Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/15/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES December 15, 1986 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 who had attended the worksession on December 12, 1986, included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Tim Dow, and Alternate Bernie Strom. Board members present at the meeting included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Tim Dow, and Linda Lang. Alternate Bernie Strom arrived at 6:36 after review of the Consent Agenda. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Elaine Kleckner, Bob Wilkinson and Gail Ault. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Staff member Joe Frank noted an agenda change moving #79-86, Rickard Exemption, County Referral to the Consent Agenda as all outstanding issues have been resolved. Staff is recommending a condition be added to the approval however. Mr. Frank then gave Agenda Review consisting of the Consent Agenda: 1) November 17, 1986 Minutes; 2) #13-82Q, Oak Ridge Business Park, Phase 5, Filing 1 - Preliminary; 4) #74-86, Mulberry -Howes Multiple Family Use Request in R-H Zoning District; 6) #166-79B, Park South PUD Second Filing - One Year Extension; 7) #51-84A, Hampshire Square PUD - Final; 8) #75-86, A, Spring Creek Farms Third Annexation and Zoning; 9) #77-86, A, Warren Lake Annexation and Zoning and 12) #79-86, Rickard Exemption - County Referral. Item 3, #13-82L, Oak Ridge Village PUD, Phase II - Final, and Item 5, #21-83D, Brittany Knolls PUD - Final, were continued to the January Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Board Member Dow asked if there were any changes to consent agenda. Ken Waido of City Staff asked that Warren Lake Annexation and Zoning be pulled as a letter had been received from a neighbor. Member Dow moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 8. Member Kern seconded and the motion carried 7-0. WARREN LAKE ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #77-86, A Member Dow abstained from voting on this item due to a potential conflict of interest; however, he asked about the Affected Property Owner notification process on this item. Ken Waido indicated because this was an enclave property, totally surrounded by City, the notification process was slightly different and only the property owners of the affected property were notified, not property owners of adjacent property. He went on to state the City was recommending a similar zone to that of the surrounding property. Member Edwards also had a potential conflict and would refrain from voting. Planning & Zoning ford • December 15, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Waido gave the staff summary indicating the City was unsure as to whether the property owner, Mr. Bockman, had received the letter of intent to annex as the City had received no response from him. He recommended the Board either proceed with only the first half of the item to annex the property but not zone it, or table the entire item for a month. A month's delay would not affect any other items and would be acceptable to the City. Chairman Crews asked if the annexation and zoning needed to go hand -in -hand and indicated he had no problem with the tabling of the item. Mr. Waido stated the two generally are handled together. Member Lang moved to table Warren Lake Annexation and Zoning until the January meeting. Member Strom seconded. Motion carried 5-0. WILLIAMSBURG COMMERCIAL PUD - Preliminary Bob Wilkinson gave staff summary on this 7.3 acre commercial PUD in the R-P zone. Ed Zdenek, representing the developer noted Debbie Tamlin, developer; John Barnett, Engineer; and Tom Oland, primary architect; were available for questions. He explained the surrounding area uses. The Phase 1 of this PUD has three product types; 35,900 s.f. retail in three buildings. There will be two restaurants, 5,000 s.f. of full service and 4,000 s.f. of fast food. The office building will be 15,000 s.f. and three stories high. There will also be a 3,000 s.f. convenience store with gas pumps. He noted the staff's landscaping concerns had been dealt with and the northeast building will be moving ten feet further west leaving 40 feet of landscaping along Shields. The trash areas along Horsetooth Road will be on the east and west ends of the building and enclosed. Additional trees will be added as well as shrubs in the median area. The setback on the north which is currently 20 feet needs to be increased and they will work to achieve that. Mr. Zdenek showed buildings elevations indicating the masonary exterior, metal sign bands with internal illumination and metal canopies. This would be similar to Drake Crossing and Park Central. The convenience store would be of similar materials. Bob Wilkinson pointed out the addendum to the staff report he had handed out to the Board and added to Mr. Zdenek's presentation. The project gains 30 of 54 points on the point chart which requires 50 percent for approval. All criteria required on the All Development Point Chart are met. Another land use issue of concern is the phasing. The convenience store should not be built prior to the building of other buildings. Staff feels this is inappropriate because not enough points could be attained on the point charts to justify the convenience center on its own. Energy conversation measures need to be more fully defined also. In regard to the office building three stories may be incompatible with the neighborhood and the setbacks to the accessways are tight. Judgement needs to be reserved until Final. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the following conditions: Planning & Zoning Ord • December 15, 1986 Page 3 1) Landscaping must be sufficiently strengthened to meet staff's concerns. 2) Setbacks need to be increased for the retail and fast food restaurant. 3) Energy conservation issues need to be more fully defined. 4) Architectural issues need to be addressed; specifically the building facade for retail along Richmond and Horsetooth. 5) Office building compatibility needs to be reviewed at final. Chairman Crews asked if phasing should be included. Mr. Wilkinson indicated that would be more appropriate at a later date as the plan indicated only one phase. Member Dow asked what other alternatives to phasing might exist. Mr. Wilkinson stated Mr. Frank and the developer had met and discussed the phasing issue; however, it remained unresolved. The issue can be discussed at final. Bill Marlett, 3611 Richmond Drive, south of Horsetooth Road, representing himself and a number of the neighbors, stated there was much concern regarding another commercial zoning so near their residential neighborhood. There is a 7-11 at Cunningham Corners on the east, a planned convenience store 3/10 of a mile north at Swallow and Shields, additional commercial on the south side of the road where there is a sign for a shopping center. Their large residential lots are located approximately one mile from both Albertsons and Steeles and another commercial area is inappropriate. They would like to see the area low density residential. Member Dow asked the status of the commercial centers, particularly on Swallow. Mr. Frank responded the request for a potential convenience store on the southwest corner of Swallow and Shields had been discussed with some developers and staff had been fairly successful in discouraging it because of the traffic and land use problems. Cimmarron Plaza and Raintree Shopping Center at Drake and Shields and Cunningham Corners on the northeast corner are the approved commercial projects in the area. Member Edwards asked why the location was considered appropriate for a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Frank stated this request was not considered a neighborhood shopping center. Neighborhood shopping centers generally were 120-170,000 s.f. with an anchor grocery store. This property would be appropriate for a convenience shopping center which provides neighborhood retail needs within close walking distance and provides some employment opportunities. These convenience centers are encouraged in areas like this rather than a strip type keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. Member Edwards moved to approve the project with the staff conditions and Member O'Dell seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Planning December & Zoning 15, 1986 rd • Page 4 PAVILLION PUD - Final Elaine Kleckner gave staff summary of the 120,230 s.f. PUD on 16.5 acres east of College at Troutman. Ms Kleckner stated that there were five conditions to be added: By January 15, 1987, the following documents must be properly executed and submitted to the City: 1) Site Plan 2) Plat 3) Development Agreement (including minor amendments relative to the installation of the College Avenue median) 4) Easement Agreement (removed from escrow and recorded) 5) Tri-Party Ditch Agreement (amended) Mr. Jim Johnson of Sullivan Hayes representing the applicant was available for questions. He noted they had previously had some problems in acquiring land adjacent to the ditch but those problems had been resolved. Member O'Dell asked if the mid -January timeframe now imposed was realistic and who had come up with the date. Mr. Johnson indicated staff had chosen the date and the applicant hoped they would be completed but some problems could arise with closing. Member Kern asked the legality of conditional approval. Legal Representative Eckman indicated that Section 99-4 of the City Code made it appropriate to approve items with conditions. He stated he was pessimistic about the final documents being completed by January 15 and would recommend giving additional time to avoid unnecessary additional proceedings. Member Kern wished to chose a date with some degree of certainty. Mr. Eckman noted the applicant can't close until the Board approves the project, and the Board can't give approval until closing. Mr. Eckman stated he would like to add two additional conditions: 6) Satisfaction of title company requirements at closing on the property 7) Furnishing the City with title information or attorney certifications confirming execution of the above -listed documents in proper form and by the proper parties. Mr. Johnson indicated he had no problem with the additional conditions. Ms Kleckner gave brief history of the project reviewing the changes that have occurred. The project was first seen in July 1985, the preliminary approved in August 1985, final submitted in September 1985 and approved in January 1986, extended to May 12, 1986 in March of 1986, final expired, and in June 1986 the project was scheduled but pulled because of an unresolved ditch agreement. The gross floor area has been reduced from 151,460 to 132,350 s.f. including National Car Rental. The retail space has been compartmentalized with retail A now having four spaces instead of one. The pedestrian access has not changed but is sufficiently interesting. One parking space has been lost but presents no problems. Planning & Zoning rd December 15, 1986 Page 5 Staff policy is not to bring a development to final with conditions but in this instance they are warranted. Chairman Crews asked for applicant's suggested timeframe. Mr. Johnson said if the Board would indulge another 30 days that should be sufficient. Chairman Crews indicated February 15. Member Edwards asked if the date should coincide with staff's review process and if the February 15 date would work. Discussion followed and a January 30, 1987 date was arrived at to give staff review time prior to the February Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Johnson okayed the January 30 date and went on to thank staff for going beyond the call of duty to resolve the problems surrounding this project. There were no audience comments. Member Kern moved to approved the final with the conditions changing the deadline from January 15 to January 30, 1987. Member Lang seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Frank asked to Board to remain for a few minutes after the meeting for an update on a couple of issues. Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.