Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/27/1988i r . PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES June 27, 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. Board members who had attended the worksession on June 24, 1988, included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Jim Klataske, and Alternate Bernie Strom. Board members present at the meeting included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Don Crews, Jim Klataske and Alternate Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ken Wgido, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman. Acting Chairman Dave Edwards noted that The Westside Neighborhood Plan would be heard on July 11 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. SMember Crews gave a farewell speech. He indicated that many good projects had been approved in his seven years on the Board. He also noted the many changes that have come to Fort Collins during the 35 years he has lived here, amenities which were due to change - growth. He added that an individual has responsibility to do something for the community and asked people to get involved because it was satisfying. (See Attachment 1). Chairman Edwards asked for a legal determination of a quorum. Paul Eckman responded that four members present at the meeting constituted a quorum, and the number voting determined the item's disposition; i.e., there were five members present constituting a quorum. If 2 members abstained from an item it would take only 2 of the 3 remaining members to approve or deny the item. Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1, April 25, 1988 and May 23, 1988, minutes; Item 2, 20-82D HARBOR WALK ESTATES, PHASE IIl, PUD -Preliminary and Final; Item 3, 53-85R CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOL- OGY PUD, 9th FILING (Centre Village, Phase One) - Final; Item 4, 78-81F, CIMARRON PLAZA PUD (New Giant Video) - Preliminary and Final; Item 5, 13-82AF, OAK RIDGE PUD - Amended Master Plan; Item 6, 13-82AG, OAK RIDGE VILLAGE, 6th Filing, PUD - Preliminary & Final; Item 7, 96-81L, RESIDENCES AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS PUD - Final; Item 8, 19-85C, CACHE LA POUDRE INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD - Preliminary & Final; Item 9, 11-82A, HOUSING AUTHORITY Non -Conforming Use Expansion; Item 10, • Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 Page 2 50-88, RIGDEN FARM ANNEXATION. The Discussion Agenda included ITEM 11, 69-84F, FORT RAM VILLAGE PUD, 2nd Filing - Final; ITEM 14, 20-87A, 1990 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL; Item 15, 58-86B, RICHARD'S LAKE PUD, PAR- CEL A - Preliminary 8t Final; and Item 16, 40-88, STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral. Item 56-88, WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN -Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was to be continued to a special July 11, 1998, meeting. Item 12, 46-88, PARK SOUTH PUD - Master Plan, and Item 13, 46-88A, PARK SOUTH PUD, Parcel A -Preliminary, as well as Item 17, 7-88A, MIDLAND GREENS PUD - Master Plan Country Referral, were conti- nued to the July 25, 1988, meeting. The Board removed Items 1, 2, 3, 10 and Ken Parker asked that Item 6 be heard. Members Kern and Crews stated they would abstain from item 10, Chairman Edwards from item 2, because of perceived conflicts of interest. Member Kern moved to approve Items 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Consent Agenda, Member Crews seconded and motion carried 5-0. Member Crews moved to approve Item 2, Member Strom seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Member Strom moved to approve item 10, Member Klataske seconded, motion carried 3-0. Member Klataske indicated the May 23, 1988, meeting minutes contained an error on Page 1, three lines from the bottom and should be changed to read the easterly 10 feet, not 100 feet. Member Crews moved to approve Item 1, Member Strom seconded, motion carried 5-0. Ken Parker, 5213 Honeylocust, asked what the word "unit" in the description referred to. Sherry Albertson -Clark, City Planner, responded that a lot or unit referred to one single family dwelling. She explained the site layout, stating the lots varied in size from approximately 9000 square feet and larger and McMurray was the eastern boundary. Member Kern interjected the lots ranged in size from 7,800 to 15,600 square feet. Member Strom moved to approve Item 6, Member Crews seconded, motion carried 4-0. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, 9th Filing - 53-85R Member Crews stated he would be abstaining from the vote on this item as would Member Kern because of a perceived conflicts. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff description recommending approval with the condition the sidewalk north of the site be constructed as part of this development. Frank Vaught, representing Colorado State Research Foundation, the applicant, indicated he was informed this afternoon of the sidewalk problem. He was surprised that the extension was a requirement of this proposal since it was a part of the Sundering Townhomes project. He didn't feel the applicant should be responsible to build this four foot sidewalk. Planning and Zon• Minutes - June 27, 1988 • Page 3 • Sherry Albertson -Clark stated the sidewalk was on the submitted site plan but a site check revealed it had not been installed. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, added engineering comments that it was customary to leave the sidewalk out when adjoining property was not developed and the sidewalk will be put in at a time the vacant property develops. Member Klataske asked if it was appropriate to vacate the access easement. Mr. Herzig indicated that in the future it would be vacated and revert back to a homeowner's association and left as green space, which was what it was now; however, there were no plans as of yet to vacate it. Mr. Frank noted it was left as an option for the future and staff didn't feel a connection to Shields was necessary with the CAT development. The Board could go to City Council for this vacation if they felt it was necessary. Chairman Edwards questioned whether the Board could approve this item with a condition the applicant doesn't agree with. Mr. Eckman indicated, due to the lateness of the condition, there would be no problem requiring the sidewalk. The law was supportive if it was related to the health, safety, and welfare of the City. There was no public input Member Strom asked if the sidewalk was City stan- dard and Mr. Frank replied yes. In addition, he stated, it was needed for access because the development to the east would be fairly intense. Member Strom felt the condition was for the health, safety, and welfare of the City and he moved to approve the project with the condition the four foot sidewalk on the north edge of the property be installed. Member Klataske seconded and motion carried 5-0. FORT RAM VILLAGE PUD, 2nd Filing, FINAL - #69-84F Joe Frank gave the staff report noting there were 112 less units than pre- viously submitted bringing the total to 138 units. Frank Vaught, representing Topanga Enterprises the developer of the site, pointed out the improvements: 1) 2 vs. 1 access points; 2) Building clustered in center increasing setbacks, especially to the north; 3) Three different configurations of building (12, 10, and 6 units each); and 4) 2 1/2 story vs. 3 story buildings. The density has been reduced from 18.4 to 10.8 du/acre and the open space remains consistent. Parking was increased from 291 spaces to 324 spaces. The neighborhoods' request for protective covenants was mitigated by adding two notes to the site plan limiting one bedroom units to one person or couple and one tenant per bedroom in the other units. In addition, all vehicles must be registered. The new project included a sign/barrier system for Constitution Avenue, a decrease in density, and reduced traffic impact. A traffic light was not warranted by this plan. The extension of the Detention Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 Page 4 Pond to Skyline Drive has been completed adding 1.1 acres of additional open space. The water pressure problem should be resolved when the new line, currently being installed, was activated. Only the four bedroom units, 42 units out of 138, have fireplaces and the project is consistent with Phase 1. Member Kern asked what the change in tenant numbers were. Mr. Vaught indicated person density is difficult to ascertain but if all one bedroom units have 2 people it would be 402 total people. Making some assumptions the person density for the initial plan was 409. Mr. Frank felt the project was better planned and more compatible with the neighborhood. Traffic had been reduced by about ten percent and staff recommended approval. The second issue on the project, that of four unrelated persons in the unit, required the plan to meet certain conditions regarding parking, public facilities, open space, etc. Staff recommended that four unrelated persons be allowed on this project. Donna Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court, noted she was restricting her remarks to a request that three 12-plex units or their equivalent be removed from Filing 2 to scale down the project. The property deviated from what was approved several years ago. The number of units and buildings had been decreased but the development was not smaller. Building mass had increased. If you subtracted the detention pond to see what the density would be the project compared to the Woodbox across the street. Many criteria have been pushed to their limits; i.e., traffic on Plum. The community could gain from some experimental aspects of the project, as the four bedroom units, but we wanted the Board to be aware that, looking at the existing projects, lots of doubling up of occupancy would occur. There was a gain in putting as many students as close to CSU as possible, the architectural plans are superior to earlier but, because of the experimental nature, the criteria was pushed. The Board should use caution in the number of units allowed on this site. Bob Osterhout, 1204 Constitution, had three major concerns: 1) Detention pond had water lying in it, had been pumped out, but it was stagnant and mosquito bearing. 2) Across from Wendy's another mosquito -bearing sludge pond exists. 3) The traffic on West Elizabeth, which is not an arterial but acts as one. Skyline/Constitution was four lanes decreasing to two lanes. The majority of the traffic goes south onto Elizabeth or across Elizabeth to Constitution. Driving east on Elizabeth from Constitution was difficult. Chairman Edwards asked status on detention pond and the standing water. Lloyd McLaughlin, Civil Engineer for the architect, replied the detention pond was a requirement of Filing 1 and would not be completed until this fall. The sludge pond on CSU property was not part of this project. Mr. Frank noted he would relay Mr. Osterhout's concerns to storm drainage. Rick Ensdorff addressed the widening of Elizabeth and indicated the traffic data suggests widening was not necessary at this time. There should be merge Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 • Page 5 • signs which indicate the change from two to one lanes. He would check to insure they were properly located. A signal was not warranted now but the Traffic Department will continue to monitor the site. Member Kern moved to approve the project. Member Crews seconded. Member Crews stated that he had voted for approval of the preliminary and found this project, with the decrease in units, an improvement. Member Kern noted similar feelings. He felt the City experiment with four bedroom apartments may be a nice compact way to be near the University. He was bothered that policing methods were ineffective and hoped a better method could be found .but the design package was improved. Member Strom reiter- ated the above comments and was concerned with the effect of traffic on Plum. He felt the City needed to monitor this closely. Member Klataske stated the overall concept from the original was improved. Member Crews asked if it was necessary to vote on the four unrelated persons aspect and Mr. Eckman responded it was part of the application for final. Member Kern amended his motion to include Board approval of four unrelated persons per unit since the Board was satisfied the applicant has provided what was necessary to satisfy the LDGS. Member Crews concurred. Motion carried 5-0. • Chairman Edwards noted "experiment" had a negative connotation and hoped it could be expressed as innovative. He also hoped this concept would not be concentrated in the West Elizabeth area or that developers would not be required to have protective covenants in all cases. 1990 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL-#20-87A George Galicia of Poudre R-1 School District gave the staff description and indicated that the property was adjacent to a proposed City park. Joe Frank noted this was a Special Review as the School District was exempt from codes but State Statute gave the City review considerations. The 30 acre site contains an elementary school and the proposed junior high school. Planning concerns focused on traffic generated, both pedestrian and vehicular. Streets and sidewalks were not adequate and these comments needed to be passed on to the school district. Chairman Edwards asked what the Board options were of Mr. Eckman. He indicated the school board must submit the site plan for review. Planning and Zoning Board can require a public hearing of the school board. Since the P&Z Board was acting in an advisory roll they can either approve the proposal, request a hearing, or disapprove the proposal (in which instance it would take a 2/3 vote of school board to approve the proposal). 0 Planning and Zoning l%inutes - June 27, 1988 Page 6 Member Strom asked that the service area be described. Mr. Galida responded the Boundary Committee was responsible for establishing the boundaries and would probably do that sometime before school opens, usually within approxi- mately a 1 1/2 mile radius. Over 1 1/2 mile requires busing. The District has constructed a school pathway so that Imperial Estates has pedestrian access. Member Strom asked if there was pedestrian access from Taft Canyon and Mr. Galida indicated no. Member Strom noted the need to move quickly and decide who should provide street and sidewalk access. Member Crews also had serious concerns. Schools built in isolated areas lack roads and sidewalks. He wanted the message relayed to the Board regarding this concern. Mr. Galida responded the District, City and County all work under a diverse set of circumstances to get kids to schools. Chairman Edwards indicated that it was a worthy goal to combine elementary and junior high schools, someday the location will be the right place, but the safety aspect needs to be viewed. Therefore, P&Z has a re:'.ponsibility to speak to the health, safety, and welfare of the City because it'. hard to get parents concerned when the boundary can't be identified. He °elt the P&Z Board should take its strongest option and request that the school board review this proposal in front of the public. Mr. Galida interjected that there had been a special Neighborhood Meeting already as well as discussion through the PTO and at school board meetings which were open to the public. Member Kern asked if the public had knowledge of the P&Z Board's concerns which resulted from this recent traffic study. He felt a meeting where just these concerns were addressed was necessary. Chairman Edwards read a letter from Lopez Elementary's principal indicating "we" must do our best to protect the children against themselves and requested watching for safety problems. Chairman Edwards asked for a motion. Member Kern noted we're looking for safe access for students and wondered how to get the school board's attention and wanted public discussion. Mr. Eckman stated the Board should request a public hearing without approving or disapproving the proposal. Member Strom indicated he felt this was an appropriate site, the plan works but his concern was with access and safety. He moved to recommend a public hearing, Member Kern seconded. Mr. Eckman stated regarding 31-23209 CRS the Board should find favorably on conditions of location and structure. Mr. Frank indicated he would recommend • • Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 Page 7 0 a public hearing to the school board. Member Crews asked that the Planning and Zoning Board be kept informed and be notified when a public hearing date was set. RICHARD'S LAKE PUD, PARCEL A - Preliminary & Final - 58-86B Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff description of project indicating it was on discussion agenda because of unresolved issue with the mineral rights of the owner. It was her understanding, however, that "as of today" they have reached substantial agreement. Staff recommended approval as all land use issues are addressed and recommends a variance regarding density. Roger Prenzlow, representing applicant, described this 2.3 acre portion of the 184 acres total project. He noted the spillway was at an elevation of 70.2. Art Vermillion, Park Oil and Gas representative, indicated his company and Mrs. Hoffman have come to a verbal agreement and he emphasized mineral owners' rights need to be considered in future applications. Member Crews moved to approve this phase of the project stating it was a good plan. Member Kern seconded. Motion carried 5-0. STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral - 40-88 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff description of this gravel extraction proposal on a 58 acre site. Mike Refer, Sterling Sand and Gravel employee, asked the City Attorney what the County Referral process was. He was concerned as Sterling had no requests from the City for additional information regarding this project and, therefore, no input from the applicant. He was at the meeting, he thought, because of Item 8. Sherry Albertson -Clark noted it was in the area of joint planning concern and automatically referred to City for review. Staff had seen this item for the first time in March and worked with the County staff to obtain information, Mr. Frank added it was referred to the City because of potential impact and the Planning and Zoning Board would make a recommendation to the County. Mr. Refer asked what staff recommendation was. Sherry Albertson -Clark responded staff conditions: 1) That Taft Hill Road be sary the applicant will be responsible. speed be installed by the applicant. was recommending approval with two monitored and if maintenance is neces- 2) That signage for truck traffic and Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Refer wondered where in the process the project was. He noted that no recommendation had been passed on to the applicant prior to this meeting. He asked for a continuance in order to check on Sterling's response toward the Taft Hill maintenance condition. Chairman Edwards stated the Board decision was only a recommendation to the County and Sterling can respond at the County review. Mr. Refer interjected that Elaine Spencer at the County had no traffic concerns. Chairman Edwards asked legal opinion on tabling. Paul Eckman responded that applicant can request tabling and so can the Board. Our next meeting will be July 25 and the County's next meeting will be July 27 making a very short preparation time for the County. There were also a number of citizens at this meeting who wished to hear this item. Member Crews felt the people present should have the opportunity to talk. Sherry Albertson -Clark stated the City had no specific stand on improvements and believed there was no ultimate end user to approach for improvements. She stated a complete, detailed analysis had been presented although some neighbors may have additional information since there was a lengthy history (since the 1950's) of gravel extraction. Lucia Liley, represented six property owners, introduced Stacy Miller, property owner. Lucia replied their group also got no information regarding the project although they've been dealing with Sterling on this project 4-5 months. Stacy Miller, 2202 1/2 N. Taft Hill, spokesperson for the group gave a history of the property indicating that Sterling was not even the owner of the property in this proposal. Also the property is within 100 feet of a property owners' front door and all of the groups' properties face this new piece of land (in 1985 review none of their properties faced the subject proposal). She then spoke of each piece of property, effects of the proposed project on each piece of property, and their joint concerns regarding the decline in quality of life, decreased property values, effect on individual occupants, water problems, reclamation, etc., and showed slides of each property. Lucia Liley indicated this was the group's fourth hearing and they have at least two more to attend. She indicated it has been a frustrating time with the applicant withdrawing, making unfilled promises to meet with the group, etc. The earlier special review was allowed because the proposal was seen as being harmonious, not having a detrimental effect on the neighborhood, no negative effect on property values, and no adverse environmental factors. This proposal, however, is different. There was an impact on neighboring properties with noise and visible pollution plus a cumulative impact from all combined projects. She added the applicant does not have a good track record either; their hours of operations were long (5am - 9pm), landscaping was not installed in a timely manner, etc. She passed out a handout from Dr. Stephen Ackley, Planning and Zoning Minutes - June 27, 1988 Page 9 • 0 Department of Audiology at Colorado State University, regarding the noise levels of the machines used (Attachment 2) and a handout on landscape review by a forester (Attachment 3). Sterling's way to mitigate loss of water was by taking from the ditch and the group's engineers and the group had a consul- tant review the groundwater problems (Attachment 4). In addition, Don Shannon, appraiser, indicated there would be a substantial decrease in property value as a result of this proposal. Lucia asked staff to recommend denial of the project. Sherry noted the City had not previously seen the neighborhood information. Staff basis for compatibility was on land use and Sterling's commitments to buffering, and limited traffic impact. Member Crews stated in good conscience he could not vote for the project and moved to recommend denial. Member Strom seconded. Member Kern added he would vote for denial also because of the information submitted regarding noise and mitigation was insufficient. The applicant has not provided information to refute Ackley's findings. Member Strom agreed there were serious questions with noise and the material submitted by the applicant did not indicate enough buffering. Chairman Edwards indicated City was more restrictive than the County but mining was not harmonious, in fact the project fails on all four counts. Motion to recommend denial was approved 5-0. Member Strom moved to adjourn the meeting until July 11 when the Westside Neighborhood Plan would be heard. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting was adjourned 9:55 p.m. 0