their sites landscaped. Member Kern agreed and added the project required 42 parking spaces but had 60 sn ;li.n of a few would not adversely affect the project. Member Walker added that an exterior rear door to some of the tenants might be Member Edwards stated he could support the project since it was anticipated to be improved. Since the applicant had not seen staff scenarios, the Board has redesigned the project without the applicant's knowledge. Member Kern agreed but felt the 45 degree angled parking was most workable. Chairperson O'Dell felt the applicant had the opportunity to work with staff. The Board's choice would be angled parking but they would look at other alternatives that might be provided. George Haas applauded the desire for more landscaping but felt nothing was accomplished unless the visual impact was changed. He felt an alternative would be to get conditional final approval with the condition buildings and parking be hidden through more street trees. He proposed adding two additional trees to the cast, losing two minor parking spaces. Member Groznik hoped the building starkness could be hidden and felt landscaping 40 foot on center, rather than 50 foot on center would work better. October 24, 1988 • Page 3 • George Haas asked if there was an option to come back with an T than angled parking. Member Kern stated that felt if goals t iandscaping were met, the motion could be streteued to look at other alternative other for additional options. Motion for preliminary approval with the landscape condition carried 7-0. #61-83A LARICO GROUP HOME PUD - Preliminary S Final Member Edwards noted he had a direct conflict with this project as he was a member of the Board of Directors of Larico. His service with the organization was voluntary `v;th ro monc'a^' '1 P'n�C."..q ti O+I a -1 •: ��, r ... ."nttt n.r•,�;- atc, he would like to respond as a concerned citizen. Paul Eckman, City legal representative stated if, as a Board member, he was compensated, his speaking would be prohibited. It was determined since 1:c was• not compensated he could speak as a concerned citizen, but would not participate in consideration of the item. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff presentation. The applicant proposed to expand the number of residents from 10 to 14. Staff had originally recommended denial based on off-street parking. The Plymouth Congregational Church had given indefinite approval for the Larico staff to park on their site. The staff recommendation was for approval. Donna Bresee, Director of Larico Youth Homes, gave a presentation about the project and the homes goals. The additional youth would help stabilize their cash flow. There would be no changes to the exterior of the building. They had proven compatible with the ❑eigiiocrhood over the past ten years and gave close supervision to their clients. Their licensing requirements regarding square footage were more than satisfied. The facility itself would suffer most if overloaded so they were careful to maintain quality care. On -site parking would not be impacted as the faciltr vvoLl'. shuttle i _.:.f° ro an_i from t hr;rch par!.i site. they were limited by their financial resources, without the capability of buying additional property, approval to expand this community agency was requested. Sherry Albertson -Clark summarized the staff recommendation and the parking solution and recommended approval. Harold E. Worth, 1501 S. Shields, President, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association gave a dissertation on neighborhood feelings and ended by recommending the PUD be approved. Art Bravoso, Executive Director of the United Way, added the community needs assessment listed this type facility as a community goal and Larico's yearly evaluation always showed a highly effective and efficient agency. Dave Edwards, 643 Skysail Lane, Larico Board of Directors, indicated the flexibility of the LDGS allowed the alternative parking solution. There would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood with this expansion of the community -based program, and he hoped the project would be approved. October 24, 1988 • • Page 4 Robot MCPeak Fort Lupton, Colorado, owner of property on the south side el' Prospect, 2-3 doors to the west of the project. He felt ',iris change would harm his property further and it was not needed. He bought his property as a rental but can not keep in rented. There was no parking. Maybe the facility would buy him out and he would be glad to leave Fort Collins. Member Shepard asked the location of the church. She remarked, should the church rescind its agreement, the Holiday Inn would be a possible parking area. M=l.cr 1`ial' ^. asked wl,.at Nnuld—.,, the alte,vable _ _, b,.,r of resiic^ts in home according to the existing zoning. Ms. Albertson -Clark indicated a maximum of 7 would be allowed. Member Groznik, as a point of clariiicntion, noted there were intcrmiacnt side.va14:; between the project and the church. Member Klataskc questioned the Sunday parking arrangement and Ms. Brescc explained because of reduced weekend staff, particularly on Sunday, the parking would not be a problem. Member Walker noted the doubling of residents (from the zoning allowance of 7 to 14 per this request) given the nature of this area with sororities and fraternities in close proximity, should be approved. However, it should be noted, this type of group home in more owner -occupied areas would have additional concerns and this project should not be used to set such a precedent. Member Kern stated he was in sympathy with the need but was concerned about the subversion of the group home definition. Would this be classified a group home, or an institution. Paul Eckman stated it would not be a group home but a PUD. Member Kern questioned if the 1500 feet ruling would apply. Mr. Eckman felt A4cmLer v,, ac :is " a_ it :cn, � 110. wa ^ct asked what would transpire should the building be sold. Mr. Eckman stated upon sale it could continue with the same purpose but to change to hotel or retail use would require review by the 7eard. Member Kern felt that by removing the project from the group home definition the Board was negating the December 1987 ordinance change for the definition of a group home. Member Grozoik moved to approve the preliminary and final PUD with a condition included in the development agreement relative to the parking condition. Should use of the church parking lot be revoked the owner must provide acceptable alternative parking within 30 days or cease operation. Member Shepard seconded and motion. Member Shepard asked whether Larico was actually a group home or, by virtue of it's growth in the past ten years, something more that did not meet the definition ol- a group home. Member Kern asked if the property was abandoned, to what zoning would it revert. Paul Eckman indicated it would revert back to R-L, the underlying zoning. Member Walker noted by creating a PUD we made the group home disappear. October 24, 1988 • • Page 5 Mr. Eckman this might become a plausible argument to exclude the r property from any measurement for future group homes. Possibly an ordinnncc change to reflect this problem would be necessary. The ordinance could also u; amended to keep the group home out of the PUD process. Another argument could also be made for a special provision to provide a space requirement between group homes. Mr. Peterson stated the LDGS flexibility allows review of other land uses. Member Kern felt we might be changing the ground rules for expansion of group homes. Member Groznik noted the present applicant shouldn't be penalized because the ordir,nnce needed to be chanced. Member Shepard again noted that Larico has grown to a full-blown health care facility, a program providing a good community service with very little neighborhood opposition. Member Walker viewed this as an institutional care facility of 14 people with 10 staff. Chairperson O'Dell felt this project met the LDGS criteria as well as the city's goals and objectives. Member Kern indicated his heart won over his head and the motion carried 6-0. #146-79K RAINTREE COMMERCIAL PUD, TRACT H - Final Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a staff presentation showing site slides and discussed Csignage changes. John Barnett, the applicant's representative, asked 1) if the canopy could be increased from 10'6" to 12' for a pre -manufactured sign; 2) if an increase in fascia for the food shop signs from 11'6" to 12' could be approved; and 3) if the monument sign could be increased from 5' x 4'6" to 5'6" x 6'6" to permit a standard sign. They would also like to revert back to the steel columns rather than brick for design as well as cost considerations. Larry Wickham, the Amoco architect, reiterated Mr. Barnett's sign requests. Eric Sites, project developer, stated the signage criteria was important to national tenants. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff response and stated that the issues had been looked at but staff had not determined if it would be proper to change the canopy and building signs at this time. Alan Lamborn, 1929 Sheeley, promised not to become a permanent fixture, but wanted to give his support for the basic concept. Since there seemed to be difficulty reaching closure on this project he stated the neighborhood found the project to be one of the least attractive proposals in a long time; not very pleasing or compatible with Raintree. Vernon Prokopio, Amoco, indicated the size of gas signs was a courtesy to the customer showing all three prices. He added Amoco was encouraged to build in Englewood and these signs were not a problem there, October 24, 1988 • . Page 6 Member Walker asked if the signs being used were the smallest standard signs f available. Mr. Prokopio indicated that they were. Member Kern asked if signage requirements were the same for the commercial area across the Street. Member Edwards asked if staff had evaluated the applicant's latest proposal. Mr. Peterson stated the latest proposal had not been evaluated, as it had been submitted tonight. Member Edwards moved to table the project until November due to insufficient information. Member Kern seconded and motion carried 6-1 with Member Klataske voting no. John Barnett asked if the item could be reviewed and approved as a final with onlv the signage as a condition. Thev could come back with an amended PUD on the signage at their next opportunity. Paul Eckman noted the Board could reconsider the motion. No motion was mad - and Board decided to let the motion to table stand. #53-85T CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD, SUPPORT SERVICES - Final Ted Shepard gave the staff report. He indicated preliminary approval was given last month for this business/auto related uses with canopy, gas pumps, and a 6 bay car wash. Ric Hattman, the applicant's representative, indicated a condition at preliminary that needed to be addressed was signagc. He gave a description of the signage changes. He also gave information on the noise generated from the vacuum. The data indi- cated the noise level (exclusive of the brick wall) would be 50 decibels at the outside surface of the neighboring house. The street noise level would be higher. Member Walker asked for clarification on the sign at Center and Mr. Hattman stated it would be 5' x 5'. Asked if the sign at Shields Street would contain tenant identification, Mr. Hattman replied it would. Member Klataske asked if there would be internal lighting and Mr. Hattman addressed this issue. Member Klataske noted the station at Horsetooth and Lochwood, used as a comparable, used spotlights but Mr. Hattman replied this project would not have spotlights. Member Groznik asked why the need for a larger sign. Mr. Hattman responded both large and smaller signs were used. The heavy landscaping, reduced retail exposure and other design considerations intensified the need to identify the building. Member Shepard asked for signage clarification and Mr. Hattman responded individual tenants will have signage. Ted Shepard gave a staff recommendation for approval. October 24, 1988 • • Page 7 Alan Lamborn, 1929 Sheeley Drive, was disappointed but could understand the developer's rationale for placement. He would like something more distinctive but i bowed to the dcvctoper's desires since the developer had made substantial cftort to design a relatively attractive project. He did not comment on signage but, in terms of noise, felt 50 decibels was loud. Since the residence was surrounded on all sides by commercial development he felt comfortable this would be a reasonable amount of noise; however, this should not become a standard applied to residences with different surroundings. Member Kern moved to approve the project, Member Edwards seconded. Motion cn" i^d 7-P. Member Kern recommended the applicant on his response to the Board questions from last month, particularly regarding noise. Member Edwards thought the project represented a significant upgrade and felt the applicant was rcwarccd by an signage considerations that might have been given. u75-88 WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - CHAPTER 5 - Circulation and Transportation Element Ken Waido gave a description of Chapter 5 changes and indicated the majority of the plan had been voted on and accepted in July. Member Kern had a couple questions concerning Map 5-A regarding traffic volumes. Mr. Waido indicated the numbers were in response to a population threshold of 150,000 and not necessarily tied to the year 2000. Member Walker wondered if the staff suggestions were neighborhood policies. He felt Map 5-D needed clarification as it implied four lanes from Wood Street on Laporte. Mr. Waido indicated from a planning standpoint we needed to plan for possible eventuality of that becoming four lanes. Carol Podmorc, 1205 West Mountain, President of the City Park Neighborhood Asso- ciation, gave input and asked that Chapter 5 not be approved as it stood. She had two main points of contention: procedure and design criteria. The Magnolia/Mulberry couplet was one important concern as was the proposed widening of Mulberry. The recommendation for developing a bike lane along Mountain was earlier removed for lack of support and was now back in the plan. Staff was asked to address streets from a land use angle, not an engineering angle. In her opinion that had not been done. Valid data needs to be collected and policy statements and recommendations need to reflect neighborhood concerns. Edic Thompson, 623 Del Norte Place, stated that there have been welcome additions and some deletions; however, Chapter 5 did not reflect her wishes. She was concerned with flaws in data and design. Growth in the northern part of the city had not occurred and data should not reflect it. Colorado State University had 16,350 people that enter campus daily. 7-7500 parking spots were available, 8500 People come by bike, walk or arrive by bus. In terms of design many quantifiativc objections have been removed but a sketch inserted createdmorc questions. It appeared the smooth flow of traffic was the planners major concern. She felt the arterial system did not fit and City should design arterials to fit neighborhood, not vice versa. High volumes of pedestrian traffic need to be addressed. She ended by asking for a rewrite of Chapter 5. October 24, 1988 Page 8 • Harold Worth, 1501 S. Shields, represented the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood r Association. He endorsed neighborhood planning but had concerns related to standarris of arterial streets, particularly Shields. He suggested some retermcc I,; made to the problem of bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Brian Parsonet, 147 N. Washington, agreed with Ms. Podmore's comments and was impressed with the plan's changes. The plan as a whole was inconsistent and needed to become cohesive. Ruth Moyer, 620 S. Shields, felt the plan did not reflect the attitudes and concerns of the neighborhood or address the eoncer^s. She listed s._ -'�rco2ncics ^ I,! was worried about destroying access to campus. Mr. Parsonet felt the plan needed to be clearer but added he respected the work Ken had accomplished. Member Groznik moved to disapprove adoption of Chapter 5 and return to the drawing board. Member Walker seconded. He added the city and neighborhood needed to identifv and clarify future problems. There may never be resolution but perhaps ideas could be stated differently. There was a desire to have something happen even if the city and neighborhood don't agree. Member Kern cautioned staff that this not become a Shields Street protection plan. Legitimate concerns need to be reacted to but by restricting one area, we merely move the problem to another area. Member Shepard agreed with much of Member Walker's comments. She felt a clearer response to the one-way couplet and the Shields/Laporte arterials were needed. Member Groznik added 1) great cities are made of livable neighborhoods; 2) address urban design issues involved in widening streets; 3) live with a lower level of service, perhaps; 4) alternative transportaticn modes will be taken --if bic-cli— becomes too difficult the traveler will look to a car. The neighborhood integrity needs to be preserved. Member Edwards felt he was confused and there was no support from the steering committee. A plan people can live with was needed. Member Klataske felt the overall transportation objective needed to be reviewed. He disagreed with Member Groznik's motion to look at the neighborhood, and felt it needed to be looked at from the city's perspective. Member Groznik felt the Master Street Plan needed to be revised. Member Klataske felt the city was penalized in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan when Laurel was not extended. There needed to be negotiation and maybe compromises from the neighborhood. Chairperson O'Dell reluctantly supported or reluctantly opposed, but the discrepancies needed to be cleared up. She recommended Member Groznik to serve as a liaison with the city and he agreed. October 24, 1988 • • Page 9 Member Kern stated his vote reflected his concern for increased clarity without abandoning city goals. Member Walker felt the pedestrian/bike concerns should he higi,lighted and feit editing was necessary. Also recognizing the environment to plan must function in and creative thinking from a traffic standpoint was ncecssar-,. Member Edwards wished the plan not be recommended until it was in its final form to ease implementation. Motion to deny carried 6-1 with Member Klataske voting for approval. Nir. o •��°o*: .^ddcd thorn .cmild he a 14, time undecided as yet. Meeting was adjourned at 10:56.