Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/03/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 3, 1986 The meeting began at approximately 6:32 p.m. Those members present were Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang and Bernie Strom.. Staff members present were Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, Matt Baker, Jan Shepard and Barbara Hendrickson. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Joe Frank reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items; King Soopers i9 Expansion -Non Conforming Use Review #68-85, Oak Ridge Village PUD-Amended Preliminary M13-82H, Oak Ridge Village, Phase 1, PUD-Final i13-82I, The Jetty, Phase 1, PUD-Final /74-85B. Dry Creek Sto- rage PUD-Master and Preliminary A76-85 has been continued until the March 24th meeting. Member Brown motioned to approve Items 11, 2, 3, and 4. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to approve Consent Agenda passed 7-0. #51-85C THE PINNACLE PUD - Final Steve Ryder, Planner, gave brief project description. Robert Dunn, Pinnacle Partnership and Project Applicant, told the Board this is a request for 39 condo units for the elderly. It is a passive solar design with detached garages. This project has addressed the lands- caping design to make the solar design functional. Mr. Ryder stated the Pinnacle PUD- Preliminary was approved in Nov. 1985 by a 4-3 vote with a staff condition to address the landscape plan. The Final plan has an excellent landscape plan with a number of utility easements and the Final plan is in compliance with the Preliminary plan and staff does recommend approval. The reason this item is on the Discussion Agenda is due to the interest expressed by Boardmembers with the Preliminary. Member Brown asked the date the utility easement on the southside went into effect. Mr. Ryder replied the existing trunk sewer line has been in existence for a number of years, possibly since the 1960's. They are deep, about B' down and 20' easements that are slightly overlapping. Member Kern asked if the open space land use accounts for 32% of land use and active recreation land use another 20%, adding up to over 50% in lands- caping. He wondered if the southern area, along Spring Creek is really usable. P & Z Minutes 3/386 Page 2 Mr. Ryder answered that it is for passive recreation and this would include, picnic tables and minor recreation things. This plan is geared for the 55+ age group with less team emphasis and more individual. Member Kern was concerned about the distance between the northwest section and the passive recreation area. Mr. Ryder replied it would be equivalent to 1-2 city blocks. The was no public input. Member Brown asked about the purchase of the property. Mr. Dunn replied the property would be purchased upon approval and the ground is tied up subject to approval. Member Kern felt this was a nice site but little in the way of usable green space for the people who will live there. He stated that it is written in the LDGS that activities should be integrated with the organizational scheme of the neighborhood and community and it appears to him that the only passive and active recreation will basically be publicly supplied land. . He feels this project is too dense for the amount of open space available for the elderly. Mr. Dunn replied a clubhouse was not included, as it would raise the price of the units. He stated there was easy access to the Spring Creek Bike Trail and the land on the bottom end is in the floodplain which has been landscaped and buffered, so it can be utilized. Member O'Dell asked what part of the land belongs to each individual tenant. Mr..Dunn answered the air space of each unit and individual unit which are 1180 square feet and 1260 square feet, not including the patio. Member O'Dell asked if the tenants are allowed fencing. Mr. Dunn stated they planned to have 3-4' high fences. Member Brown asked if all the utility easements are on the south side. Mr. Dunn used the projector to point out the project's easements and where the various landscaping would occur. Member Brown asked if the major plantings would be too large for the solar access. Mr. Dunn replied that plantings down on the boundary will not interfere but plantings closer to the building obviously need to be spaced. Member Kern asked if the sale to elderly is slow, would it not be suitable for younger tenants, as it is a nice site for families with young children. P & Z Minutes 3/ 3/ 86 Page 3 He asked if there is a control on the sale to only elderly. Mr. Dunn answered that nothing is guaranteed but because of the location to the hospital, bus lanes and downtown, people in the 55+ age bracket don't mind paying the competitive price for homes of this quality.. At least one member of the family must be 55 or older and does not need to be retired. He feels good about the market for this project. Member Edwards motioned to approve this project as it is in substantial compliance with the preliminary review and feels it is an infill project or a small piece of land and difficult to develop as it is bounded by a major arterial and the bike path. Member Lang seconded the motion. Motion to approved passed 7-0. RAINTREE PUD - Variance Request Joe Frank, Planner, gave a description of the request. He stated it was unusual in that the request is for a variance of an extension. This pro- ject was approved in 1980 and has received two extensions, the last to expire on August 18, 1985. Citing the LDGS, Mr. Frank said a project's ability to proceed shall expire unless the project is "substantially com- plete". On 8/18/85, the project was not substantially complete and did expire. The applicants and staff to seek a variance in that section of the LDGS which deals with expiration date and if granted, the request is for one year beginning in 8/18/85 to expire in 8/86. Jim Martell, representing Raintree Associates, stated they are requesting a variance from the interpretation of "substantially completed" and this is due to some confusion when this was last extended. On December 1984, the minutes indicate that substantially completed meant substantially underway and after talking with Maurie Rupel, Engineering Department, two of the principles also got the impression that the meaning was substantially underway. The project presently is substantially underway but not substan- tially completed as the City interprets that provisions. He noted that on the staffs' outline of the project progress, that Raintree Drive has not been completed only because the paving company was not able to do the work due to weather. He stated that staff has reviewed the project and it does meet all the criteria of LDGS and therefore would be approved under the same criteria if submitted today. He asked that the extension he for August 1, 1987. Steve Roy, Legal Staff, pointed out that the variance is not from the defi- nition of "substantially complete", but instead from the implied condition in the LDGS that a request for extension be made prior to the expiration of the existing period. It was his understanding that the request for exten- sion was not made until 2/6/86 and should have been made prior to 8/16/85. This was due to confusion which existed as to the definition of substan- tially complete. Staff does not wish to vary the def inition but feels the request should have been made before 8/85. Mr. Martell responded by saying the drainage plans had to be redesigned and P & Z Minutes 3/3/86 Page 4 the staff wouldn't o.k. the plans as the plat had expired. This was the first indication that the clients realized the extension had expired. He noted the street improvements were put in after 8/19/85, demonstrating con- tinuing work on the project. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Martell if he was aware of the three conditions on the recommendation. Mr. Martell replied he knew of the conditiuns and were acceptable. Member Edwards asked why the variance was used to achieve an extension. Mr. Frank stated staff only saw two ways available for an extension: one was to submit preliminary and final as a PUD through the Board and the other was the variance. Member Kern asked to what extent this establishes a precedent. Mr. Frank replied the one year extension has been done routinely but the variance request is the first and could not determine future requests. Mr. Roy felt it would not establish a precedent by definition of variances to be looked at case by case basis. The hardship, in this project, is due to definition confusion and hopefully will be clarified by an amendment to the LDGS and once this ambiguity is removed, repetition would not exist. There was no public input. Member Brown asked the applicant for a completion date. Dan King, Raintree Partnership, stated he had no specific date. He felt it is not the intent of the partnership to complete Snowberry Street if they are only granted an extension for 8/86, as it is not enough time. Member Kern asked staff the reason for the 8/86 date rather than the 8/87. Mr. Frank replied it was normal to grant 6-12 months extension which they feel is enough time for the developers to proceed and if there are changes to City standards, they could he applied. In this case he felt they were not closing off any opportunities for them to come back and request another one year extension. He would like to reserve the option for the staff to review the plans again in a year to make sure there have been no changes, so the staff could apply them to the next extension before this latest one has expired. Mr. King stated that once the shopping center is in place and Raintree Dr. is committed, there is not much room for change. Chairman Dow asked if, under strict interpretation of the ordinance, had the PUD expired prior to this application and has the Board ever granted an extension beyond one year. He also asked from when should the extension begin -this application, prior application or Board approval. P & Z Minutes • • 3/3/86 Page 5 Mr. Frank replied the extension should be from the expiration date, which was 8/18/85. Member Dow asked if there had been any changes which would cause staff to make different recommendations if this was a PUD being submitted tonight. Mr. Frank stated when this Plan was submitted there was much more flexibil- ity with building plans, elevations and pedestrian systems. He also stated there would be a number of conditions such as right of way street adjust- ments on Shields. These would be fairly minor but would be addressed before Board review and all comments from other departments were satisfied with the present plan. Member Edwards asked why the extension was granted in 12/84 but expired in 8/85, making it only an eight month extension. Mr. Frank stated they had submitted a letter prior to the expiration date and it took from 8/84 to 12/84 to review the utility plans. Member Crews felt in granting a year's extension, they would actually be granting a six month and would not like to change the way the extensions have been approved in the past. Member Crews motioned to approve the extension to 8/18/86 with staff condi- tions. He stated that due to the changing area this project is part of he would feel uncomfortable with extending the date to 8/87. Member Kern seconded the motion. Mr. Frank clarified the recommendation with the definition of substantially complete meaning once all public improvements are installed and completed. Members Crews and Kern found the recommendation acceptable. Members Brown and Edwards felt the developers did not have enough time to meet the criteria for substantially complete and would prefer a date of 12/31/86. Member O'Dell asked how long would it slow them to come back through for another extension. Mr. Frank stated it would depend on how the standards have changed. Mr. Roy pointed out the LDGS authorizes extensions for successive six month periods and so if the Board wishes to stay within that language, they would select the six month extension. Chairman Dow stated it is important to keep the 8/85 date, as it is consis- tent. He felt with the warm weather and spring approaching, they could begin work again. If the project isn't completed, the owners can come back and request another extension. P & Z Minutes 3/3/86 Page 6 Motion to approve was passed 6-1, with Member Brown voting no. BISCELGIA SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral Chairman. Dow and Member Lang will not review this project and will abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. Bob Wilkinson, Planner, gave a brief description of this Master Plan for a recreation area located south of Mulberry and 1/3 mile east of Lemay Ave. Jack Biscelgia, Applicant, stated he was requesting approval for recommend- ation from the Board for four baseball batting cages and a go-cart tracks. He told the Board this would be a source of income for him and enjoys pro- viding a recreational area for children and adults. Mr. Wilkinson gave a map presentation about the proposal and reviewed the staff conditions; 1) easternmost access should be eliminated and combined access between the Biscelgia and Putt -Putt golf established, 2) parking and traffic circulation should be designed to City standards, 3) additional landscaping must be provided along Mulberry and 4) street and drainage improvements must be provided and frontage road should be aligned to City standards. Member Crews asked if these conditions include therecommendation made by the Division of Highways of which a copy of the letter was delivered to each Boardmember. Mr. Wilkinson stated the letter requested the center most accesses be eli- minated, leaving the applicant's westernmost access and Putt-Putt's east- ernmost access and staff conditions are requesting the access to Putt -Putt be closed. He did not feel the letter should be part of the conditions, as there will be a permit issued by the State of Colorado, so it will have its own review. Member Edwards asked Mr. Wilkinson if he had discussed the conditions with Mr. Biscelgia. Mr. Wilkinson replied yes. Member Edwards then asked Mr. Biscelgia if he understood the conditions and accepts them. Mr. Biscelgia replied yes. Member Brown asked if joint parking can't be worked out what will happen. Mr. Wilkinson answered this is only a recommendation and hopefully it would be improved to county standards. Member Brown asked if the improvements on the frontage road will be required on all developments. + P & Z Minutes • • 3/3/86 Page 7 Mr. Wilkinson replied it is a standard condition on all county referrals and if there is a change of use, the applicant must go to the State Highway Dept, for an access permit to prove the existing access or any new access acquired by the property. Member Strom asked the difference between City standards and what is cur- rently there. Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, stated the City, County and State decided what is needed along Mulberry and basically, the street is to be 30'wide with curb and gutter on both sides with sidewalks on the develop- ment side. Curb and gutter can be waived if drainage can be handled within the median between the frontage and Mulberry. She said the pavement would have to be designed to City standards, which it is not and would be only his frontage. Member Brown motioned to recommend approval to the County with staff condi- tions. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion to recommend approval passed 6-0. TRIANGLE ACRES SUBDIVISION - COUNTY REFERRAL Bob Wilkinson, Planner, gave brief description of this project. No applicant was present. Mr. Wilkinson stated Mr. Vermilyea was notified. Mr. Wilkinson gave staff report which included recommendations for denial; 1) proposed subdivision is located in area classified as Rural Land Use, 2) this low density residential zone should be located in areas within easy access to shopping, employment centers and elementary schools, 3) appropri- ate location for PUD and 4) development doesn't conform to long range plans for the City or County. Chairman Dow asked if there is a condition that this be developed as a PUD or this an old zoning prior to PUD conditions. Mr. Wilkinson replied that in this location, it is not required to be a PUD, as this is an area of joint planning concern and there are no specific agreements but County would use Land Use Plan to direct developments. Boyd Bailey, 2620 S.E. Frontage Rd., asked the Board to recommend denial as that area is rural and he does not wish to live in a "neighborhood". He stated the applicant has rentals in that area and has had many problems with them. He feels stray dogs are from rentals owned by the applicant. Mr. Heddles, 5905 S.W. Frontage Rd., feels this is not good for the neigh- borhood. He's stated he is proud of his home and has concerns about the septic system for this project. Member Crews moved to recommend denial with the staff's recommendations. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to recommend passed 7-0. P & Z Minutes 3/3/86 Page 8 POUDRE VALLEY COOP EXEMPTION REQUEST - COUNTY REFERRAL Bob Wilkinson, Planner, gave a brief description of the project with staff's recommendation for denial; 1) proposal doesn't meet required crite- ria for granting an exemption as appropriate process would be a PUD to assure City concerns are met 2) 1-25 frontage road is considered a collec- tor and requ Tres a 68' ROW. No applicant was present. Mr. Wilkinson stated the applicant was notified. There was no public input. Member Kern moved to recommend denial based on staff's comments. Member Lang seconded the motion. Motion to recommend denial passed 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Joe Frank stated the County is not consistent with the UGA and he has sub- mitted to the Board a draft of a letter he would like to send to Council. Chairman Dow felt the letter was not strong enough and if not addressed adequately, may not have an impact. He felt the Board and staff needed to formally submit to Council and let them get back to the Board. The meeting adjourned to begin a worksession on Economic Development at 8:32 p.m. i • CHERRY HEIGHTS •