Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/03/1986PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES February 3, 1986 The regular meeting of Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board member present at the February 3, 1986 board meeting were Tim Dow, Laurie O'Dell, David Edwards, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, and Linda Lang. Member Sanford Kern was absent. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Matt Baker, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, Peter Barnes, Rick Ensdorff, and Pat Englebert. Legal staf was represented by John Huisjen. Ms. Hopkins stated that Item 1. #13-85A, SHERWOOD STREET COMMONS PUD - FINAL; Item 2. #41-81B, WEST MOUNTAIN PLAZA PUD - One Year Extension; and Item 3. #68-85, KING SOOPERS #9 EXPANSION - NON -CONFORMING USE REVIEW of the consent agenda were being continued by the applicants. Plus Item 8. #55-85A, WHITCOMB GREENS PUD - FINAL of the discussion agenda was being withdrawn. Ms. Hopkins stated only Item 4. #94-85, SYCAMORE FOUR-PLEX - R-M SITE PLAN REVIEW remained on the consent agenda. Member Dow asked if there were any questions or comments on Item 4 prior to the board voting on it. The audience indicated they wanted to discuss Item 4. Staff member, Steve Ryder, gave a brief summary of the proposed project. Bill Rogers, representing the applicant, stated the proposed project was a two story -garden level four-plex with detached garage. The garage would be a single building positioned on the back of the lot with access from the alley. Member Dow asked what was on the property at the present time. Mr. Rogers stated the lot was vacant. Member Dow asked if staff had anything to add. Mr. Ryder stated a house would be moved onto the lot which the applicant planned to set on a new foundation which would contain the the lower level apartments. He stated there was a neighborhood meeting and there was concern over the additional traffic on the alley. He further stated that it was a possibility that the applicant would help to improve the alley. Also there was mention that the neighborhood had indicated that the lot had been designated as a park at one time but he could not find a record to that effect. There was also concern by the resdients for the integrity of their neighborhood. Member Dow asked staff to describe the surrounding neighborhood land uses. Mr. Ryder indicated that the neighborhood consisted of mostly single family homes with a duplex and a six-plex in the area of the proposed site. Member Dow asked staff if the proposed building was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Ryder stated it was and the staff recommended approval. Member Brown questioned if the proposed landscaping was acceptable and Mr. Ryder indicated that it was. Member Dow opened the topic up for discussion from the public. Jerry Gavaldon, 413 N. Grant, came forward stating that he and his mother lived adjacent to the propose site. He asked if the alley would be up -graded and he wanted to know what the time frame involved was. Mr. Ryder stated the alley would be up -graded when the neighborhood deemed it necessary. Mr. Gavaldon stated that he and several other neighbors had several concerns about the project. These concerns included dust level (as most of the neighbors hung their laundry outside to dry) and the noise level. They would recommend paving the alley. He further stated there was not adequate room for cars to manuever in and out of the garage as it was placed on the site without the possibility of running into the neighbor's fence. He suggested to the applicant the garages be placed further into the site or use their own property for access to the garage, and that there was too much density for the site. Member Dow questioned the staff about the improvement of the alley. Staff member, Bonnie Tripoli, stated that alley improvements would not be done at this time. The owners have agreed to participate in any further special alley improvements. Member Dow stated that the developer would not be liable for entire amount and the neighborhood would also be responsible. Mr. Gavaldon stated that the present time there was not a need for the alley to be paved but the additional traffic created by the four-plex would deem it necessary. Dan Martinez, 728 Sycamore, stated he thought the building was ugly and not compatible with the neighborhood. He further stated that the lot had been used as a play area for the neighborhood kids and this would be eliminated by such a project. He felt the area was already too dense. Member Dow asked if there was anyone one else who wished to come forward. -Page 2- Isabel Carillo, 413 N. Grant, came forward stating she had lived in the area since 1959 and had raised 11 children in the neighborhood. She stated the lot had been given to the area residents as a park and they kept it up as a park with playground equipment until the city submitted them with a water bill they were unable to pay. The children still use the lot to play football and other games and at the present time there isn't anywhere else they can play other than the street or the driveways. Calvin Blye came forward and stated the project was too large for the site and the area was too dense. Janice Moore, 300 N. Grant, stated the area was too dense and they were having problems with the water pressure now and the added population would create even more of a problem. She further stated that the area had a special character and the addition of a four-plex would eliminate it. William Schmidt, 417 N. Grant, stated he was concerned about cars backing out of the garage would damage his fence directly across from the garages. He thought the developer should put in either a single family home or a duplex. Member Dow stated that would conclude public comment and asked if the board had questions for the staff. Member Brown asked about the width of the alley and Mr. Ryder responded that the alley was 15 feet wide. Member Brown asked if the width presented a problem. Mr. Ryder stated the developer intended on putting a 20 foot pad in front of the garage, and that should handle any turning movements. Member Brown then stated that if the cars parked on the pad they would still have to pull into the alley to turn around. Mr. Ryder indicated the developer had moved the garage on the site plan to resolve this problem. Member Brown asked if the developer could move the garage further into the lot. Mr. Ryder stated there might be a problem with fire access requirements. Member Dow asked if more turning area was needed even if the garage was moved into the site. Member Brown asked if there was access off Sycamore. Mr. Ryder indicated that the alley access was preferred by the staff. Sycamore access was difficult to provide because of the narrowness of the lot. The alley was the most logical location. Mr. Rogers stated that the developer didn't have a problem with moving the garage back further into the site. -Page 3- Member O'Dell commented that if the garage was moved back into the site there would be less area for the children of the four-plex to play. Member Edwards questioned if the R-M site plan was going to come back for a final review. Mr. Ryder indicated that this was a final plan but the board could put conditions on it. Mr. Joe Frank, staff member, stated it would appropriate for the board to place conditions on the project if they were minor in nature. If there were major problems or conditions then the Board should either deny the project or continue the item until the issues were resolved. Member Dow questioned the use -by -right of the site. Mr. Frank indicated the site was over 12,400 sq. ft. therefore, the applicant had a right under. the R-M zone, to buil.d two duplexes if he wished instead of the four-plex. There would be no review of the duplexes by the Board. Member Dow asked if the board had a motion. Member Edwards made a motion to approve the project because of the use -by -right and the four-plex would be preferrable to two duplexes. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Brown stated she would have vote against the motion because there was too much on the site. The project was approved 5/1. Mr. Gavaldon asked about the appeal process. Mr. Huisjen stated he could appeal to the city council. Mr. Gavaldon asked if they appealed the project would it stop until after a decision on the appeal was made. Mr. Huisjen stated that it would be stopped. Member Dow asked Mr. Huisjen to advise Mr. Gavaldon about the time frame for the appeal. Mr. Huisjen indicated that the appeal would have to be filed within fourteen days. Item 5. #5-86, AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE Staff member, Peter Barnes, gave a brief summary to the board that the city needed to change the definitions of "one -family dwelling", and "family", and to add a definition of "mobile home". Member Dow asked if the change had been reviewed by legal staff and Mr. Barnes indicated that it had been. -Page 4- Member Edwards stated that the present 3-person family definition would mean a woman and her child living with but not married to a man and his child would be in violation of the code. Mr. Barnes responded that was a possibility and further stated that the only way they could enforce it was if a neighbor submitted a complaint. Member Dow stated he felt the problem with the solution of the amended code was that it's impractical and unenforceable, therefore, he would vote against it. Member Crews made a motion to approve the amended code. Member Edwards moved to second the motion. The motion was approved 5/1. Item 6. #24-80J PARR CENTRAL PUD, PHASE V - PRELIMINARY Steve Ryder gave a brief summary of the proposed project stating the restaurant had been eliminated from the project. Cathy Chianese, representing the applicant, stated the concerns of the central portion of the overall project which included parking, traffic, the bike trail and landscaping. She indicated they had eliminated the restuarant and decreased the size of the office buildings which eliminated some parking problems for the new part and solved the parking problems created by the success of the health club. She further indicated that a deceleration lane would be added to the project. As to the bike trail they were going to move it away from the office buildings and provide more landscaping along the trail itself. Mr. Ryder stated that the parking problem had been addressed by the applicant plus the traffic problem was resolved with the deceleration lane. Further, the applicant had .improved the landscaping and the set backs in the plan presented this evening. He stated that staff recommended approval of the project with conditions. Member Dow asked about off -site improvements. Mr. Ryder indicated that the applicant was going to provide striping and a right -turn lane on North Lemay plus a deceleration lane into the site. Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, stated that with the current traffic flow the improvements provided by the applicant would be sufficient along with the correct traffic signal timing pattern. Member O'Dell questioned if the additional turn lane and deceleration lane wouldn't create a third east bound lane on Prospect. Mr. Ensdorff stated that either a deceleration lane or ,i right -turn lane would not funciton as a thrid lane and striping and signs should help the flow of traffic. -Page 5- Member Dow opened the topic for public discussion. Wayne Nelson, 1512 Luke Street, asked the applicant about the number of parking spaces provided for the health club. Ms. Chianese stated there would be 228 to 230. Mr. Nelson inquired about the .legal rights of people from the health club parking on his street. He was also concerned about the noise level. Mr. Huisjen stated that the parking on the public street was a sensitive problem and that a possible solution were signs stating there could not be long term parking on the street but that would affect homeowners also and that was why adequate parking was so important. Kathy Nelson, 1512 Luke Street, stated she was not only concerned about the parking on their street but also the safety of the neighborhood children. She asked if there was going to be other openings on Luke, Patton or Lemay. Ms. Chianese stated the openings would be only as they exist at the present time. The discussion was returned to the board for further comment. Member O'Dell asked about the bike trail and if it was being placed in the flood way or flood plain and if so who would repair it. Mr. Ryder indicated because the developer had moved the trail, the developer would be responsible to pay for the restoration if it were damaged. Member Brown asked if there was going to be pedistrian paths within the project. Ms. Chianese stated there would be paths connecting the various businesses with the trail. Member Brown asked if there would be employee parking provided for the existing retail. Ms. Chianese stated there was none at the present, but there would be at the back of the stores which would also be used for delivery purposes. Member Edwards questioned the staff if the Board could require that all parking be put inwith the first phase. Mr. Ryder stated the city had that ability. Member Edwards then inquired about the possibility of the city requiring the developer to put in the parking on another phase to be put in with this phase? -Page 6- Mr. Ryder stated he was not sure the city could do that. Mr. Huisjen stated that it depended on the need. Member Dow asked Ms. Chianese about the building on the east side of the health club. Ms. Chianese stated there two office buildings designed to be located on that portion of the site. Member Dow inquired about the expansion of the health club. Ms. Chianese indicated that the health club was going to expand. Mr. Ryder indicated that the expansion of the club at this time was not for high impact usage. Member Dow stated that the addition could create room for another arobitics class which would create a high usage impact. Mr. Ryder stated the club could do any number of internal changes and not notify the board of them. The board didn't have control over structural changes within the building. Ms. Chianese stated the office buildings to the east of the club are in preliminary stages and the sequence between the parking and the construction of the building has not been determined as yet. Member Edwards moved to approve the project with the conditions placed on it by staff and to look at the entire package at the final of Phase IV. Member Lang seconded the motion. Member Dow indicated they would need to have an overview of the office on the east side of the project. Mr. Frank stated the board could apply that condition to Phase IV. Mr. Huisjen stated the entire project was tied together due to single ownership. Ms. Chianese stated that if parking was going to be an issue that the developer would be willing to put in the parking first. Member Edwards stated that parking was the issue and the building therefore he would strike the additional condition. Member O'Dell stated that her concerns about the project were eased by the conditions placed on the project. The motion was approved 4/2. Item 7. #72-79F, CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT AND CAR WASH PUD - PRELIMINARY Staff member, Elaine Kleckner, gave a brief summary of the proposed project. -Page 7- Alan Hauser, representing the applicant, stated that Carl's Jr. is a restaurant chain that is in mostly the Southwest and California. The restaurant is a fast food facility and the car wash would consist of four bays. The structure would be brick and masonary with a Roman tile roof much like the Taco Bell building near by. He further stated that the applicant had added extensive landscaping and was willing to work with staff if more was needed. Bill Bartran, landowner, addressed the traffic flow using the existing access road. He indicatated that parking was a problem with the customers from the nearby health club and with Duds and Suds but stated they had worked out with the fire department to put in permanent structures to the separate the parking from the different businesses. Matt Delich, traffic engineer for the architect, stated they had done a parking analysis and that during the peak hours the customers in a fast food business were parked for 10 minutes or less. He felt that with sharing the parking with the Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts Restaurant the parking for Carl's Jr. would be adequate. Ms. Kleckner gave a brief history of the Fairview Shopping Center and stated the land use was not a problem. Traffic flow had been a problem for traffic exiting onto Elizabeth but a center lane would solve that problem. This would reduce the bike lane from 7 feet to 5 feet. She stated that the parking area for Pott's should be redesigned prior to final approval to make this proposal and Fairview Shopping Center work better. She further stated that the city benefits from shared parking as it opens up more area for developement or more area for green space. At the present time, Ms. Kleckner indicated the parking space for Wendy's and Nautlis is deficient and it would be helpful to have actual traffic counts prior to final approval. She stated staff recommended approval with the conditions as stated in their report. Jim Martel, attorney for Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts Restaurant, came forward stated that access by Carl's Jr. through Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts Restaurant parking lot was not acceptable. He further indicated that the developers were not only providing inadequate parking but creating an additional problem and that such a business was too intense for the area due to the parking problem. Member Dow asked if the parcels were under separate ownership. Mr. Martell stated the land occupied by Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts is owned by Mr. Bartran and leased to Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts but the land owned by Nautlis and Wendy's were under separate ownership. Member Dow stated that the condition placed by staff that Carl's Jr. receive agreement for shared parking with Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts, wasn't possible since Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts doesn't agree to share the parking. -Page 8- Luke Sergeant, representing Taco Bell, came forward and stated that James Cook, President of 'Paco Bell, thought Carl's Jr. would be a good neighbor for 'Paco Bell. He suggested that Carl's Jr. eliminate the car wash to provide more parking but he didn't want to see Carl's Jr. not al.lowerd to develop as it would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Bartran came forward stating he at one time owned the land on which Duds and Suds and Carl's Jr. are situated. He stated he was aware there was inadequate parking for Nautlis but they were providing parking for their customers in another area. He further stated that the peak hours for Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts and Carl's Jr. would be different and that Carl's Jr. was willing to share their parking spaces. Member Edwards stated that the project warranted shared parking but that could not be done if one of the tenants wouldn't share. Mr. Bartran stated Chesterfields Bottomsley and Potts had a .lease agreement with him and he didn't know what he could do. Member Edwards made a motion to approve the project with the conditions placed on it by staff. Member Lang seconded the motion. Member Crews suggested they work out the shared parking problem first. The motion was approved 5/1. OTHER BUSINESS Joe Frank brought administrative changes before the Board concerning Charleston - PUD. The Board directed Staff to bring the item before them at the February meeting on a consent item. They also provided the board with a map of the area concerning the Trapper's Point project. The next planning and zoning board meetings were scheduled for Feburary 24, 1986 and March 3, 1986. Meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. -Page 9-