Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/17/1986Planning and Zoning Board November 17, 1986 Minutes The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m, in the Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board Members present included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang and Alternate Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ken Waido, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank, Jim Newell and Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Steve Roy. Tom Peterson gave the Agenda Review stating that Item 2, /13-82L Oak Ridge Village PUD, Phase II — Final; Item 5, i21-83D Brittany Knolls PUD —Final (only); Item 6, #166-793 Park South PUD Second Filing — One Year Extension of Final Approval, and; Item 14, #73-86 Western Gas Exemption and Special Review have been continued to the December 15, 1986 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Peterson then gave the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of the October 27, 1986 Planning and Zoning Board meeting; Item 3, :51-84A Hampshire Square PUD — Preliminary; Item 4, i21-83C Brittany Knolls PUD — Preliminary; Item 7, t64-86,A East Vine 8th Annexation and Zoning; Item 8, /65-860A East Vine 9th Annexation and Zon— Laporte th 10, /67-86 Am est#Laporte 6thtAnnexation5 and Zoning; Itemd11, 68-86IA mWest Laporte 7th Annexation and Zoning; Item 12, #69-86,A Hansen Annexation and Zoning, and; Item 13, /70-86,A Lake Sherwood Annexation and Zoning. Mr. Ray Nauta, 1200 E. Vine Drive, requested that Item 7 be pulled for dis— cussion. Member Dow abstained from voting on Items 7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13 due to a Potential conflict. Member Dow moved to approve Items 1,3,4 and the Preli— minary only of Item 5. Member O'Dell seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Brown abstained from voting on Item 13 due to a potential conflict. Member Brown moved to approve Items 8,9,10,11 and 12. Member Kern seconded. Motion to approve passed 6-0. Member Dow abstained. Member Lang moved to approve Item 13. Member Strom seconded. Motion to approve passed 6-0. Members Dow and Brown abstained. EAST VINE 8TH ANNEXATION AND ZONING — /64-86,A Tom Peterson gave the staff report recommending approval. Ray and Judy Nauta, owner of 1200 E. Vine Drive, commented that they are, again, being annexed into the city. P62 Minutes Nov. 17, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Peterson replied that this area is eligible for annexation because of four other annexations that have happened in this area which include the Carpenter/McAleer Annexation to the north and east in December of 1982, to the southeast Vine Drive 6th Annexation which occurred in August of 1983 and to the west the Carpenter/McAleer Annexation in December of 1982. These were public hearings and the property owners would have been notified of the hearing. Mrs. Nauta stated that they were notified in 1982 of the hearings but not notified in 1983. They were not aware that they were surrounded by other annexed properties. She stated they have a concern with the R-L-P zoning. They have had their commercial shop in this area since 1966. Mr. Peterson stated that the R-L-P zoning proposed by staff will allow this commercial shop to continue. He suggested that if they wish to discuss another type of zoning for this area the staff would be happy to meet with them to discuss what they are entitled to do in the R-L-P zoning. Mr. Nauta asked if the staff could propose this property at the current zon- ing instead of changing the zoning. He stated that the zoning has been changed on this property twice already. Chairman Crews stated that the zoning will permit any existing uses to become legal. Mr. Nauta stated that if he were to resell or change the use he would have to go through rezoning again. When he first purchased the property in 1966, the zone was 0-Open. At that time he was allowed to do what he wanted. Then the zoning was changed. A few years later he added on to the building and his contractor said he needed a permit because the zoning had been changed. Mr. Nauta requested to know where he stands and that he would like to have this property zoned Commercial instead of R-L-P. He understands that he can continue his operation under the R-L-P zoning but if wants to sell the property in the future he would have to come back before the Board for a zone change. Member Kern stated that since the surrounding area is basically some level of residential, the idea is to permit Mr. Nauta to do what he is doing now and anyone else who would buy the property from him could continue oper- ation. The idea is to prevent the property from being used for something that would be more intensively commercial, which would be a real disruption to the potential development in this area. The level at which he is cur- rently using his property could continue as an existing legal use. If the property were to change in the future, it would change to be in conformance with the surrounding uses. Mr. Nauta stated that the surrounding area is more valuable as a commercial area than residential. He was concerned that a buffer zone between the residential and commercial should be about 500 feet. Chairman Crews stated that under the R-L-P zoning, commercial and residen- tial uses are permitted if an approved PUD is secured. This is only if the use changes. -,P&Z Minutes • Nov. 17, 1986 Page 3 • Member Brown stated that how the property can continue that way without a PUD. If, other owner would like to change the use would have to come before the Board. The impact on the property would change. The use of this property. is being used is a legal use and in the future, Mr. Nauta or some on that property, then the owner reason for this is because the Board is not trying to limit the Mrs. Nauta asked if houses are planned for the area facing the railroad tracks. Member Brown stated that this would be reviewed as development occurs and this will be up to the developer and the planning staff. Mr. Frank stated that some master planning has occurred in this area. North Lemay Avenue adjacent to Andersonville and Alta Vista will be downgraded to local street and Lemay Avenue rerouted from in between those subdivisions. The master plan is for a mix of land uses. South of Vine Drive is planned to be light industrial uses. This piece of property presented some problems for staff because there was an existing commercial use but in reviewing the long term goals of the city and trying to preserve this as a residential area, the commercial zoning did not seem to be compatible with the sur- rounding neighborhood. The R-L-P proposal would not exclude a commercial use from occurring but could be proposed as a PUD after following the pro- cess and meeting the criteria. The R-L-P zone is a long term goal of the city. The staff is exploring a land use plan for the Vine Drive and Lemay Avenue area. Mr. Frank also explained change of uses and zoning for this area. Steve Roy stated that if the ownership is changed or the lease hold is changed, it does not matter unless it is a change to another non -conforming use. This means a type of use that is not included in the zone. If the use is changed to a kind of use that is permitted in this zone, there is no requirement to come before the Board. But if it changes from this non- conforming use to another type of non -conforming use, regardless of who owns the property, then it would have to be brought before the Board for review. If the buildings were expanded in the existing no -conforming use or if operation ceased for a period of one year or more, then it would have to be brought back before the Board. This is the way the City Ordinances are written. Member Kern moved to table this item to give the applicant and the owner time to discuss the zoning with staff. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion to table this item passed 7-0. HARBOR WALK PUD - PRELIMINARY - #62-86 Member Dow joined the Board at this time. Member Edwards abstained from discussion and voting of this item due to a potential conflict. Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. P&Z Minutes Nov. 17, 1986 Page 4 Bob Huber, HMW Development, briefly described the proposal. Ms. Kleckner gave the staff report discussing the land use, density chart, design, transportation and neighborhood concerns. Staff felt that the land use was supported by the Land Use Policy Plan because it contributed to a mix of residential densities in this area. This project is 6.18 units per acre on a gross density basis. The Density Chart that the Board was given is not correct. An additional 20 points should be added due to the neigh- borhood center and a major employment center being in this area. The total points on the chart should be 90 points which is sufficient for this pro- ject. The project design meets staff approval and is compatible with the surrounding area which includes exterior materials, fencing and landscap- ing. Staff has asked the developer to address the site plan at time of final submittal in regards to the crowding of Unit 12 with the surrounding area. Staff feels that the setback should be in the neighborhood of 20 feet. In terms of transportation, Staff feels that the street system in this area will continue to operate in an acceptable level. The Traffic Impact Study recommends that center left turn lanes should be installed at both Lemay intersections of Harbor Walk Drive and Breakwater Drive to facilitate the left turn 'movement of northbound traffic. The neighborhood was concerned about levels of traffic on Lemay Avenue and Ticonderoga. The City Traffic Engineer is reviewing how the collector street concerns can be addressed. The Traffic Engineer is monitoring the speeds on the collector streets and, .in some cases, he has reduced the speed limits on those streets. He is also recommending that stop signs be installed where the collector streets come together. Another neighborhood concern was project design and density. The neighborhood expressed a strong desire to see miti- gation on the adjacent property and some felt the density was too high for this area. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that; (1) Unit 12 setback on Harbor Walk Drive be increased; (2) an encroachment permit for the Lemay Avenue retaining wall be obtained prior to final PUD approval; (3) the landscape plan be refined to show shrub plantings and to address site distance on Lemay, and (4) access drive design be finalized following review by affected city staff. Member Kern asked where the guest parking would occur on the site. Ms. Kleckner stated that single family units are required to provide two parking spaces per unit. Overflow parking is being provided within the cen- ter island. There is a total of 15 spaces. Member Brown asked if there would be any on -street parking other than what is designated on the median. Ms. Kleckner replied that they would discourage parking there but the 32 foot width would allow overflow parking. Emergency service needs 24 feet to go through the drive. Sam McLean, residing across Lemay from project, stated he had concerns about the proposed residences being too close together and he was concerned that there should be more open space. He commended Ms. Kleckner on her fairness, attitude and professionalism with the neighborhood. Nov. 17, 1986 • • Page 5 Richard Patterson, 4100 Mt. Vernon Court, commented that Ms. Kleckner did a fine job in representing the city. He stated his concerns about a possible traffic problem. He felt a better traffic system should be developed. He stated that there is fast and heavy traffic coming off of Lemay Avenue and there are concerns for the safety of the children in this area. Ms. Kleckner replied that the City Traffic Department is willing to work with the school district to possibly move the bus stop. They will continue to work on this particular concern. Member Brown asked Mr. Huber if the pads are just building pads. Mr. Huber replied that there would be three styles numbered 1 through 3 and the pads would be numbered 1 through 31. He showed the Board the plat and explained how they are working the lot numbers and styles. He then proceeded to describe the buildings from the model that was presented to the Board. Member Kern questioned Mr. Huber about She bedroom windows overlooking the neighbor's patio. Mr. Huber replied that there are no windows in the units that overlook their neighbor's patios. Member Brown asked about the building materials and the colors. Mr. Huber replied that they are striving to get the most aesthetic look for the dollar value. Brick will be the prominent material with some stucco. Market research was against the brick and cost is a factor. Upkeep and cost of maintenance will be a major factor. Prices for the units range from $138,500 to $156,000. Member Kern asked if the target buyers will be for pre —empty nesters. Mr. Huber replied that the market analysis came back recommending post — empty nesters or empty nesters. 40% of their market would be in these two categories. Member Dow asked Mr. Huber if he had any problems with the conditions that staff has placed on the approval. Mr. Huber replied that he sees no problem with these conditions. Member ➢ow moved to approved the project:with the conditions that staff has stated. He stated that the reason for the motion is that this an appropri— ate design and mixed uses in this area and there is some variety to the development in the area and that this is a high quality development. Member Kern seconded the motion. Motion to approve with conditions was approved 7-0. With no Other Business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. 1� COUNTRY CL B •''L •:...: •...:.... •\ RICKARD EXEt1PTION:': •:•:•: •: •:•:•`•:•.•:•: ;•.•;•; WILLOW r�s �} '.. {IL• a L.. } l4 0, ...... .... 1. (� �' '�'• '.MUIHERl7Y .••�' ' ' HIGHWAY 14 ' • ' • " " MULBERRY-HOWES R_-11 . ... , 1 .•.'�`....'. HAMPSHIRE SnUARE : • '.;� �I .•.• •� WILLIAMSBURG. :..:• r�kaRSEYbOTw.... , :':� SPRING CREEK FARMS 3rd .,::AP RK SOU"'HI 4 •'` :0 38E !':' < [7ARREN LAKE :^,: 'i AtdNEXAT IOI4 •:•�,•....,.;: •. • . <. •--*' ANNEXATION x 0 '• 'r ; .. PAVILLION ':' R \ "•' �'i OAK •RIDGE BUSINESS PARK Y9 .ro '\"•1:� �.•Y•� OAK RIDGE VILLAGE -44 Y ao. co. Ro:_3 o,•, BRITTAt7Y KtSOLLS u.......... 4. ;.:.;.