Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/23/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES June 23, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m, in the Council Chamber, New City Hall. Board members present included Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang and Alternate Bernie Strom. Planning Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Bob Wilkin- son, Steve Ryder, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Tom Peterson, Jan She- pard, and Myra Escue. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Tom Peterson gave the Consent Agenda. He stated the following items would be continued to the July meeting: #23-80C OVERLAND TRAIL FARM PUD - Pre- liminary and Final; Y50-85A FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER - THE PAVILION PUD - Final; #28-86 FORT COLLINS BUSINESS PARK - Annexation & Zoning. Item 20 of the Discussion Agenda, #53-84D WARREN FARM 1st FILING SUBDIVISION - Final, was also continued to the July meeting. Mr. Peterson also requested that Item 21 of the Discussion Agenda , #46-86 FOOTHILLS URBAN GROWTH AREA AMENDMENT - Rural Street Standards, be moved to the Consent Agenda. Chairman Dow asked for objections to having Item 21 moved to Consent Agenda from Board or audience. Receiving no objections, item was moved. Mr. Peterson then proceeded to review the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: N25-86 MARTIN LUTHER HOME (Mountain Duplex) -Group Home Review; k13-82K OAK RIDGE EAST BUSINESS PARK PUD, PHASE 3B, FIRST FILING - Final; N143-80E SPRING CREEK PROFESSIONAL PARK PUD, PHASE 2 - Final; k146-79I RAINTREE PUD, TRACT C - Final; A82-82B THE TERRACES PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final; #36-86 VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final; #45-86 AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULA- TIONS; N40-86 CITY OF FORT COLLINS SLUDGE FARM SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral; A38-86 LEFLAR EXEMPTION - County Referral; and N41-86 STANTON MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - County Referral. Chairman Dow asked for audience or Staff requests to have any consent agenda items pulled for discussion. No such requests were made. Chairman Dow stated he would not vote on Items 9, 10, 12, and 21 due to a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, he requested a separate motion for these items from Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14. Member Crews made a motion for approval of Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion approved 7-0. Member O'Dell made a motion for approval of Items 9, 10, 12, and 21. Sec- onded by Member Kern. Motion approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 2 N33-86 REMINGTON PLACE PUD - Preliminary Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the project, also showing slides of the surrounding neighborhood. Jim Connor, project developer, described the purpose of this project. This would be a 156-unit congregate facility for the elderly who are physically able to care for themselves but may need assistance in daily activities such as housekeeping, meal preparation, etc. Lonnie Greim, architect for the project, gave a description of the loca- tion, including the proposed landscaping. He further discussed the pedes- trian access, available parking facilities, and delivery access, as well as facilities available inside the building which included a gallery, crafts room, exercise room, library, dining room, and chapel. Mr. Greim also gave a detailed description of the exterior of the building. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Greim if he had had an opportunity to review the Staff's recommendations and if he had any problems with the proposed condi- tions. Mr. Greim confirmed that he and Mr. Connor were in agreement with Staff. Elaine Kleckner reviewed the Staff Report including the recommendations of Staff. John McConohay, 3319 Terry Lake Road, stated he owns the property of a 2-story apartment house directly east of the proposed project. He expressed concern over the blockage of light on his property. Carol Brannon, 202 Remington, stated she lived on the top floor of the 3-story office building next door to the proposed project. She has three skylights in the roof of her apartment which she is concerned will be open - view to the residents of the upper floors of this project. Paul Shirmack, 1505 Teakwood Court, has an office at 200 So. College. He strongly supported the project and the location. Earl Reider, 131 So. College, owner of Garwood Jewelers in downtown Fort Collins, emphasized the benefits to downtown merchants. David Roy, Executive Director of FortTown, commented that on June 17 the FortTown Board unanimously approved the Remington Place project. They are excited about the increase of residents in the downtown area which will, in turn, increase the business for downtown merchants. Ray Dixon, 140 W. Oak, also voiced his support of the project. Member Brown asked Mr. Greim about (1) the color of the glass in the win- dows, (2) the overall size of the building, and (3) the maximum number of Staff on duty at any one time. w Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Greim replied that the windows would be tinted, probably an off -grey. The approximate size of the building would be 220 x 56 feet. Maximum number of Staff at any one time would be eight. Member Crews questioned Mr. Greim about the location of deliveries. Mr. Greim stated that deliveries would be made at the northeast area, off the alley. Member Edwards requested clarification on the amount of service activities anticipated, i.e. delivery trucks, garbage pick-up, etc. Mr. Greim described the delivery area in greater detail. Concerning the number of deliveries, Mr. Connor stated he expected food service deliveries two times a week. Garbage pick-up will be on the north side of the build- ing. Member Edwards clarified his concern to be how often food delivery trucks would arrive, what size trucks to expect, and how long the truck would be there at any one delivery. Mr. Greim responded that there would be medium -size step vans -- not large semi -truck vans. Member Brown questioned Staff on how high the snorkel for Poudre Fire Authority would go. Elaine Kleckner admitted she did not know this figure. However, she did comment that Poudre Fire Authority had reviewed the plan for the project and voiced concern only in the areas of assuring that surrounding streets would support their trucks and assuring that units be sprinkled. She did offer to find out this information. Member Brown expressed concern over the elderly residents having a way of escape in case of fire, especially from the upper floors. Ms. Kleckner assured her that this area of concern would be closely examined. The building will be equipped with sprinklers and alarm systems. Escape plans will also be designed. Member Kern asked for clarification of proposals to insure privacy. Ms. Kleckner recommended the landscaping include more trees to shield this building from neighboring buildings. Member Kern questioned what ratio of the residents might be low-income. Ms. Kleckner replied that the applicant had talked about 30%, but this fig- ure is not documented. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 4 Member Edwards questioned why the step-down approach used on the north side of the building was not repeated on the south side. Mr. Greim answered that this would have taken away too many residential units. However, he did conclude that some type of definitive changes might be possible on the south side. Member Edwards suggested that with the landscaping, the variety of materi- als, and the variety of lines used in the building as proposed, that any more variety might tend to have more of a negative impact than positive. Mr. Greim agreed, reaffirming that his main emphasis was on the detailing of the ground floor area to be eye -appealing. Member Brown questioned Staff as to the height of the tallest buildings to the north and the east of the proposed project. Ms. Kleckner emphasized that Staff concentrated their review on the other high-rise buildings in the area, which are on the west and south of this project. Her estimate was an average of 2 to 3 stories to the north and predominantly single story residences to the east. Member Crews made a motion to approve Remington Place PUD - Preliminary, subject to Staff's conditions #1 through #3 and #5, since condition #4 has been met. Member Kern seconded the motion. Member Kern asked Staff if they felt a need for more documentation of ratio of low and moderate income residents. Ms. Kleckner stated that applicant does not need this in order to obtain the necessary points required by City. However, applicant has indicated they would be willing to provide this information for informational pur- poses. Member Brown commented she planned to vote no because of the mass and scale of the building. She also expressed concern of the lack of outdoor sitting facilities for the residences. Motion was approved 6-1 with Member Brown voting against the proposal. Mr. McConohay voiced concern about the delivery trucks blocking his parking lot. He also stated he did not want the residents walking across his prop- erty to get to the library and museum. Chairman Dow assured him that Staff would review these issues before final approval. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 5 #35-86 CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION - Master Plan Chairman Dow refrained from participation in this issue as well as #35-86A CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE - Preliminary due to possible con- flict of interest. Elaine Kleckner described the Master Plan for this project. Bill Brenner, architect for the project, discussed the purpose and plans for this project. Member Edwards asked about the layout of the westernmost lots since they will be along Shields Street, which is a major arterial. Mr. Brenner explained that the lots will be oversized and extra -depth. Ms. Kleckner gave the Staff Report for this project. She reported that the major objection of the residences of Applewood Estates, neighbors to this project, was the extension of Saratoga Drive to connect with Hilldale Drive of Applewood Estatess. Russell Batz, 5317 Fossil Creek Drive, was concerned about neighborhood security if Hilldale Drive and Saratoga Drive were connected. William Ouplisea, 5425 Apple Drive, lives at the intersection of Apple Drive and Hilldale Drive. He commented on the problems he currently has when there is snow or ice on Hilldale Drive of people coming down Hilldale and sliding across Apple Drive into his ditch or yard. He expressed con- cern of having additional traffic coming through that area if these streets were connected. He concluded that if there must be a street connection at all, then it should be for emergency vehicle access only. Lee Gordon, 947 Fossil Creek Drive, addressed his concern over a commercial development in that area. He emphasized that most of the residences in the areas immediately south and west of this project were active farmers with cattle and horses on the property, he expressed concern over the beauty of this area being destroyed by commercial development. He also added his concern over the danger of increased traffic due to the slope of Fossil Creek Drive the problems arising due to snow and ice. Dennis Macy, 808 Hilldale Drive, brought a petition signed by ten (10) of the residents of Hilldale Drive expressing their concern of connecting Hilldale Drive to Saratoga Drive. Their objections included (1) increase in traffic flow, (2) security, and (3) creating an unplanned intrusion on the residents of Applewood Estatess. Bill Shafter, 816 Hilldale Drive, brought up the fact that the developer did not plan a connection between Hilldale Drive and Saratoga Drive. He felt the reason that the developer did not want these streets connected was because many of the Applewood Estates residents would use this as a tho- roughfare to reach Shields Street, thus making the developer's subdivision Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 6 less attractive. He also pointed out that Applewood Estatess is in the County. Approximately two years ago, the residents of Applewood Estates personally paid to have their interior roads paved. Therefore, he is con- cerned about how the City can connect a City street to a County privately - funded road without some reimbursement to the residents who paid for these road improvements. Chairman Crews asked Elaine Kleckner for clarification on Mr. Shafter's question. Ms. Kleckner assured that the physical connection was currently being examined by the Engineering Staff. She explained that the width of the City street would have to taper down to the width of the County road. The main concern is the transition from the curb and gutter of the City street to the drainage swell of the County road. She commented that these transi- tion questions would be better discussed in the Final Review of the subdi- vision, not in the Master Plan stage. Member Brown asked for clarification on whether the streets in Applewood Estates were private roads. Ms. Kleckner stressed that these are County roads which are public rights - of -way. Member Lang asked if the possibility of emergency -only access had been dis- cussed by Staff. Ms. Kleckner said this option had been discussed. She added that after discussing this option with various City departments, Staff concluded that it was to the City's best interest overall to have these streets connected. Member Lang asked Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, to address this issue from the Transportation viewpoint. Mr. Ensdorff stated that because the street was stubbed to the property line, it was their belief that this street was planned to eventually be connected to a street in a similar subdivision. The other criteria they reviewed was that even through there would be an increase of traffic down Hilidale Drive, much of that traffic would simply be re -directed from other areas of Applewood Estates, they did not feel there would be an increase of traffic from areas other than Applewood Estates area itself. Member Brown asked for more input from Staff concerning the problem of security in the neighborhood. Ms. Kleckner responded that Staff had no statistical information to offer. She offered to research this if Board desired. Member Strom asked why Prairie Street on the north of the project was not being extended to Crest Drive. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 7 Mr. Brenner replied that this connection was considered, but due to the negative traffic impact on Crest Drive and the neighborhood objections, this connection was not pressed. Ms. Kleckner added that since there were the necessary two points of access to this development and a possibility of a third point of access to Applewood Estates, there was no essential purpose in a connection of Prairie Street to Crest Drive. Member Kern questioned if there had been a commitment made to the residents of Applewood Estates that Hilldale Drive would remain a dead-end street. Mr. Macy replied that John Robinson, the original owner of Applewood Estates, had never planned for Hilldale Drive to be extended. Member Kern asked if the residents of Applewood Estates had considered the use of barriers and Stop signs in view of the problems now existing at the intersection of Hilldale and Apple Drive. Mr. Batz answered that because of the downhill slope of Hilldale into Apple Drive, Stop signs would not be useful at this point. Icy road conditions cause cars to slide through this intersection without the ability to stop. Ms. Kleckner stated that Staff had not reviewed the needs of this area since it was in the County. Member Kern questioned the plans for lighting in the project. Ms. Kleckner replied that this issue was more appropriately discussed with the next agenda item, the subdivision request, but she did indicate that staff was willing to work with the developer and the Light and Power Util- ity to choose appropriate fixture. Russell Batz commented about the additional workload which could poten- tially be placed on County facilities if this street connection were to be made. Member Edwards questioned if there was a possibility of Applewood Estates becoming annexed into the City at some future time. He felt County resi- dents are now being asked to adhere to City standards. Ms. Kleckner explained that if the land has 1/6 of its boundary adjacent to the City, then it is eligible for annexation. However, it is not the City's policy to force annexation unless the property is an enclave, totally surrounded by City property for three years. Applewood Estates has been included in the Urban Growth Area. Since 1981 and the expectation has been that the area will become urbanized. The goal should be to make the transition into a more urban area as sensitively as possible. Motion was made by Member Edwards to approve the Clarendon Hills Subdivi- sion Master Plan. Seconded by Member Strom. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 8 Member Brown asked if this motion included the street connection. Chairman Crews asked if this also included the variance to the 3 units per acre minimum density policy guideline. Member Edwards confirmed both of these questions. Member Kern discussed the problem of transition to advancing development. How can we mitigate the side effects which are bound to occur? How can we provide some protection for current residents? He felt this project would be a comfortable buffer for the community. Member O'Dell shared the concern of safety in the neighborhood, but she also felt there would not be increased traffic due to the structural layout of the streets. Member Brown also favored the project. However, she expressed concern over the street connection. Therefore, due to the street connection issue, she planned to vote against the proposal. Mr. Brenner expressed concern that the Master Plan might fail over the issue of a street connection. He felt this problem could be resolved. Member Edwards asked Staff for clarification of what had to be included in the Master Plan. Does the street connection issue need to be approved at the Master Plan stage? Ms. Kleckner answered that this issue does need approval at the Master Plan stage because of the requirement to review vehicular and non -vehicular cir- culation routes. Member Edwards questioned the precedent of dedicating this area between Hilldale Drive and Saratoga Drive but not actually completing it until some point in the future. Ms. Kleckner discussed possible means of emergency access other than hard surface. However, she did not feel that this would satisfy the City Trans- portation Department. Member Strom supported the street connection. He felt this would make a safer exit path from the subdivision to Shields Street. Member Edwards explained his reasoning for making the motion as he did. He felt the long-range availability of this connection would have a positive effect on both neighborhoods. Motion was approved 6-1 with Member Brown voting against the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 9 #35-86A CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE - Preliminary Elaine Kleckner introduced the project. Bill Brenner, architect for the project, commented that most of the issues of the project had been covered under the Master Plan discussion. He did discuss the rural street standards and proposed lighting. Mr. Brenner pro- posed that the drainage area along the northern part of the property would be open space to keep this areas as natural as possible. He stated that these would be single family dwellings with the exception of one area which would contain patio homes. Member Kern questioned the size of the patio homes. Mr. Brenner replied that this had not yet been determined. Ms. Kleckner reviewed the Staff report on this project. She reported that the developer would be doing off -site street improvements on Shields Street north to Harmony including widening the East side of Shields and installing curbs and gutters, and eventually intersection improvements at Shields and Harmony. Since the new rural street standard has been used, Staff does recommend that the developer either (1) pursue RE zoning to affected por- tions of the property, or (2) apply a deed restriction to the plat, prohi- biting further subdivision of the lots. Otherwise, Staff was very satis- fied with the proposed project and recommends approval with the one condi- tion stated above. Dennis Macy asked what the developer proposed to do about the various irri- gation ditches in this area. Mr. Brenner replied that Dick Rutherford, Engineer, is working on irriga- tion plans with the developers. Dick Rutherford, Engineer, confirmed that the water would not be cut off from Applewood Estates. Member Brown asked for clarification on off -site street improvements. Ms. Kleckner stated that improvements would be made adjacent to Larimer County Voc-Tech back to Harmony Road. The variance will be for improvements to Harmony Road. Member Brown also questioned on -site street improvements, Mr. Brenner pointed out on the map the streets involved. He also emphas- ized that off -site street improvements would be made in phases as the pro- ject increases. Bonnie Tripoli reported on how the phases would proceed for off -site improvements depending on traffic impact and adjacency. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 10 Member Strom asked how the developer proposed to answer the rezoning condi- tion recommended by Staff. Mr. Brenner replied they planned to use the deed restriction approach. Member Strom recommended approval of subdivision with conditions as stated by Staff. Member Lang seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that he hoped Staff would make the connection with Applewood Estates as gracefully as possible for all concerned. Member Kern agreed and added he felt it was important to consider the traf- fic impact now before it becomes a future problem. Member Brown expressed concern of the street system having curbs and gut- ters connecting with a system which does not and how this would affect the drainage system. Chairman Crews expressed his understanding of the concerns of the Applewood Estates residents. However, he felt that the decisions made at this meet- ing, though unpopular, are necessary for the continued growth of Fort Col- lins. Motion was approved 7-0. i53-84B WARREN FARM PUD - Master Plan and 953-85C WARREN FARM 1st and 2nd FILING SUBDIVISION - Preliminary Chairman Dow recommended that these two proposals be presented and dis- cussed together. However, there should be two motions made after discus- sion. Elaine Kleckner introduced the project. Cathy Chianese of Osprey Development Corporation described the Master Plan and Preliminary, recognizing that the Final was continued to next month. Frank Vaught, land planner for the project, discussed the project further, emphasizing the changes which had been made according to Staff's recommend- ations. Ms. Kleckner reviewed the Staff's report on this project. Staff had asked for restriction on commercial usage in this project to the East of Meadowl- ark Drive. Ms. Kleckner also described the curved configuration of Meadowl- ark Drive to enhance safety in this area. She stated that in a neighbor- hood meeting, even though there was some concern expressed, the neighbors had come to expect the connection. Staff did make known a request for a variance of required distance between streets for the area of Citation Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 23, 1986 Page 11 Court and Riva Ridge Drive. Staff felt this variance was acceptable because of the few number of lots in this area. Staff was satisfied with the project and recommended approval of both the Master Plan and 1st and 2nd Filing Preliminary along with the variance for the 1st Filing. No audience speakers appeared. Member Strom expressed concern over possible traffic problems with people traveling from the north toward Shields and turning through the residential area in order to come out on Shields further west of Manhatten Drive. Rick Ensdorff responded that Meadowlark would be a more attractive street when the connection is made. As a collector strret it is expected to carry higher levels of traffic than a local street. The curved layout of the street should minimize impacts on the area to some extent, the traffic signal at Manhatten and Horsetooth should entice more people to use that intersection, as opposed to filtering through the local streets. Member Brown suggested that if this should become a problem in the future, Stop signs could be installed at key locations. Mr. Ensdorff agreed. Member O'Dell made a motion to approve Warren Farm Subdivision Master Plan. Seconded by Member Crews. Member Brown commented that even though the Master Plan shows the apartment complex on Tract B to be 20 living units per acre, Board may not automati- cally approve this 20-units per acre. Motion approved 7-0. Member Lang made a motion to approve Warren Farm Subdivision 1st and 2nd Filing - Preliminary with the variance. Seconded by Member Edwards. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. PETITION to Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Against the Clarendon Hills PUD proposed permanent connection of Hilldale Drive and Saratoga Drive, and urge the Board to consider other alternatives The undersigned would be most adversely affected by the proposed permanent connection and either own properties adjoining Hilidale Drive or Apple Drive. A. The connection of Hilldale Drive to Saratoga Drive would: 1. increase traffic unnecessarily on these streets where many children live, thus decreasing safety to these individuals 2. decrease neighborhood security by changing limited access to multiple access 3. create an unplanned -for intrusion, decrease our quality of life and property values (we purchased these properties with the understanding that Hilldale would remain a dead end street) (plat plan shows Hilldale Drive as dead end) B. Applewood Estates has existed for almost two decades without a permanent double access. We seriously believe our future health and safety would be jeopardized, rather than helped, by the connection of Hilldale Drive and Saratoga Drive. C. We believe it is unfair for the City of Fort Collins to impose a plan on County residents that neither the developer nor Applewood Estates residents want or are in agreement with. NAME ADDRESS DATE Cftot AfuN + pLu5jE i. ✓e mo ,9-6 0 0