Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/25/1988• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 25, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Chairman O'Dell introduced the new board members that were present, Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. Board members present at the meeting included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Alternate Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Sherry Albertson -Clark, Paul Eckman, Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig and Linda Ripley. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda Included: Item 1, June 27, 1988 and July 11, 1988, min- utes; Item 2, 33-82B ASAMERA OIL COMPANY P.U.D. -AMENDED - Prelimi- nary and Final; Item 3, 203-79E CASA GRANDE P.U.D. (WAGONWHEEL THIRD), PHASE 1 & 2, Extension of Final Approval; Item 4, PINEVIEW PUD - One Year Extension Request; Item 5, 60-88 WESTRIDGE ESTATES P.U.D. County Referral. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 6, 90-85C WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. - Master Plan; Item 7, 90-85D WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D., 1ST FILING, CARTER HOSPITAL -Preliminary; Item 8, MIDLAND GREENS PUD - Master Plan - County Referral. The Board removed Items 1 and 4. Member Kern moved to approve Items 2, 3, and 5 of the Consent Agenda. Member Klataske seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Member Strom indicated that through a letter sent to the Board, he was referred to as "Alternate Bernie Strom" in the June 27, 1988 and July 11, 1988 minutes, which he is not, and would like those two references stricken from the minutes. He would also like to note that in the discussion of the junior high school in the June 27, 1988 minutes, on page 6, paragraph 2, there needed to be more emphasis on City Council and the School Board moving off the dime and a decision made as to who would be responsible for street and side- walk improvements needed for safe access. He would like that kind of mes- sage passed on to the School Board with our minutes. Mr. Eckman also changed the June 27, 1988 minutes in reference to members abstaining in their vote. The members did not abstain from voting because they were needed to make up a quorum, rather there was a withdraw) of participation. Chairman O'Dell recommended that those not present at the previous meetings abstain from voting on those particular minutes. Motion carried on approval of June 27, 1988 minutes 6-0. Motion carried on approval of July 11, 1998 minutes 6-0. July 25, 1988 P&Z M. tes Linda Ripley stated that staff requested that Pineview PUD - One Year Exten- sion Request be pulled because staff was not adequately prepared at the work session to address the background information. Staff would present the infor- mation at the meeting. Craig Platt, the applicant for Pineview PUD, indicated that the reason the approvals on tracts A, B, D, and E had not been extended was because the bank took those tracts back from the owners. He had tried to keep the Tract C approval extended. Linda Ripley stated that staff recommended approval with the following two conditions: 1) that the project meet all current city standards at final review; and 2) that an updated traffic study be submitted at final review. Member Edwards asked if the Neighborhood Service Center was still appropri- ate considering the future location of single family dwellings, school, etc. Ms. Ripley indicated that the location of the Neighborhood Service Center was still appropriate given the policies of the Land Use Policy Plan. Member Edwards questioned how staff felt about the abrupt change from a Neighborhood Service Center to a single family. Ms. Ripley noted that staff had not heard of this proposal until this meeting. The applicant would have to come back in to amend the Master Plan. At that time the issue would be addressed by staff. Mr. Peterson also noted that since the Pleasant Valley and Lake Ditch still run behind Tract C, this would aide the urban design parameters needed to achieve neighborhood compatibility. Member Edwards moved for approval of the Pineview PUD Extension until July 25, 1989. Member Kern seconded the motion. Member Kern commented on the fact that this particular proposal was appro- priate but there was going to have to be more care in planning the remainder of the site. Member Walker stated that his concern was the length of the extension Member Edwards noted that he neglected to say in his motion the two condi- tions outlined by staff be included in his motion. Motion carried 6-0. WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. - Master Plan - #90-85C Linda Ripley gave the staff report. She stated that the applicant was Wild Wood Farm, Inc., represented by Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. She noted the Master Plan was consistent with the City's Goals and Obiectives and Land Use Policies Plan, which supported industrial and/or business service uses at this location. Staff supported the location of Corbet Drive but it was not yet approved by the State Highway Department. -2- ` I July 25, 1988 PB*Minutes 0 Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., represented the applicant, He presented more details about the Master Plan. He noted that there were two reasons that this property was being Master Planned at this time: 1) the development of Charter Hospital; and 2) the proper planning process of doing a master plan, although it may be a number of years before the entire area was developed. Linda Ripley noted that one of the most important items about the project from a landscape planning perspective was that the Master Plan did set aside a 80 foot landscape buffer setback beside Harmony Road. The reason for that was to keep it consistent with existing development along Harmony Road. The intent was to landscape the area similar to Hewlett Packard and Oakridge. The Staff recommended approval with the condition that the street system be contingent upon the State's acceptance of the location of Corbet Drive. Member Kern asked if it was included in the documentation that the Master Plan indicated an 80 foot landscape buffer along Harmony Road. Ms. Ripley noted that it was on the MAster Plan document. Member Walker moved to approve the WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. - Master Plan. Seconded by Member Edwards. Motion carried 6-0. WILD WOOD FARM P U D 1ST FILING CHARTER HOSPITAL - Preliminary #90-85D Linda Ripley gave a description of the project. She stated that the project scored 54 percent on the Business Service Use Point Chart. It earned credit for being next to a transit route, not being located within the South College Avenue corridor, and it was larger than two acres. The applicant had also taken eight points for energy conservation in order to meet the 50 percent minimum required. Linda Ripley noted that a neighborhood meeting was held June 1, 1988 with four neighborhood residents attending. Major topics of discussion were traffic issues and security. Traffic issues centered around the Harmony Mobile Home Park. The parties indicated that they wanted a traffic signal at the entrance and wanted a reduction in traffic speed along Harmony Road. She stated that the applicant would address the security issue. Chairman O'Dell questioned what kind of time frame the access plan had and when a response could be expected on the approval of Corbet Drive. After review, the State and City together would mutually agree on the appropriate access. A meeting was set with the State for August 2 to begin to work on the access plan. It hoped that it would be resolved by the August meeting. Don Schact, Director of Health Facilities Development with Charter Medical Corporation, presented an outline of Charter Medical. He stated that Charter Medical was the largest provider of psychiatric services and specialized hospitals. They owned and operated 95 facilities. He showed how their facili- ties blend in with local architecture. He noted that their facilities were very compatible with residential development. Over 70 percent of the facilities in -3- July 25, 1988 P&Z Mi_ .es operation were either adjacent to single family units or within 400 feet. All facilities were single building hospitals. They have developed facilities that have a positive environment. This would be a multi -service facility which would serve children, adolescents and adults. Indoor and outdoor specialized facilities would be constructed. Member Shepard questioned whether Charter was intended to serve psychiatric patients or was it also for substance abuse patients. Mr. Schact noted that at the present time, the 28 adolescents would be divided into two 14 bed units, one of which would be designated as an adolescent addictive disease unit. Member Shepard questioned if Charter saw any problem with competition of the existing substance abuse facilities in Fort Collins.. Mr. Schact noted that there was not a great deal of services offered for adolescents in Fort Collins and that was why Charter would offer these ser- vices. Chairman O'Dell questioned whether Charter anticipated this facility would be more of a regional facility. Mr. Schact noted that this might be the case. Member Walker asked if the wide range of age of patients was typical of this type of facility. Mr. Schact noted that it was typical of Charter facilities. Member Walker questioned whether there was an average length of stay for individuals. Mr. Schact indicated that on the average, children aged five through twelve would stay 60 - 90 days, adolescents from 40 - 60 days and adults 18 - 24 days. Member Walker questioned if there was a trained staff to handle violent behavior. Dr. Alan Williams, Child and Adolescent Program Director, stated that all staff were trained fully to respond to psychiatric emergencies. The staff was trained in non-violent crises prevention. There were lots of layers of security built into the program. They included everything from direct patient manage- ment to a system which would restrict the activity of the patient until they were deemed appropriate. All parimeter doors were locked. Member Edwards questioned, from a traffic standpoint, whether Charter will provide after -care kinds of services which would increase usage in the evening. Mr. Schact noted that they will include a consideration for continuing care program. -4- .� July 25, 1988 Pieminutes • 11 Member Edwards asked if their facilities were family facilities Mr. Schact stated that this would be the case since family treatment was a very important component in an individuals treatment. Member Edwards asked that if market was a regional one, did Charter antici- pate that families would have a prolonged stay in the community. Mr. Schact stated that this was possible. Mr. Schact noted that at opening, this facility would generate about 80 new positions increasing to about 120 at full capacity. That translated into an annual payroll of about 3.5 million dollars. Member Walker questioned the nature of the community programs. Mr. Schact noted that a great deal of education needed to be done. For example, they would: 1) work with the school systems to provide seminars and free assessments, and 2) respond to local businesses, local municipalities, county governments, and state governments. Due to their affiliations, they have access to some of the finest minds. These people were available on a rotating basis to go anywhere in the Charter system. Member Walker questioned how Charter would address the issue of energy con- servation in order to create a facility worthy of receiving the points on the evaluation. Eldon Ward noted that this facility was proposed to have an elaborate energy management system. The guidance system allowed for receiving credit for making a committed effort to reduce energy consumption beyond that normally required by city code. Charter has used this system in a number of their hospitals. On the average, they were saving a minimum of $22,000.00 a year in energy. The Building Inspection Department would like to see the finished construction document for the building. This would be done by mid August. He noted that Charter had provided a letter committing to meet the criteria of going beyond the normal requirements. Chairman O'Dell stated that the plan showed a number of places that say building expansion, future pool, and multi purpose court. She questioned whether these areas were for future expansion or would they be built as part of Phase 1. Chip Little, Director of Site Management, stated that the multi -purpose court would be part of the first phase of construction but the pool would be con- structed possibly a year after that. Chairman O'Dell questioned when the construction of phase II parking would be built. -5- July 25, 1988 P&Z Mir. es Mr. Little stated that it would be built at a later date, when there was a need for additional beds that would require additional parking. He noted that until that time, the area would be left as open space and landscaped with trees and native grasses. Mr. Little noted that the trip generation for a facility like this was usually less than 400 trips during a 24 hour period for its employees. Most trip generation was through employee shift changes which occur three times daily. Normally they would adjust shifts so as not to add to any additional impact on adjacent land uses. Member Walker asked what the total expansion of beds could be. Mr. Little stated that initially, it would be a 60 bed unit but that it would be possible to expand another 20 beds if there was a need. Member Edwards stated that in fairness to the public, there should be some commentary on whether or not southeast Fort Collins would become the psy- chiatric center of the world. Mr. Schact addressed this issue as he stated that the need in the northern Colorado area had been identified by a number of providers as long as four or five years ago. Linda Ripley stated that the staff recommendation was for approval with two conditions: 1) The applicant submits information sufficient for staff to justify eight energy conservation points needed for the project to gain their required minimum 50 percent on the Business Services Uses Point Chart and 2) The City receives a letter from the State Highway Department to indicate that they had no objection to the proposed location of Corbet Drive. Sally Myers, a resident of Fort Collins and a R.N. with eight years of psychiat- ric nursing experience, stated that she was pleased that Charter Medical has plans to locate in Fort Collins. She noted that they have an excellent reputation among other psychiatric treatment facilities. Mike Byrne, President of G.T. Land Colorado, Inc., stated his company spent a lot of time with Charter before they agreed, on behalf of their clients, to sell this property to them. They wanted to make sure that it would have a posi- tive impact, and that Charter was conscientious about the landscape and the other issues that they believe are very critical to the entire Harmony Road corridor. They were totally pleased at the approach Charter Medical has taken. Member Kern moved to approve Charter Hospital, Wildwood Farm, P.U.D., First Filing with the two conditions as outlined by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Klataske. Member Edwards amended the motion regarding the issue of contiguity and of finding that, because of the existence of urban standards, intrastructure on the point chart, the issue of contiguity be awarded those points. Particularly so that the application does not have to achieve its points based on energy bonus which remains somewhat undefined at this point. Im July 25, 1988 P&2einutcs • 0 Member Kern asked if in the first condition, did staff intend to delete the words and energy calculation. Ms. Ripley stated that it was left out because the Building Department said they needed calculations. Member Kern stated he would like to see some confirmatory type of calcula- tions included. He also asked that since this project is continuous to Hewlett- Packard, are we cutting corners for not giving points for that and if they were to receive points for that, would they receive the number of necessary points. Chairman O'Dell stated that she supported this motion because it conformed to the City's Goals and Objectives and Land Use Policies. The motion to approve carried 6-0. MIDLAND GREENS PUD - Master Plan - County Referral - #7-88A Linda Ripley gave a description. She noted that staff drafted a preliminary proposal, which was sent to the applicant in mid June, which listed five conditions for approval. These conditions are: 1) that the developer agree to deed the open space along Highway 287 to Larimer County as permanent open space; 2) that the developer provide a landscape plan for the 250 foot wide strip along Highway 287. The plan should be a naturalistic design concept that builds upon the landscape already established along the canal. The developer should agree to construct the approved plan and maintain the plant material for a two year period after which time maintenance would be the responsibil- ity of the County; 3) that the developer provide a set of design guidelines would address fencing and landscaping of private development adjacent to the open space; 4) that the developer dedicate at least four acres of land in exchange for park land fees, and; 5) that the developer grant the local governments a three year option to purchase an additional 31 acres of land. The local government have the exclusive right to purchase the land either in whole or in part for three years from the date of Master Plan approval. The fair market value would be determined at time of purchase. If the local government did not purchase the land within three years, the developer would retain the right to develop the property as proposed on the Master Plan. Dave Shoup, who represented the applicant, indicated how the developer responded to the proposal. In regards to the first condition of deeding the 250 foot strip as permanent open space, it had been agreed to with two minor exceptions: 1) that while the area would be predominantly open space, it would have some uses which could be used for other than open space, such as a community recreation facility, possibly a day care center, or a church. They extended it another 50 feet so that the 700 foot stretch depth of the open space would be 200 feet rather that 250 feet but that space would be added to another open space. The depth of area that would be about 650 feet as pro- posed to the 250 feet; 2) the other exception was a 250 feet parcel. The purpose of that parcel would be to add area to the existing Alpine Autoban Facility. The developers have agreed to provide a landscape plan for the area. They would be amenable to include the guidelines for fencing in the final 7- July 25, 1988 P&Z Mit.:,tes approval. In regards to the four acres, there was a problem with the suggestion that they be purchased by a waiver of park fees since this was not a joint venture but a jointly submitted planned unit development for two separate owners. What they suggested was that land from one owner be purchased by granting benefits to the other owner. As to the fifth point, to the extent that if the City and or County were to exercise its option to purchase the remain- ing lots in the Consolidated Industries portion and some nine lots in the back corner of the Midland Greens portion, then there would not be the 100 lots to grant the open space credit on. Some additional funding would be needed to be found. The fifth point also presented some difficulty. The owners were rcluc- tant to grant a three. year option for a simple reason that it would take the property out of any type of market for a period of time. A right of refusal had been suggested by the County staff as an alternative in the event that a sale for the land would be desired by the City staff. The City and/or County would have the right to buy at that price prior to any one else purchasing it. One other point was in regard to the fifth point was that if the land were purchased as open space, there would be no physical need to build the addi- tional roadway. He also pointed out that with the right of first refusal rather than a firm option it may be possible to maintain this potential. The phasing plan would have to be adjusted. Member Edwards questioned what Mr. Shoup's time needs would be if there were final details which needed to be accomplished. Mr. Shoup stated that they were several months away from starting. Member Edwards asked if there would be an objection to a tabling at this point of this item pending further negotiations and agreement on the June 9 letter and its five conditions. Mr. Shoup noted that he has not been instructed by his clients to offer that as an option. Tom Peterson suggested that staff would hesitate to suggest passing an approval recommendation at least until the five details from the June 9 letter were worked out. He urged the Board to consider a resolution that would: a) keep the recommendation for denial which was set forth in staff recommendation until the five points are worked out; b) suggest to the County to table this matter for 30 days until their meeting in late August, and; c) if Master Plan were approved then attach the five conditions. Paul Eckman expressed a possible concern with the right of refusal. The amount of time the right of refusal given would be a problem with the three governments. Member Kern asked Mr. Eckman where the right of first refusal is to be incorporated in the recommendations since that has the nature of a binding agreement for the City. -8- July 25, 1988 P&*Ainutes 0 Mr. Eckman stated that it would not be making an agreement with the appli- cant but a recommendation was being made to the County as to whether the right of refusal was acceptable as opposed to the option that was earlier proposed. Member Kern questioned the waiver of park fees as to whether it pertained to the County park fees, the city's, or both. Mr. Peterson stated that it pertained to the county's. Mr. Shoup asked that if the Board felt the right of first refusal was acceptable then what would be the appropriate time period. Mr. Peterson stated that he suggested to the Board a delay of 30 days so that there would be time to wrap up details. Mr. Shoup stated that what he meant was time period for the right of refusal. Mr. Peterson stated that a six month or year time frame was more realistic. Member Shepard questioned the implication of tabling. If the Board recom- mended to table it, would the County still hear it and make a decision? Mr. Peterson stated that it would be up to the County Planning Commission based on a recommendation. Member Edwards questioned whether the Board had the option of referring this issue to staff rather than tabling. Member Walker stated that he felt that the five conditions were reasonable. He felt the right of refusal would be very difficult to work with and what staff has proposed would be more workable given the nature of the governmental entities. Chairman O'Dell questioned what the proposed zone was of the community use area. Mr. Shoup stated that the County would look at a zone and would permit whatever density was decided on jointly. He said that would probably be an El-Estatc zone. Chairman O'Dell questioned whether this would fill up the entire space or leave part as open space. Mr. Shoup indicated that it was something that could be negotiated. Chairman O'Dell stated that she felt it was inappropriate to have any of this land zoned as commercial zoning since it was not in conformance with the intergovernmental agreement and she would not support that under any circum- stances. 19 July 25, 1988 P&Z Mrtates Member Walker moved to approve the plan with the five conditions as stated by the staff. Member Kern seconded the motion only if it was changed to say grant approval only with the meeting of those five conditions. Member Walker changed the motion to read "to be in substantial compliance with these five conditions." Member Kern seconded. Chairman O'Dell questioned condition One on whether the open space included the entire length of the property, including the area the developer has noted to be business. Ms. Ripley stated that when the condition was written it did not include that item. Motion for approval carried 6-0. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. -10-