Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/22/1986Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 22, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. Sept. 22, 1986 in the Council Chambers of New City Hall. Board members present included Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Linda Lang and Alternate Bernie Strom. Member Sharon Brown was absent. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Mike Herzig, Elaine Kleckner, Jim Newell, Ken Waido and Jan Shepard. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Chairman Dow stated that the Election of Officers would be postponed to the end of the agenda under "Other Business". Joe Frank gave the Agenda Review. He stated that Item 3, /53-84F, Warren Farm Phase Two Final Subdivision, would be continued to the October meet- ing. Item 7, #48-86, Kids-R-4-Us Day Care Center PUD - Preliminary and Final would also be continued to the October meeting. He stated that Item 9, /53-86,A, River Bend Second Annexation and Zoning is being pulled off the Consent Agenda and placed on the Discussion Agenda due to some con- cerned citizens in the audience. Item 13, /35-86B, Clarendon Hills Subdivi- sion Phase 1 -Final, would also be continued to the October meeting. Mr. Frank then reviewed the Consent Agenda which included: Item 2, i209-78B, Fort Collins Orthopedic Clinic PUD -Preliminary and Final; Item 4, b69-78C, Tellez Subdivision - Preliminary and Final; Item 5, N209-78A, Commercial PUD, Amendment to Lots 4 and 4A - Preliminary and Final; Item 6, i25-81D, Village at Harmony West, Tracts B,C„D,F,6 8 H Preliminary -One Year Extension Request; Item 8, i52-86,A, Waste Water Treatment Plant #1 Annexation and Zoning; Item 10, / 49-86, Delozier Subdivision -County Referral; and Item 11, #54-86, Stalnaker Exemption - County Referral. Mr. Frank stated that a memorandum regarding the Fort Collins Orthopedic Clinic PUD and the Riverside Commercial PUD was given to the Board prior to the meeting pertaining to joint access and a parking agreement that was to be submitted for both of these projects. All signatures could not be acquired before the meeting this evening so staff is requesting that these agreements be submitted by October 20, 1986 and, if not submitted by that the date, the right to proceed under the approval would expire and the applicants would have to re -submit the projects. These can stay on the Con- sent Agenda if the Board wishes but suggested that the Board read into the motion the extra condition. Chairman Dow abstained from voting on Item 8 due to a potential conflict. Member O'Dell moved to approve Item 8. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 6-0. PU Minutes Sept. 22, 1986 Page 2 Member Edwards moved to approve Items 1,2,4,5,6,10, and 11 on the Consent Agenda. Member Kern seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. # 53-86,A - RIVER BEND SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING Chairman Dow abstained from discussion and voting of this item due to a potential conflict. Member Crews chaired the meeting at this point. Ken Waido gave a description of the property and the annexation and zoning recommending approval. Frank Miller, 2600 Countryside, asked who is responsible for the payment of the street improvement of Timberline Road. Mr. Waido stated that Timberline Road is presently on the Master Street Plan as a major arterial. Presently there is no funding for construction of this street. Preliminary engineering work has been undertaken and completed by the City Engineering Department. Streets are normally developed by developers in the community with the City participating in the oversizing portions of those particular streets. This particular street is considered as a major arterial so it may eventually be placed in the City's Capitol Improvement Fund and be funded out of the tax revenues that go into the that fund by the City. Mr. Miller questioned the parking area. Mr. Waido stated that would eventually be on the east side of Timberline Road. Mr. Miller was very concerned about the pipes that have been placed along the road. Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that these pipes are for the Anheuser-Busch plant and will be installed beginning at the Waste Water Treatment Plant #2 to Anheuser-Busch. Mr. Mike Blank, nearby resident, asked if, prior to development other than park improvements, this would be going through another zoning review if anything were to be considered that is outside of the T-Transition zoning. Mr. Waido replied yes, it might have to be re -zoned. Currently, no develop- ment is allowed in a T-Transition zone. Mr. A. F. Alexander, Summitview resident, asked if this area is in the floodplain area. Mr. Waido replied that portions of the floodplain is in this area. The City's Floodplain Ordinance prohibits structures from being built in a floodplain area. However, they can be built in the flood fringe area which is susceptible to only a gradual flow of water. This will be taken into consideration when any development is done on the property. P&Z Minutes • • • Sept. 22, 1986 Page 3 Mr. John Caboda, nearby resident, asked if this is currently owned by the City, why does it have to be annexed. Mr. Waido stated that in the next few years the City will be attempting to annex all of its own property in the immediate proximity of the city lim- its. The primary concern for doing this is due to City Police protection. By annexing these properties into the city, these areas will be under jurisdiction by the City Police. Mr. Caboda asked what will and will not be allowed in terms of motorized vehicles, firing of firearms and if these will be enforced to a better degree than the present. Mr. Waido replied that these limitations are placed by the Parks and Recre- ation Department. Any particular restrictions will be under the jurisdic- tion of the City Police Department. If motorized vehicles are prohibited, it will be up to the City Police to enforce the regulations once this area is annexed. Firearms are illegal within the municipality regardless if it is open space area or not. Mr. John O'Neal, representing the Homeowner's Association, stated he was concerned about noise pollution and environmental effects in terms of the road traffic and the motorized vehicles such as three-wheelers and motor- cycles. He asked if this would disturb the quality of life in this area. Mike Herzig replied that a preliminary environmental mitigation study has been done and further design work will be done to come up with the mitiga- tion measures necessary to fill in the pond and provide different things for the park atmosphere that will be occupying that. Once the environmental issues are settled, the right-of-way for that road will be purchased. This funding is budgeted but the construction is not planned. Mr. O'Neal asked what the traffic flow will be in this area. Mr. Herzig replied that the initial Timberline Road is a proposed two-lane road but eventually four to six lanes will be installed which will generate up to 30,000 vehicle trips per day. More research is being done on this. Mr. Waido stated that the annexation of this area will not have an impact on the taxes on the residents in this area. Member Lang moved to approve River Bend Annexation and Zoning. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Member Edwards stated that it should be clari- fied that it is up to City Council to approve the annexation. This is just a recommendation to City Council. Motion to approve passed 6-0. /33-86A - REMINGTON PLACE PUD - FINAL Chairman Dow returned to the Board at this time. Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. P&Z Minutes Sept. 22, 1986 Page 4 Lonnie Griem, architect for the project, stated that in June of this year, the Board approved the preliminary plan for this project with four condi- tions. These conditions have been met. He stated that on the north half of the building the scale was dropped from 13 to 10 to 7 floors. On the south half of the building he introduced more stucco than the Planning staff wanted. After the June P&Z hearing, they unified the building by repeating the gable roofing on the south side. This was also carried to the west side of the building. On the east side there is an eight foot cantilever and gable roofing. They have also recessed the windows 3 inches. The landscap- ing was added by introducing trees and shrubbery, adding a greater variety for color and texture. They have met all recommendations of the conditions. Ms. Kleckner gave the staff report recommending approval. She stated that the applicant has met the conditions recommended. Mr. Griem stated that an island would not be feasible due to trucks coming in for loading and they could not make the radius turn. It would be pos- sible to make a peninsula extended 25 feet leaving the open space to the plantings to the north. Trees or Junipers could be planted in this area. Ms. Kleckner stated that the Board could revise the Final plan that this peninsula could be added. There was no audience participation. Member Kern moved to approve the Remington Place PUD with the condition that the peninsula be added for the screening of trucks in conformance with the conditions worked out by staff. Member Crews seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. #146-798 - RAINTREE PUD - ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL APPROVAL Joe Frank gave a description of the request. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank to give the basic criteria for this type of request. Mr. Frank stated that the LDGS criteria that applies to this project deals with the expiration of a final PUD. When approved there is a life expec- tancy of two years within which the public improvements are to be com- pleted. Additional six month extensions can be granted by Staff for two six-month periods. Any further extensions must be approved by the P&Z Board. This specific project has been reviewed by Staff and Staff is recom- mending denial due to a great length of time, six years, passing since the original approval and the need to do a thorough review and update of the project against current requirements. Mr. Jim Martell, representing Raintree Associates, stated this project went before the Board in March of this year. That request was for a one year extension retroactive to August of 1985 and to be granted to August of 1987. The applicant is now requesting approval of the remainder of that r� L x P&Z Minutes • Sept. 22, 1986 Page 5 request. Staff did indicated in March that they supported the extension. The plan was consistent with the policies, standards and requirements and Staff had adequate control over the design of the project. Three conditions were placed on that approval. Those conditions were 1) that a public right- of-way be dedicated for Shields Street, 2) final revisions of drainage plans be submitted before building permit issuance, and 3) a note be placed on the plat that trees could not be removed from the right-of-way without the City Arborist approval. In the last five months there have not been any significant changes to this plan to justify denial of the extension request. Mr. Frank stated that in terms of the land use, this project was and still is supportable by the Land Use Policies Plan for higher density housing. However, the utility and design standards have substantially changed since 1980. Water and Sewer standards have changed and the street design needs to be updated. These should be made in the PUD review stage rather than the building permit stage. There has been no progress with the development other than the improvement of the shopping center. Member Edwards asked for clarification of "substantial changes". Jim Newell, Civil Engineer for the City, stated the procedures are based on building permits. Storm drainage needs to be reviewed closer and needs to meet the current storm drainage plan. The streets shown on the utility drawings do not meet city standards today. These need to be upgraded. The water and sewer utility also needs to be upgraded. The street design and the access has changed significantly since 1980 approval of this project. Mr. Herzig stated the changes are the increase of radius in the residential areas. The off -site street changes are new considerations of new submit- tals. The City has set up a mechanism for a payback at the time of future development for projects. Member Kern stated that one of the conditions of the extension in March was the acquisition of the right-of-way and that street design change be made by the applicant. Also that a revision of the existing drainage plans which require off -site drainage easements be completed.. Some of the acquiring of the right-of-way needs to be done prior to the building permit issuance. He asked if this has been done by the applicant. Mr. Frank stated that the street design changes to Shields Street are a result of some changes in the design criteria and are required by the development of the shopping center and is a direct result of this proposal. He stated that a second item of concern was the drainage plan revisions. There was a common detention facility constructed on the Raintree Residen- tial portion of the project. There has been no street design changes or right-of-way dedication for Shields Street. It was only for the need of the shopping center and not the residential portion of the project. PR Minutes Sept. 22, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Martell stated that the drainage detention ponds have been installed. The developer did agree to develop the right-of-way along Shields Street. However, the applicant was not aware that this should be done right away. This can be done immediately if the Board wishes. The third item was having a note on the plat. He felt that the real issue was when this would be reviewed. Staff has the right to review all of the detail that is being discussed. He would like to know when this would be reviewed - at time of building permit issuance or will they be required to come back with a new plat. He felt that is was not necessary to submit another plan when the city will have the controls that they want anyway. Mr. Frank responded that Staff would be limited at the time of building permit issuance to those conditions contained on the site plan or any other conditions placed upon it this evening. The conditions on the site plan pertain to the review of the architectural elevations and landscaping. All the other concerns that Staff has are not currently conditions of approval. He added that the detention improvements have been made but he does not know if changes have been made to the detention facility to respond to the storm drainage impact of the residential portion. He felt that it was done just for the commercial portion. Mr. Newell stated that the recommendation of storm drainage is to see a more thorough storm drainage analysis incorporating the current development requirements. Mr. Frank stated that any changes would not be brought before the Board again unless they could not be met or Staff felt that they were not satis- fied. Member Crews asked that if there were a traffic impact study submitted along with the original plans years ago, would that study still be legiti- mate today considering what has changed in that area. Six years ago there was a dairy across the street, a service station and some offices. Mr. Frank replied that the items Member Crews identified made a major change in the conditions of that neighborhood and would probably require an updated traffic impact study. Member Edwards stated that the C.A.T. project that is proposed currently is not there as of yet. There is also less traffic there now than when the dairy farm was there. This should be taken into consideration. Member Strom asked the legal representative if the Board has the authority or is there any precedent to extend this as a preliminary approval and would they have to come back with a final plan as a middle ground approach. Mr. Eckman replied that this could not be changed back to a preliminary approval. ' P&Z Minutes • • Sept. 22, 1986 Page 7 Member Edwards was concerned that the language in the recommendation states that Staff recommends denial of the extension because current policies and standards have changed since 1980. This may be so but he has not heard any- thing that specifically states the differences between the plans as pre- sented and the changes that have taken place at the City since then. He felt that this would put a hardship on the applicant if it was denied now. Member Kern concurred with Member Edwards in part. He was concerned about automatic extensions being approved with the process being limited in dura- tion and not limiting others. This could be due in part to the fact that the Board thinks there will not be any substantial changes made to the plan. Member O'Dell stated that she did not feel comfortable adding conditions to this final approval that will not be seen again. Ron Frank, a partner of Raintree PUD, stated that the reception from the City at the onset of the plan was good. Due to the economic conditions and other situations beyond their control they have not been able to develop as they wished. When other extensions were requested on this plan, there was no problem and the criteria was met. He felt that for the developers to spend additional funds to redesign and re -submit the plans could delay an opportunity in the future to finish the development. Raintree Drive is in place and the detention pond is in place. The developer chose not to put in all the improvements because of economic reasons. This is very expensive and would drive up the cost of the land and future homes that would be developed. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Ron Frank if he felt comfortable with the possibil- ity of continuing the preliminary approval with conditions that certain things be re-examined prior to final PUD. Member Lang asked how specific are the changes that are going to change this plan. The developer states that the storm drainage and detention ponds are installed but Staff is saying that they are not adequate. Mr. Joe Frank replied that the comparison of criteria in 1980 and now is quite different. This plan needs to be updated to meet those criteria. Mr. Herzig stated that the street standards have changed extensively. In 1981 there was a major thrust in changing the standards and in 1986 there has been some more additions to the standards. Member Kern was concerned how to place the least burden on the developer without the City giving away their license. If a change is made to a PUD and market changes are not made, the same problem will arise later on. But with a PUD the Board might have something they feel they can put on hold. P&Z Minutes Sept. 22, 1986 Page 8 Mr. Martell agreed with Member Kern. He felt that having this a preliminary plan and requiring that a new final plan be re -submitted would not achieve anything. The street criteria has changed significantly but there is only one street in this development and it is already installed. Member Kern moved to deny the request stating he feels more comfortable granting extensions to plans that are more with current standards. Member Crews seconded the motion. Member Edwards stated that he was opposed to the motion on the basis that Staff still has not adequately outlined what is specifically different now than what was before and that the land use is appropriate. Member Lang stated she concurred with Member Edwards' reasons for opposing the motion. Motion to deny did not pass on a vote of 4-3 with Chairman Dow, Member Lang, Member Strom and Member Edwards voting no. Member Edwards moved to approve the request for a one year extension to August 19, 1987. Member Lang seconded. Chairman Dow asked Joe Frank to clarify the notes on the plat and what items Staff would require if the applicant would come in during this extension period for a building permit. Mr. Frank responded that Staff would only review the note on the plat that states "close -in landscaping, bike parking, specific sidewalks and archi- tectural treatment within building envelopes are to be reviewed by the City Planning Staff prior to building permit ". Motion to approve the extension request passed 5-2 with Member O'Dell and Member Crews voting no. OTHER BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS Member O'Dell nominated Member Crews to be the Planning and Zoning Board Chairman. Member Strom seconded the nomination. On a vote of 7-0 Member Crews was nominated as the Planning and Zoning Board Chairman. Member Kern nominated Laurie O'Dell for Vice -Chairperson. Member Strom sec- onded the nomination. On a vote of 7-0 Member O'Dell was nominated as Vice - Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. 9 EVANS S/D IITGTIT,AND PARK