Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/28/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 28, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m, in the Council Chambers, New City Hall. Board Members present included Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Don Crews, Sharon Brown and Alternate Bernie Strom. Planning Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Bob Wilkinson, Mauri Rupel, and Myra Escue. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Tom Peterson requested the following items be continued from the Consent Agenda: M13-82L OAK RIDGE VILLAGE PUD, PHASE II - Final and #E35-86B CLAR- ENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE - Final. #E23-80C OVERLAND TRAIL FARM PUD - Preliminary and Final was continued from the discussion agenda. Mr. Peterson then proceeded to review the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: N42-86 SPLIT RAIL MANOR GROUP HOME; #E143-80F SPRING CREEK PROFESSIONAL PARK PUD, PHASE 3 - Final; /95-81F SEVEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II AMENDED, PUD - Preliminary; t95-81G SEVEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II AMENDED, BLDGS A&B, PUD - Final; #13-820 OAK RIDGE EAST BUSINESS PARK PUD, 4th FILING - Final; #E53-84D WARREN FARM 1st FILING SUB- DIVISION - Final; #76-81D PINEVIEW PUD EXTENSION; #E93-81F SOUTH COLLINS TECH CENTER - Amended Master Plan; /93-81G SOUTH COLLINS TECH CENTER, PHASE ONE - Amended Preliminary and Final; #43-86 CIRCLE K PUD - Preliminary and Final; #E46-86 McCAULEY EXEMPTION -County Referral; and #28-86 FORT COLLINS BUSINESS PARK - Annexation & Zoning. Chairman Dow asked for audience or Board response on any of the Consent Agenda. No requests were made. Chairman Dow asked for a motion for Items 4 and 5 separate from the others. He would not vote on these items due to a possible conflict of interest. Member Edwards questioned if language needed to be added on the Spring Creek Professional Park motion or is this implicit in Staff's recommend- ation. Chairman Dow stated that this was in Staff's recommendation. He explained that on the Consent Agenda items, any recommendations made in the packet are included in the approval of that item. Member Edwards moved to approve Items 4 and 5 of the Consent Agenda. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Member Crews moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Seconded by Member Brown. Approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page, 2 169-78 LOTS 1 AND 2 OF GREENBRIAR PUD - One Year Extension Tom Peterson presented the proposal with recommendation from Staff for denial of variance. Ted Rose, applicant, gave a description of the property. He stated his reason for a variance request was because there were no improvements to be made on the lots. These lots are both related to the 80-acre parcel of the major portion of the Greenbriar Project, which were approved and final platted in November 1978. These lots do have their own access from Lemay Avenue. Mr. Rose said he has a potential buyer for these lots who would like to build in approximately eighteen months to two years. Because noth- ing has changed on these lots since 1978 and no improvements are necessary, he felt a two-year limitation was not appropriate. No public speakers appeared concerning this proposal. Tom Peterson called for comments from Steve Roy on this issue. Steve Roy stated that he felt the memo to the Board addressed the concerns raised at the worksession. The Board took time to review the memo concerning this proposal. Member Kern read a portion of the law in effect in 1978 concerning timing of the development schedule. He questioned at what point in the develop- ment schedule this particular parcel of land was included. Mr. Rose answered that these lots were included in the original Greenbriar PUD plans. Member Kern asked if this meant these lots came under the 1978 ruling. Mr. Rose questioned if Staff was certain that the 1978 ruling was for a two-year limitation. Steve Roy commented that the question of whether this two-year limitation existed at the time Greenbriar PUD was approved had been discussed by Staff. After researching this in the City Clerk's Office, he found that the language in the Ordinance which was in effect at that time was identi- cal to the language in the present Ordinance. Member Kern asked Mr. Rose if he had done any other developments in the City. Mr. Rose confirmed that he had done another development recently. Mr. Rose commented that even though the Greenbriar project came in for replat, he was not notified of this action. Otherwise, he would have requested replatting of his lots at the same time. He again argued that nothing had changed on the lots since they were originally platted, and he did not want to worry with time and expense involved in replatting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page 3 Steve Roy read the standard to be applied in considering a variance request under the Land Development Guidance Standards (LDGS). The standard con- cerned causing the applicant peculiar and exceptional practical difficul- ties or undue hardship. Chairman Dow clarified that these lots had been approved for single-family residential, with one residential unit on each lot. Chairman Dow questioned what changes had occurred in the immediate sur- rounding area of the lots in terms of additional Staff requirements; i.e., widening of Lemay Avenue, additional drainage problems, or what changes regarding development had occurred that might require additional expendi- tures or improvements. Mauri Rupel, City Engineer, commented that there were no substantial new development requirements. However, street and drainage standards have been increased. Chairman Dow asked if a drainage problem had been identified which Engi- neering felt needed further study. Mr. Rupel confirmed this and stated that Mr. Rose was aware of the problem in question. There was some discussion between Mr. Rupel and Mr. Rose concerning the specific drainage problems. Chairman Dow asked for explanation of street requirements. Mr. Rupel replied that additional thicknesses of asphalt are required. He stated Mr. Rose was aware of requirements and was in agreement. Chairman Dow asked if these were the only considerations. Tom Peterson commented that Staff had also expressed concern over the landscaping of streets, trees, and lawns. Chairman Dow wondered if a variance could be allowed to avoid costing applicant time and money without setting a precedent which the Board may not want to set. He suggested tabling the issue for one month to allow time to identify and solve any problems. Mr. Peterson stated it would be better to grant the variance with condi- tions in order to allow them time to work out concerns which have been illustrated. Chairman Dow stressed that the Board strongly avoided conditional finals. Member Kern expressed concern over postponing the issue for 4 to 5 weeks rather than 6 to 7 weeks required if the applicant had to replat. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page 4 Chairman Dow questioned if the extension had already expired; therefore, the Board would be tabling something that does not even exist. Steve Roy stated that the lots still existed; only the right to develop the lots had expired. The Board had the choice of resurrecting this right if they desired. Mr. Roy also commented that if the Board approved this request with conditions, these conditions would be placed on the variance, not on the final approval. Member Edwards expressed concern that the applicant was not notified of the Greenbriar replat and asked for clarification on who is required to be notified of such action. Mr. Peterson explained that the applicant in such an action is required to furnish Staff with a list of adjoining property owners. This was done; however, Mr. Rose's name was left off of this list. The most probable reason for this omission was because the property owner thought of these two lots as part of the overall project. It is clear that Mr. Rose was not notified of this action; however, there is a question of whether this omis- sion caused the applicant any hardship. Member Brown questioned if the City is required to notify property owners to be a part of a replatting action. Mr. Peterson stated he did not believe this was required. Member Edwards wondered whose responsibility it is to notify adjoining property owners. Is it the applicant's responsibility or is it the City's responsibility? Was the hardship placed on Mr. Rose caused by the City? Chairman Dow stated that even though he would like to make this as easy ds possible on the applicant, he felt the Board could not approve variance until concerns of street and drainage were addressed. Because of this, his preference was to either table the issue for one month or pass the variance with conditions to be met. He asked the applicant if he preferred to have the issue tabled for one month rather than denying it. Mr. Rose stressed that he was willing to work with the City on street and drainage requirements; therefore, he desired approval rather than tabling. He again argued the points that (1) he was not notified of Greenbriar replatting, and (2) no changes have been made on the lots. He stated that nice homes would be built on these lots, and landscaping would be done as recommended. Member Kern asked that if Mr. Rose was unaware of the two-year extension requirement, why would he have been concerned with the replatting of Green - briar PUD. Mr. Rose stated that he understood the lots had to be replatted in order to be developed. He also added that all utilities are available to the lots. In fact, the lots have been built on in the past. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page 5 Member Brown asked if utilities were installed to the site of development and to City standards. She emphasized that it appeared that Mr. Rose had done nothing to show his intentions of building on these lots. Mr. Rose commented that utilities are on the west side of Lemay Avenue, lying along the east of these lots. The pipelines and conduits would be put in at the time the taps are connected. Member Strom questioned if the fact of whether the utilities are there or not is relevant, considering no improvements of any kind have been made to these lots. Mr. Peterson stated Staff had made a judgement call based on past interpre- tation of Ordinance. They concluded that this is not insignificant. Member Strom questioned if the rest of the Greenbriar PUD was substantially complete. Mr. Rupel replied that this PUD had been replatted so many times that it was difficult to say; however, according to the original plat, he estimated about 60% of the requirements for substantial completion had been met. Member Strom asked if the rest of the PUD was considered to be in active compliance. Mr. Rupel replied that some portions are; however, there is one portion in the southwest area that has had nothing done to it. Member Strom asked if this was a single PUD or a cluster of PUDs. Mr. Rupel stated that it is now a cluster of PUDs. Member Crews expressed concern that this did not expire two years ago; it actually expired six years ago. Chairman Dow asked for clarification of what would occur if variance was denied. Mr. Peterson explained that the applicant would then have to begin a new application for a new PUD. Member Edwards made a motion to table this issue for one month so that Staff concerns could be addressed and to avoid granting a variance which would result in a conditional approval of a final. This would also avoid undue hardship on the applicant, Member Kern questioned what the undue hardship would be if this issue were to go two months rather than one month, considering development would not take place for a minimum of eighteen months. Mr. Rose replied it would be time, money and effort of replatting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page 6 Chairman Dow explained that even though the lots were unchanged, the Board was concerned with external changes. Mr. Rose desired to address the issues of streets and drainage in order to have the variance approved. Member Kern expressed that he felt the Board was negotiating with the applicant when that process should be taking place with Staff. He pointed out that the applicant was not a novice in development, and it should have been incumbent upon him to know about the two-year application. Due to the changes since 1978, he felt some part of the normal process should be fol- lowed. Member Edwards explained that his motion was intended to administratively handle these changes in the next 30 days without causing undue hardship to the applicant. Member Strom expressed that he could see no undue hardship and felt the variance should be denied. Chairman Dow questioned if there was a time limit on applying for extension of the two-year expiration of a PUD. Steve Roy stated that the Ordinance was not clear on this matter. However, Staff had always required extension request to_be made prior to the expira- tion of the current period of validity. Chairman Dow seconded the motion. Member Brown asked for clarification of motion. Chairman Dow explained the motion would table the proposal for one month, during which time the applicant would meet with Staff and address the con- cerns of Staff. Member Brown asked how the items addressed would be reflected on next month's agenda. Mr. Rupel stated there would be a revised and approved utility drawing pre- sented next month. Member Brown asked if you could revise a utility drawing on something that had expired. Steve Roy stated that unless the variance was granted, the plan was ex- pired. Motion to table the issue was denied 4 - 2. Member Crews made a motion to deny the variance and one year extension. Seconded by Member Brown. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 28, 1986 Page 7 Member Brown stated she felt there were enough concerns to warrant a more thorough look at this project. Member Edwards commented that he would vote against the motion due to hard- ship on applicant. Motion to deny was approved 4 - 2 with Members Edwards and Dow vot- ing against the motion. OTHER BUSINESS Tom Peterson introduced Gary Diede, acting Director of Development Ser- vices. Mr. Peterson also introduced Paul Eckman, who will be replacing Steve Roy as legal representative for Staff. Chairman Dow requested Staff to respond to letter from Mr. Swobe on behalf of Fairways Estates. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. No Text