Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/24/1987• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AUGUST 24, 1987 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Linda Lang (arriving at 6:37 p.m.), Bernie Strom, and Alternate Jim Klataske. Board members who attended the August 21 work session included Don Crews, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, Dave Edwards, and Jim Klataske. Excused were Linda Lang, Sharon Brown, and Sanford Kern. Staff members present at the Board meeting included Tan Peterson, Joe Frank, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Gail Ault, Jim Newell and Mike Herzig. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Planning Director, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Consent Agenda noting staff was requesting item 69-84E Fort Ram Village PUD, 1st Filing - Final be pulled. Ttems remaining on the Consent Agenda were 1) Minutes of the July 27, 1987 meeting, 2) #25-81D Villages at Harmony West, 2nd Filing, Tracts B,C,D,F,H, and G - Preliminary - One Year Extension, 4) #23-878 Oak Ridge West, 1st Filing, Healthcare International- Final, 5) #17-87 Ponderosa Park . PUD Replat - Final, 6) #47-87,A Vine Drive Business Park Annexation and Zoning 7) #12-87,A Albrecht Annexation and Zoning, 8) #49-87,A Link-N- Greens Annexation and Zoning, and 9) #46-87 Kissell Investments Rezoning -County Referral. Board Member Edwards indicated he would abstain from item 4 due to conflict of interest. Member O'Dell moved to approve the Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Member Edwards seconded. Motion car- ried 7-0. Member Kern moved to approve item 4 on the Consent Agenda. Met- ber Stran seconded. Motion passed 6-0. FORT RAM VILLAGE PUD, 1st FILING - Final - #69-84E Chairman Crews and Sandy Kern noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote. Staff member Debbie deBesche gave project description. Frank Vaught stated he was representing the developer. He commented he did not have a presentation ready since he felt there would not be. opposition in regards to the project. He explained the proposed reduction in density for the project. He stated there would be approximately a 20% decrease in units, from 312 to 218. He indicated there would be adequate parking available. The required spaces for parking were 401 but they would be pro- viding 491 spaces. • Debbie deSesche stated staff recommends approval with one condition: that the project would be contingent upon the developer closing the transaction with CSU before December 31, 1987. She stated if the project was not closed before this date the approval would be considered void. Planning & Zoning Board I utes August 24, 1987 page 2 Member Edwards inquired if Mr. Eckman would explain the condition. Paul Eckman, Legal Representative, stated he was approached by the attorney at CSU. He indicated CSU is the legal owner not the equitable owner. He stated the project was conditional to bird CSU only if they develop the property and place a sunset on it at the end of the year. Tan Peterson stated the Board has long held the policy that final approval is not granted with conditions unless there is unusual or unique circum- stances. He indicated this is an isolated case because the landowner is making the request. He stated staff has also adopted the same philosophy as the Board. He indicated the condition is reasonable for the project. Paul Eckman stated CSU already has an approved PUD on the development. He indicated CSU is concerned that if the project is not conditioned and the project does not go through they might be faced with having to cane back to the Board to get the old PUD approved. This would be a waste of time for all involved. Greg White, PO Box 701 Loveland, representing Matador Inc., expressed his concern regarding four unit apartments housing no more than 3 unrelated persons. He stated it would be possible to have up to eight individuals in one unit, therefore, violating the zoning code. He felt the additional parking spaces that would be required would be greater than the number of individuals anticipated. Paul Eckman gave a definition of family. He stated looking at the defini- tion of the code could serve as a limitation. Dennis R. Pfeifer, Cambridge Apartments manager, 1113 W. Plum, noted his major concern was traffic impact on Plum. Plum has narrow sidewalks cur- rently inadequate for pedestrian traffic and the Plum/Shields intersection is already a problem area. Member Lang asked Mr. Pfeifer if he had been present when the preliminary was presented and he responded no. Debbie deBesche indicated the applicant submitted an amendment to the existing traffic study. As a result, the following improvements will be required: (1) widening of Constitution to incorporate a left turn lane, (2) completion of the connection between Constitution and Plum, (3) restripping of Elizabeth and Constitution for left turn bays. In talking with Mr. Ens- dorff it was indicated a light was not needed at this time but the inter- section would be monitored by the City. Member Edwards asked the number of units in the original application and what is being requested now. Mrs. deBesche indicated it has decreased from 312 to 218 or approximately 20 percent. Member Edwards asked for a comparison of bedrooms and Mr. Peterson indi- cated all items have been factored into the decision. • Planning & Zoning Boa,Minwtes • Augu: t 24, 1987 page 3 Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye, attempted to clarify the types of units. There would be 62 four -bedroom units designed for one occupant per room arcs fully furnished. Each room could be locked. Art March, Attorney representing the developer, presented another interpre- tation of the zoning ordinance. The project intent to have four bedroom units would he a variance of the zoning ordinance and allowed through the PUD process. Nancy Gray, interested citizen, had no intention of speaking but felt her historical viewpoint might be of help. At the time the ordinance for no more than three unrelated people was passed, in the 70's when many individ- uals had extra money, people were moving out of the CORE area, houses were being bought up in that area often at inflated prices and rented to some- times 10 students for optimum return. This was to protect the integrity of single family dwellings and not intended for apartments. If this continu- ally happens perhaps this ordinance needs to be examined. Member Edwards felt Mrs. Gray articulated the shortcomings of the defini- tion; however, he felt the Boar] was not voting based on the definition but for or against the project. • Member Lang moved to approve Fort Ram Village PUD, 1st Filing - Final with the condition as stipulated in the staff packet. Member Edwards seconded and motion carried 5-0 with Members Crews and Kern abstaining. KING GROUP HOME - #36-87 Debbie deBesche gave staff description of this project at 505 Brown for up to four elderly individuals. Bernie Cain, representing Mrs. King, noted it was up to four individuals, non needing nursing care, non -drivers with no cars, and the exterior and interior of. the home were to remain the same. Mrs. deBesche said staff was recommending approval with six conditions: 1) Horne limited to four elderly individuals, 62 or over in age; 2) maximum of two staff persons; 3) residents will not drive or store automobiles on the property; 4) no exterior changes other than minor facial charges; 5) approval is non -transferable to successors; and 6) yard and landscaping shall be maintained including trimming of bushes along rear property line. Bernie Cain indicated Mrs. Kira was willing to deal with the six staff con- ditions. Member Strom moved to approve the Group Hone with the six staff conditions • and Member Kern seconded. Planning & Zoning Board t ates f ` August 24, 1987 page 4 Member Edwards asked if the non -transferable condition was necessary as it seems we have been requiring this on the last several group hones, or should it apply only in certain circumstances. Mrs. deBesche indicated it was basically a result of a neighborhood meeting where the neighborhood indicated concern if the home ownership should change. Member Kern felt he could agree to the monitoring of the site. Member O'Dell was concerned about successive owners. Does the original owner maintain the right if the group home use ceases? Member Kern felt in that instance the property would revert to the original zoning. Legal Representative Eckman noted it was an interesting question whether there could be abandonment of group hone approval. He indicated he would work with Peter Barnes on this problem before the next meeting. Using the statement when the applicant is willing to be bound by this conditions pre- sents no problem. Chairman Crews questioned if a property ceased use as a group hone would it still be counted as approved within that area prohibiting others from starting a home. Member Edwards asked if the criteria was applicable in all instances. Is an owner -occupied group home preferred over corporate -owned? Which envi- ronment is healthier, less detrimental. The approach of "owner -occupied" is not necessarily the best approach. Member Kern shared the same concerns but felt the Board needed to keep con- trol and have a coherent plan. More discussion should be held. Mr. Eckman noted there were better ways to regulate management of a home than terminating on transfer. The State also imposes regulations. Since in this case the applicant is willing we can impose this limitation. Member Edwards noted the application said there would be no cars and the Zoning Department would check on this. He asked for further clarification on medical attention and whether drugs would be dispensed and who would regulate this. Bernie Cain stated Mrs. King was licensed by the State and there were cer- tain restrictions. She cannot dispense or prescribe drugs since she is not a licensed RN. Member Strap moved to approve the group hone with the six staff conditions. Member Kern seconded. Notion carried 7-0. Planning & Zoning Boo Minutes • August 24, 1987 page 5 HORSEIO0IH COMMONS POD - Amended Master Plan - #96-79IF HORSE1002Si COMMONS POD - TRACT A - Preliminary - #96-81H Member Lang noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote. Ted Shepard, staff planner, gave project description for both items asking they be reviewed concurrently and voted on separately. John Barnett, ZVFK representing the developer, explained the Grease Monkey layout and surrounding area uses. He indicated staff approved the project with three conditions: 1) Building Inspection Plans Examiner shall review the building plans insuring it meets or exceeds the Model Energy Code, 2) Additional buffering will be provided; and 3) the final plan shall provide a detailed sign schematic. Member Kern asked the distance of the corner of the building to the resi- dences at the north. Mr. Barnett indicated it was approximately 60 feet. The structure is setback 20 feet from the property line. Member O'Dell asked if the area was originally multi -family and Mr. Barnett indicated it was. • Member Edwards asked about the proposed usage characteristics: Can tires be rotated, car washed, vacuumed? Would there be gas pumps? A potential for gas pumps? A potential for a car wash? High speed ratchets for ser- vice? Mr. Barnett indicated it would provide quick services --oil change, lube, vacuum. The advertising indicated services completed within 10 minutes. There would be no car wash. It would be difficult to revamp the building for one and quite expensive. There would be no gas pumps either. Mr. Bar- nett was not aware of a potential high noise level created by air tools. Member Kern asked the hours of operation and what the neighborhood would see and hear. Mr. Barnett did not know the hours. The landscape screening at north would buffer the neighbors and the building itself would buffer the noise. He pointed out buffering affects on a picture of the eleva- tions. Member Kern asked about the car headlights on entering and leaving the pro- ject. Mr. Barnett indicated they would enter from the northwest and leave at the southeast driving back to the access easement at the west. Member Kern questioned noise and Mr. Barnett responded some minor noise would be anticipated. Member Kern felt the noise and light needed to be mitigated for the neighbors to the north and west. • Mr. Barnett stated the duplex units to the west were buffered by the lands- caping and staggered trees. Noise impact buffered by the walls of the building as well as the north landscaping. He anticipated the doors would be closed most of the time. Planning & zoning Board nutes August 24, 1987 page 6 Member O'Dell asked about the three parking spaces on the west for employees and where cars left for servicing might be parked. Mr. Barnett indicated they did not anticipate cars being left since the service is done while you wait. Member Kern asked why this use was not included in the commercial develop- ment just south of this tract. Mr. Barnett stated Circle K and various retail shops, possibly a fast food, and offices would be in that portion of the Master Plan. Auto -related use didn't seem to fit. The rapid turnover at Grease Monkey did not encourage people to leave their cars and go shopping. Member Kern asked about vacant spots in the commercial area and whether they would be suitable for Grease Monkey. Member Edwards asked if. Richmond was a collector street and it is. Mr. Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval for both the Master Plan and the Grease Monkey project with three conditions. Member Edwards felt the second condition of increased landscaping should include adding some to the west also since it was adjacent to residential property. Mr. Shepard remarked that was a good addition. Member Strom asked why the request for a use charge was being proposed when there were some available spots in the commercial proposal to the south. Mr. Shepard pointed out the applicant preferred the new location. The Point Chart review found it acceptable. Chairman Crews asked for an explanation of the point chart process. Mr. Shepard indicated the project had to meet the minimum in energy points. Member O'Dell felt it would have more than enough points if it was moved to the southern location. Member Strom asked what authority the Board had to say "No" if the project met the points. Member Kern noted meeting the point chart was a minimum. Member O'Dell asked what was east of Shields and east of the project. Mr. Shepard responded Cunningham Corner commercial and multi -family. Richmond will be signalized but the exact use has not been determined. Member Edwards inquired if the five resident structures included as Tract B on the Master Plan were maned by the applicant. Mr. Barnett stated Mr. William Stover owns Tract B and the remainder is being acquired by Kharg Ventures and partially by Center Ventures. He added Center Ventures will be acquiring Tracts A and D. Planning & Zoning Boa*inutes . August 24, 1987 page '7 Joe Frank stated the Board was treading on thin ice by preferring a differ- ent location when the proposal meets City policy. The Board needs to deal with why a location is not appropriate; i.e., adjacent to residential, impact of auto -related, but the point charts indicate the land use at that location meets City policy and to turn it down for that reason goes against. LDGS. Mr. Barnett stated the first condition, increasing the buffering, is a very important condition and at final the developer should demonstrate clearly that sufficient buffering is available. Chairman Crews asked for additional comments and a motion. Member Kern moved to deny the project. His greatest objection was to the preliminary because there was so little information available, no hours, light and noise factors. The use and location were not necessarily appro- priate and the energy conservation figures were unclear. Chairman Crews seconded the motion with the same concerns. He indicated the current Master Plan seemed to blend but this proposal moves commercial next to single family residences. • Member Edwards stated in theory most land uses can be mitigated and there- fore be compatible with a location. Other conditions as landscaping, buf- fering can help make it work. Member Strom indicated he will support the project. It hasn't been shown to be compatible and some information on noise emissions, shielding of light, control of hours of use, is still needed. Mr. Barnett stated he had no information tonight to answer some of the questions but could be easily obtained and can be presented at final. He would like the opportunity to show the Board the full plan. Member Edwards indicated that both the Master Plan and preliminary and final would need to be dealt with. Board should not confuse levels of review available to them. Chairman Crews restated the motion to deny the Master Plan. Members Edwards, O'Dell, Strom, and Klataske voted against the motion to deny. Mem- ber Edwards moved to approve the Master Plan and Member O'Dell seconded. The motion carried 4-2 with Members Kern and Crews voting against. Member Edwards discussed the preliminary item suggesting the conditions be reviewed. He felt a substantial increase in landscaping was necessary. Landscaping and setbacks can mitigate many problems citing Woodward Goerno-- ras as an example. Also the landscaping should include mature trees not 5 . gallon shrubs. Perhaps using hedges would be a possibility for an almost "screened" effect. Planning & Zoning Board ._nutes August 24, 1987 page 8 Member. Strom indicated noise would be a problem as landscaping is not an effective noise buffer. More information would be needed to make a deter- mination however. Member Kern stated he clearly felt more information was needed, hours of operation, lighting to be employed, noises and mitigation of noise. Mr. Barnett suggested additional conditions be added for presentation of documentation on these items at final. Chairman Crews suggested the possibility of tabling this item until Septem- ber when this information could be presented. Member O'Dell questioned who used the private access drive and whether the residences to the north depended on it. Mr. Barnett indicated they had access to their property from Shields as long as it remained single family. The size of the parcel was determined by this access easement. Member O'Dell was concerned about the parking spaces and how many employees could park cars. Mr. Barnett indicated there could be five employees at optimum. There were 3 employee spaces, two spaces for waiting, plus three in front of the bays and some additional area for parking where the exiting lane was 16 feet wide. He indicated the additional employees could park in the commercial area to the south, car pool, or perhaps up Richmond Drive. Mr. Shepard indicated there was no parking standard reflecting this project and it needed to be looked at practically. Member O'Dell felt the parking was inadequate. Mr. Shepard stated while there would probably be no park- ing on Richmond unless it was further to the west, the commercial parking lots to the south would be available. The project, however, should stand on its own. Chairman Crews reiterated the need for additional information on noise, parking, hours of operation, lighting, and landscaping. Mr. Barnett indicated he would prefer a tabling to a denial. Member Kern moved to table the preliminary until September and Member Strap seconded. Motion to table carried 5-1 with Member Edwards voting against. Mr. Peterson mentioned there would be a work session September 2, and also requested Board participation in the APA Conference. Meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. • N. COLLEGE PR( Z j;:. ' ::F 5 :ec ; rt :. • :: . �....� ..... SPRING CREEK PROF. PARK': RAINTREE '•; FHORSETOiOT1 COMMONS:: go, ae :<; SOUTH GLEN 3rd eppp : ? :i, SHORELINE P: :Y;.;• . THE PAVILION ' •' TRI j r N COLORADO NATURE CENTER 1st & 2nd o \ a a o ,