Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/19/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES May 19, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m, in the Council Chambers, New City Hall. Board members present included Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, and Linda Lang. Planning Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Bob Wilkinson, Steve Ryder, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Matt Baker, Alan Canter, Tom Peterson, Jan Shepard, and Myra Escue. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Joe Frank gave the agenda review. He stated that Item 5, i82-82B THE TERRACES PUD, Amended Preliminary and Final Terraces PUD, has been continued to the June meeting. Mr. Frank also recommended that Item 4, J71-84A ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING - Preliminary and Final, be pulled for discussion. Mr. Frank then proceeded to review the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following: #65-82K FAIRBROOKE MASTER PLAN AMENDED; #65-821 FAIRBROOKE 2nd FILING SUBDIVISION Preliminary and Final; #54-80I THE SHOPS AT DRAKE CROSS- ING, TRACT C - Final; #31-86 LEISY EXEMPTION -County Referral; #30-86 CAREY EXEMPTION - County Referral; #32-86 WILLIAMS EXEMPTION - County Referral. Mr. Frank also discussed a memo which was received from Bob Wilkinson in response to a concern the Planning and Zoning Board had over the list of per- mitted uses in these exemption requests. This memo is attached to these min- utes. Chairman Dow expressed concern on the part of the Board that these kinds of exemptions basically amount to subdivisions and unplanned growth. There is a question if these situations are in accordance with that ordinance. Bob Wilkinson discussed the fact that, in looking at the County's Exemption Request Resolution as set forth in their Subdivision Regulations, it appears that the guidelines have been followed through the process. There is the question of whether the exemptions should be applied to other uses beyond single family residential, public utilities, and agricultural. Mr. Wilkinson stated he would have to allow the City Attorney to determine if that privilege was being abused. Steve Roy stated that State Law says this is not a matter of a Right. It is discretionary with the County if they wish to allow subdivisions into less than 35 acres. Member Kern expressed concern that perhaps exemptions are given too freely, thus destroying the purpose of zoning. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Frank agreed that perhaps this is true. The purpose is, in unusual situa- tions, to allow someone to break off a parcel for a particular kind of use without having to be in a formal subdivision. It needs to be reviewed to determine if the County is exceeding the boundaries of the exemption process. Chairman Dow further questioned if the applicants were agreeable to the condi- tions as more specifically defined in the memo from Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Wilkinson stated that all applicants had been notified of the P.U.D. con- dition, and the input from owners was not negative in nature. Mr. Leisy expressed some questions at that time; however, he is in the audience tonight and has the right to ask that this item be pulled for discussion if he has specific questions. No such request was made by Mr. Leisy. Chairman Dow stated that on items 7, 8, and 9, condition as stated by Staff would apply to approval as well as any other conditions or requirements as set forth in Staff memo on any of the Consent Agenda items. Member Crews moved to approve items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Seconded by Member Kerns. Motion carried 7-0. i71-84A ALTA VISTA SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING - Preliminary and Final Bob Wilkinson gave a description of the property. Ben Herman, 2934 Wakonda Drive, representing Neighbor -to -Neighbor, gave a brief history of Neighbor -to -Neighbor. Mr. Herman then proceeded to describe the proposed project, indicating his concern over the requirement for street improvements adjacent to the one -lot subdivision. He felt that because they were replacing an existing building, they should not be responsible for off - site improvements. Bob Wilkinson discussed an addendum which was given to the Board which addressed the issue of on -site street improvements. He voiced concern that this action could be precedent setting if other non-profit organizations wished to request the same waiver. He stated that Staff felt such an action would be a major policy decision related to City Code and budgetary process and, therefore, should be heard by City Council for a better definition of policy direction. Staff is therefore recommending approval with the condition that applicant complete the on -site street improvements, place sufficient funds for such in escrow, or agree to such improvements at a later date. Staff also recommends that the applicant be advised of other opportunities for financial relief which may be pursued. Planning and ZonitBoard Minutes • May 19, 1986 Page 3 Chairman Dow questioned if this area would be considered a subdivision. Mr. Dow also asked for clarification of the criteria for the requested waiver. Mr. Wilkinson read the criteria of a subdivision from the City Code book. Chairman Dow questioned Steve Roy as to the legal aspect of this lot being considered a subdivision due to replacement of an existing building with no changes in size of lot or nature of use. Steve Ryder read a portion from the City Code book which indicated this area would fall under the criteria of a subdivision and the improvements would be mandatory. Sharon Brown asked for a definition of a subdivision as stated in the City Code book. Mr. Ryder read the definition. He was uncertain of the legality of a single lot subdivision. He offered further research and a memo on this matter if Board so desired. Sharon Brown asked for clarification of "on -site" improvements versus "off - site" improvements. Mr. Wilkinson explained that a waiver of "off -site" improvements has already been approved and the issue tonight deals with "on -site" improvements only. Member Edwards asked for explanation of the charter as it related to subsidies or underwriting private entities. Mr. Ryder stated that the Code Book does preclude appropriations to a benevol- ent or charitable organizations. If these requirements are waived because of the not -for -profit nature of this organization, this waiver could be construed as a subsidy or contribution to the organization. He suggested this action would best be dealt with at the level of City Council. In his closing statement, Mr. Herman (1) requested withdrawal of his consider- ation of a definition of a subdivision. He further requested, as a matter of record, a subdivision for construction of this property. (2) He asked for special consideration of the shape of his property since the city development requirements are determined on the basis of frontage and the large frontage would cause unnecessary hardship. (3) lie emphasized again that he did not feel it was his responsibility to pay for street improvements since this was a one -for -one replacement. C Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 4 Member O'Dell questioned if the drainage ditch running beside the subject property would be considered a physical condition of the property, making it difficult to improve the entire street. Mr. Wilkinson quoted the clause from the City Code book referring to condi- tions peculiar to the site which would cause hardship to the subdivider. Joe Frank stated that many plats have drainage ditches adjacent to the prop- erty; therefore, this would not be considered peculiar. Sharon Brown noted that due to the location of the ditch, it was possible that it was necessary for the frontage to be wider than the remainder of the lot. Member Kern made a motion for approval, subject to recommendations made by Staff and included in their addendum. Seconded by Member Edwards. Motion to approve passed 7-0. #37-86 FOOTHILLS URBAN GROWTH AREA AMENDMENT Ken Waldo gave a description of the proposal. Member O'Dell questioned the zoning and restrictions of surrounding areas. Mr. Waldo stated that most of the property is publicly owned by Colorado State University, City of Fort Collins, and some State land. Further up in the foothills is some privately owned property which is designated rural. Rural designates one unit per 35 acres. Mr. Waldo explained that 5200 feet is the elevation at which the great plains stop and foothills start. No homes can be constructed above 5200 feet and be provided with City water. Member Edwards asked if all City departments have approved this project, thus eliminating future "loop -holes". Mr. Waldo stated that the one outstanding issue is the street design stan- dards. Other issues have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by City departments. Sharon Brown questioned if RF zone would be limited to large -lot, single fam- ily units. Mr. Waldo assured her that this is in the zoning district and permitted uses (as described on page 9 of Board's packet) are absolute. Only in case of a rezoning would other uses be allowed. Planning and Zore Board Minutes • May 19, 1986 Page 5 Chairman Dow asked what extent of formal reviews of proposals would there be since this would not be under P.U.D. requirements. Mr. Waido replied that there would be two avenues available: (1) straight sub- division approach, or (2) cluster development approach, allowing for increased density. Either option would come under the review of the Planning and Zoning Board. Alvin Miller, who lives in one of the parcels west of Overland Trail, expressed reservations of this proposal dealing with cost of developing this area. He also disagreed with problems concerning air pollution, unstable ground, and visual impact. He requested this land be left as is. Rex Moore, who lives in Area 3, questioned what is to happen to the land designated last year as a subdivision by the County. He also expressed concern over the street plans. David Kelly, 2828 Wakonda Drive, adjacent to Area 1, addressed the question of environmental impact of development in this area. Jim Martell, representing Kimbel J. Stuart who is the owner of part of Area 5, spoke to clarify the history of this property. He requested that Area 5, which includes the Stuart property, be excluded from this application and treated as a separate proposal due to certain peculiarities of this area and the fact that there is already an issue before City Council dealing with Area 5. Mr. Martell expressed concern over the street standards as well as the 5200 foot restriction which would result in unusable land above 5200 feet. Chairman Dow asked for Staff's response to the peculiarities of Area 5 and the request to exclude this area from the proposal. Mr. Waido explained that the County's "Foothill Study" in 1982 resulted in Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 having the designation of land use changed from Rural to Rural Non -Farm. Area 5 was designated as specialized area, which indicated that Area 5 was appropriate for urban development when it was annexed into the Urban Growth Area. Even though the Stuart area is pending in City Council at this time for annexation into the Urban Growth Area, the Council has pre- viously denied all five areas for an Urban Growth boundary change, and it is unlikely Council would independently change the Stuart boundary. One of the reasons this project has been tabled in Council is due to the fact that appli- cant was waiting for Staff's recommendations concerning area density before determining what action they would take concerning Mr. Stuart's property. Planning and Zoning Boarn Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 6 Chairman Dow suggested that Board might be pre -supposing that these areas would be annexed prior to any significant development. Mr. Waldo replied that if Areas 3 and 4 were developed, they would be required to annex because of their contiguity to the city limits. Areas 1, 2, and 5 would not annex at the present time with the exception of certain areas of Area 5. Chairman Dow asked for summary of what could happen in these areas now under existing development in terms of density, usage by right, etc. - Mr. Waldo explained the zoning classifications and the lot size requirements of these classifications. Mr. Waldo addressed the concern posed concerning air quality by reading a mem- orandum written by Staff to Council as clarification of the air quality situa- tion based on a study of the area. Chairman Dow reviewed the options open to the Board and requested a motion. Member Edwards recommended approval with the following stipulations: (1) rec- ommendation to Council components l and 2 regarding change of western boundary of the Urban Growth Area, (2) a new residential RF zone be adopted, (3) ask Staff to develop additional street design criteria, and (4) the same for the incorporation and adoption of an RE Estate zoning district which would increase minimum lot size from 9000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Sec- onded by Member Kern. After further discussion between the Board and Mr. Waldo concerning street criteria and review processes, it was determined that Mr. Waldo would return next month with specific regulations on these items. With this stipulation, motion was approved 7-0. /113-801) LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES Joe Frank presented the series of eight (8) changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Guidance System. Peter Barnes continued the discussion of the definition of a family (Item #8) by reading the Zoning Code definition which states "individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or an unrelated group of not more than three persons living together". Last year, Staff's interpretation of this definition was appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our interpretation was upheld by the Zoning Board of Appeals. That decision was then appealed to the City Council, who also upheld Staff's interpretation. However, Council did request Staff to review their two areas of concern: (1) the current def- inition might be too prohibitive of certain living arrangements (2) any defi- nition should set a limit on the number of unrelated individuals who live together in a single dwelling unit. Staff has done extensive research into the legal definition of family as well as definitions used by surrounding areas. Staff's recommendations for definition of family is being presented in Item 8 for approval. r Planning and Zorn Board Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 7 Mary Beth Kline, 1929 Larksborough Drive, addressed Item k8. Mrs. Kline posed an objection to the definition of family being changed; in particular, she objected to allowing three unrelated people and their related children. Due to living in a neighborhood where there are several rental homes, Mrs. Kline was concerned about volume, parking, and the upkeep of the property. Barbara Liebler, 817 Peterson Street, discussed the problem of groups of elderly persons who want to live together in a single house, yet are prohi- bited to do because of the restriction of this ordinance. Chairman Dow questioned if this situation would be covered as a group home. Joe Frank stated that the group would have to be licensed by the State with a supervisor to qualify as a group home. Peter Barnes related a mechanism in the Code which might allow the owner of a home to rent out rooms to other unrelated persons. Chairman Dow asked if there was any type of exemption process which might apply to such a situation. Peter Barnes stated he knew of no such exemption unless the home could qualify as a rooming house. Sharon Brown expressed concern over using specific numbers of persons in this definition. She suggested that the impact on the community, not the number of persons, is the real issue. Chairman Dow suggested making a motion on Items 1 through 7 and a separate motion on Item 8. Sanford Kern questioned if the wording "substantial compliance" would leave too much to personal judgement of intent. Joe Frank stated the Planning and Zoning Board would still make subjective decisions on intent of criteria. Steve Roy also encouraged specificity by the Board to the applicant of the definition to prevent a challenge of the final decision. Sharon Brown questioned exactly how specific the Board must be. Steve Roy stated that if an area is not addressed at preliminary, it is his opinion that this area is therefore approved if the project is approved. He recommended specifics at the preliminary to avoid future problems. Sharon Brown questioned if it might be better to table the preliminary if there is a question concerning intent. Planning and Zoning Roan Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 8 Joe Frank replied that the Board should give Staff general direction and allow Staff to implement these directions; however, he did request that directions should not be too open-ended. If there are to be substantial changes which the Board is unsure of, then Mr. Frank suggested it might be best to table the preliminary until more specific guidelines are met to the Board's satisfact- ion. Chairman Dow questioned the wording on Item 6(2) of "by 1%". He felt this should read "by not more than 1%". Joe Frank agreed. Chairman Dow requested this wording be inserted by alleviation before presen- tation to Council. Chairman Dow questioned, in Item 3, why Staff stopped at the level of corpo- rate officers and did not include directors. Steve Roy stated there was no reason that directors could not be included. Laurie O'Dell made a motion to approve the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinances and Land Development Guidance System, Items 1 - 7, as outlined by Staff, including the changes we discussed. Chairman Dow emphasized that this would include directors in Item 3. Motion approved 7-0. Chairman Dow stated that in deciding on the definition of family,_ traffic impact must be considered. Sharon Brown questioned if a statement concerning the amount of parking space available could be included in this definition. Steve Roy stated this could be done. Mr. Roy proceeded to explain that he and Peter Barnes had lengthy discussions about each word that was put into this definition. He suggested that if the Board was dissatisfied with the defini- tion, they should vote against the proposal then give Staff direction as to the general idea Board would like to have incorporated in a revision. Joe Frank indicated that Staff would be agreeable to tabling this proposal and holding another work session. Member Kern questioned if, according to this definition, it would be possible for an infinite number of 17-year-olds to occupy a single dwelling. Steve Roy indicated that the definition of adult is included in this proposal. Unrelated children could not legally rent a house in a single family area. Planning and Zoni6oard Minutes • May 19, 1986 Page 9 Member O'Dell moved that this proposal be tabled and Staff return with more ideas on the issues discussed tonight. Member Kern seconded this motion. Chairman Dow questioned if it was necessary to table this to a specific date in the future. Joe Frank suggested it be tabled "until Staff is ready to present some alter- natives". Member Edwards objected to the motion of tabling the issue. He felt Staff had involved enough time in this issue and that the issue should be dealt with now. Member Crews supported Member Edwards objection. Sharon Brown disagreed to the objection, stating there are too many unresolved issues to make a decision. Motion approved 5-2 to table this issue, with Member Edwards and Crews voting against the motion. #132-79C - THE BRIDGES PUD - AMENDED - Preliminary and Final. Member Lang and Chairman Dow did not participate in this debate due to potential conflicts of interest. Member Crews acted as Chairman. Steve Ryder presented the proposal. Glen Magee, applicant, gave a description of the property. Steve Ryder explained the additions and changes to the structure requested by the applicant. Lloyd Walker, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, pre- sented questions raised at a Neighborhood Meeting. (1) he was concerned that by approving a 20% increase in the original plan, there is a possibility of additional increases in the same plan at a later date, (2) he questioned if the greenspace located across the drainage ditch would be dedicated as green - space or would it be subject to additional dwellings in the future, (3) Traf- fic congestion in this area is already a concern. Mr. Walker expressed that he felt it was unfair to combine the street improvements with the approval of these additional units, (4) Building sizes appear to be too large to conform to the area, (5) Is there a need for this development considering all of the development already taking place in this particular area. Dr. Bob Smith, immediate homeowner on the west side of The Bridges, questioned if this would be a legal plat without the access as shown on the proposal. Steve Roy replied that the project would have to be developed according to the approved planned unit development. Planning and Zoning B d Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 10 Dr. Smith stated that the access as shown is not owned by the developers. He claimed that he is the owner of the access, and he does not understand how the developers can cross this access without an agreement with him. He built a bridge three years ago when he was considering developing this land at a per- sonal cost of $55,000. Dr. Smith also objected to the heights of the proposed buildings, claiming this would restrict his vision from his home. Dr. Smith further stated that when Mr. Sharf began this development, he tore out Dr. Smith's fence, promis- ing to replace the fence at a later date. As of this date, no replacement has been made. Member Crews asked Staff for clarification of the access problem. Steve Ryder stated that the original plat approved by City in 1981 did show the access as part of this plat. Glen Magee stated that the signed plat document of record which is used as base drawings for this development showed this as an available access. Mr. Magee stated that the size and height of these buildings do fit into the envelope approved by the City. Concerning the fence issue for Dr. Smith, Mr. Magee stated he was unaware of this problem but assured Board this issue would be settled. Mr. Magee also addressed the issues presented by Mr. Walker. Member Edwards asked for clarification of the originally proposed street improvements versus the proposals now being made. Matt Baker of the City Engineering Department described these proposals. Sharon Brown expressed concern over the set -back and height of Building K. Mr. Magee described the buildings in detail, concluding that the building would be 31 feet high with a 15 feet setback from property line. Member Brown then questioned the setback of Building H on the northeast corner from the canal, and how far this building is from the flowline of the canal. Mr. Magee responded that the building would set 2 feet inside the easement line of the building envelope, and would be located approximately 25 feet from the flowline of the canal but approximately 12-15 feet from the actual water- line of the canal. Steve Ryder clarified that, according to the building envelope, it would be approximately 15 feet to the waterline. Member O'Dell expressed concern over the loss of greenspace created by the additional garages and the amount of asphalt between buildings. Mr. Magee discussed the parking facilities available and the low number of vehicles expected in this area. Planning and Zoni .Board Minutes • May 19, 1986 Page 11 Member Kern asked if the undeveloped space in the southeastern corner had been dedicated as greenspace or would it be available for future development. Mr. Magee responded there was no formal dedication of this area. Member Kern also expressed concern over the lack of green areas. He asked if the developer expected mostly families to occupy these buildings. Mr. Magee stated there is a mixture of one- and two -bedroom units. Sharon Brown questioned the recreation areas, and the distance from certain buildings to this area. Mr. Magee explained the planned route from buildings in question to the area. Member Edwards again asked for specific clarification on the access issue. Dick Rutherford, surveyor and engineer for both projects, stated that Dr. and Mrs. Smith signed a dedication of easement for the first plat. This area was not included in the second plat to prevent Dr. Smith from having to sign the plat a second time. Dr. Smith stated that he had conferred with his attorney on this matter. Even though he did sign an accessment easement, it was not a road access easement. The easement was for utilities and emergency access only. Steve Roy stated that after a limited review of the original plat, it appears the dedication of access was for limited usage pertaining to emergency equip- ment. If this is true, then there is no potential for public access. Joe Frank reviewed the options of the Board: (1) approve as it is, (2) put a condition on the proposal that if this issue is not resolved the approval would be terminated, (3) deny the project, (4) continue until next month to provvide time to resolve this issue. Mr. Frank recommended the option of approval with the conditon that the issue be resolved is not a good option. Ramsey Myatt, attorney for applicant, pleaded that if this proposal were denied, the applicant would still have the privilege of continuing development according to the original application, which was approved. Steve Roy agreed that the project would return status quo but the issue of access would still exist. Member O'Dell moved for denial of the proposal due to the increased density and lack of greenspace, incompatible building size, and general increase in intensity. Member Kern seconded the motion. Motion to deny passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Bo. . Minutes May 19, 1986 Page 12 #39-86 RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER PROGRAM Warren Jones, Fire Marshall of Poudre Fire Authority, presented the proposal. There were no public speakers concerning this issue. Sharon Brown asked that record show that the development of the sprinkler would not necessarily mean the streets would be narrowed. There may be other options other than the fire protection reasons why we might need to maintain the current development criteria. Motion to approve made by Member Kern. Seconded by Member Edwards. Motion carried 7-0. #29-86 STUART REZONING - County Referral Bob Wilkinson described the property. Jim Martell, representing Kimbel J. Stuart who is the property owner, explained the reasons for application. No public speakers appeared. Chairman Dow asked what the maximum density would be under the request. Mr. Wilkinson replied 15,000 square feet per lot. He also stated that Staff is recommending denial. Member Lang motion for denial. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion for denial passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Joe Frank announced the orientation on rransportation Planning on June 4, 1986, located on North Wood Street in the traffic Engineers office. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. «« RICHARDS I o COUNTRY b WILLLrr..r.. ns �� ce o we<o •••^•N ••x r..•..... _ rt LAPORTE V l "MARTIN REMINGTON PLACE LUTHER HOME HIGHWAY w \ S5 \) FORT�,� 1 J THE TERRACES crs.u. COLLINSVINE ARD CHRISTIAN w OVERLAND TRAIL (FARM PROSPECT `� UDGE ARM l 5 l r SPRING CREEK L� /�,fr PROFESSIONAL PARK w s DRA ~ N ww.rwe , o WARREN FARM ion ETooTM :O 38 .......... ..... � \ / OR = .....�x... F UNTAINI_EAD NT3 c I " HARMONY OAK RIDGE CLARENDON HILLS S/D .................. .. /.......... i rrl.. s i Y RD. 0D.334 ,••+ ^_ �LEFLAR EXEMP 0 V U 4V,fANTON MEADOWS S/D