Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/27/1986PLANNING AND ZOING BORAD MINUTES January 27, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte, Avenue, Fort Collins, CO. Board members present at the January 24, 1986 work session were Tim Dow, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, Don Crews, Sharon Brown and Linda Lang. Board members present at the January 27, 1986 board meeting were Tim Dow, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, Don Crews, Sharon Brown and Alternate Linda Lang. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Matt Baker, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, Rick F.nsdorff, Traffic Engineer and Pat Englebert. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the consent agenda which consisted of the following items on the agenda: 1. Minutes of the December 16, 1985 meeting 2. #54-80I, THE SHOPS AT DRAKE CROSSING 3. #95-85, HAHN ANNEXATION 4. #95-85A, HAHN ZONING 5. #96-85, SEVEN SPRINGS/HAHN ANNEXATION 6. #96-85A, SEVEN SPRINGS/HAHN ZONING Ms. Hopkins announced that Item #2, THE SHOPS AT DRAKE CROSSING would be continued until February 3, 1986 per the request of the applicant. Item #13, #1-86, THERMAL CONCEPTS - PUBLIC SEWER WAIVER REQUEST, COUNTY REFERRAL would be continued until next month. Member Dow asked if anyone would like to have any of the items listed on the consent agenda pulled and discussed prior to the board voting on them. Lloyd Bearlow, 1209 Heppelwhite Court, Fort Collins, CO regarding Item #96-85A stated he and his family moved to the Ridge because it is a rural setting which they enjoy. He would perfer to keep the area as a county residential area instead of having it changed to a city environment. Member Dow asked Ken Waido to explain the annexation request. Mr. Waido stated that the properties in question have been part of the Fort Collins Urban Growth area since 1980. The Urbran Growth Area Agreement requires property to be annexed in order to develop it under this plan. The developers have mid- to long-term development plans which is the reason the zoning for such areas are T-transition. Public hearings would take place prior to the time of development. Mr. Bearlow questioned if the Ridge would be annexed. Mr. Waido indicated the City can annex any enclave parcels of land after three years. Presently the city has annexed the Voc-tech area and with the present proposal, the Ridge would be surrounded by city land. Therefore by 1989 the city could annex the Ridge by what is called involuntary annexation. Staff recently modified the RE zoning to allow the residents of such areas to keep farm animals and to help preserve the area. Barbara Case King, representing the homeowners of the Ridge, spoke to assure the board members that the homeowners would resist involuntary annexation and wanted to know who owned the Hahn and Seven Springs property. Mr. Waido stated that Robert Hahn was the owner of the Hahn property and that a Texas consortium by the name of LeTrouneau from Rockwell, Texas was the owner of the Seven Springs property. Ms. King questioned if there were any present plans to develope the area. Mr. Waido stated there were not. Member Crews moved to approve the consent agenda as it pertained to items 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Member O'Dell moved to second the motion. The motion was approved 7/0. At 6:50 p.m. former member, Gary Ross was honored with a plaque for his service to the Planning and Zoning Board for nine and a half years. Member Dow gave a short speech and Mr. Ross gave a thank you speech. Item 7. #54-838, FORT COLLINS RETIREMENT RESIDENCE/NAZARENE CHURCH -PRELIMINARY Staff member Joe Frank stated the applicant was requesting a 110 suite retirement residence facility and expansion of the existing Nazarene Church to include a gymnasium and new sanctuary. He stated that in 1984 the board had approved the final plan for 75 townhomes on the proposed site but the developer did not complete the project. The applicant, Jim Cox from Architecture Plus, stated that in 1969 the church purchased the land for the proposed site and that in 1971 they built the church as it is at the present. In 1975, the church purchased the land just to the south of it which would be the site of the proposed retirement facility. The proposed development would have three different phases. Phase 1 construction would take place in the summer and fall of 1986 and would include a multi -purpose facility to be added onto the north end of the sanctuary. This facility would include classrooms plus showers and bathrooms. Phase 2 would be constructed in 1987 and 1988 and would include the gymnasium, offices and library. Phase 3 construction would begin in 1988 and would include renovation of the chapel, add a nursery and additional classrooms. Mr. Cox further stated the the maximum height of the proposed additions would be 38 feet which is the height of the existing building. -Page 2- Mr. Cox further stated that there would not be any day school and that the major usage time would be on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. He stated that the gymnasium would be sound proofed with masonry construction. As to parking, Mr. Cox stated that there would be one space for every 5 people and they would provide 237 spaces for joint use with the retirement facility. Member Dow requested Mr. Cox to walk through the proposed project as to vehicular traffic. Mr. Cox stated that at the present the main entrance/exit of the site has unrestricted turning traffic. The southern entrance/exit is also unrestricted and the northern entrance/exit would be for right -turn only traffic. Member Crews questioned the possibility of sidewalks in the parking area. Mr. Cox stated there would only be sidewalks around the outside of the proposed site. Member O'Dell questioned the number of current parking places. Mr. Cox stated that there are approximately 70 - 80 spaces. Member Dow wondered if Mr. Cox was aware that the staff recommended a deceleration lane from the entrance. Mr. Cox stated they were aware of it but needed more details due to the ditch and there may be a problem from the ditch company. Clifford Curry, Holiday Management Company, came forward to speak about the retirement facility. He stated this kind of facility was basically between a single family dwelling and a nursing home. The average age of the occupants would be 80 years of age. The suites would not have any kitchens. There would be a common area for the kitchen, dining room, exercises and crafts. The facility would be rented and the rent would include a suite and services. The residents would be provided with a van for transportation. For security purposes the manager and assistant manager would live full time at the facility. As to the landscaping of the site there would be large areas of buffers and the facility would would have enough facade changes so that it could not be seen in its entirety from any one point. Further, to help diminish the impact of the facility it would rise from one-story to a two-story center which would house the common area. The first floor would house the exercise and craft rooms while the second floor would be the dining room. Mr. Curry stated there would be pedestrian paths around the outside of the facility for the residents to exercise. Staff member, Mr. Frank, recommended approval of the project with conditions. He stated the drive aisle was changed in the response to the neighborhood. The landscaping was extensive and the project had a pleasing appearance. -Page 3- Member Edwards asked if sidewalks would be provided along the church site. Mr. Frank indicated that sidewalks would be required on all public streets. Member Brown asked about a detention pond in regards to the Columbia Estates flood control. Mr. Frank stated that a detention pond was being installed. Member Edwards asked Mr. Curry if the van provided by the retirement center would eliminate the use of the public transport system. Mr. Curry stated he thought the van provided should take care of all the residents needs. Member Kern inquired about the square footage per unit. Mr. Curry stated that the units would run from a little under 400 sq. ft. to about 800 sq. ft. Member Crews asked about the size of the staff anticipated to maintain the retirement facility. Mr. Curry estimated there would be 15 to 18 staff members with 6 or 7 at any one time. Member Crews inquired if there would be designated employee parking places. Mr. Curry indicated there would be designated parking places for employees. Only about 10% of the residents would have their own vehicle and therefore parking would not be a problem. Member Brown asked if there would be elevators and if sprinklers would be installed in the facility. Mr. Curry indicate that both would be provided. Member O'Dell asked if outside tables would be provided. Mr. Curry said yes there would be outside tables in the grassy areas. Member Edwards inquired about the origin of the residents who would be moving to the facility. Mr. Curry stated that 80 to 90 per cent would be within 3 to 5 miles of the facility. Member Dow opened the discussion to the public. Jean Wyrick, 2206 Hiawatha Court, wanted to know who would maintain the landscaping and roads plus which way the cars would face in the parking lot. -Page 4- Mr. Frank indicated the cars would be facing in towards islands of landscaping and there was a possibility of a second layer of wood fence being installed to cut down glare from the car's headlights as they were entering the parking lot. Ms. Wyrick asked if more evergreen trees could be planted. Mr. Frank stated that was a possibility. Member Brown questioned the set backs and the elevation of the buildings with regards to the steeple height. Mr. Cox explained the set backs. Member Edwards asked about the window height on the west side in regards to the neighbors. Mr. Cox staged that the windows would be at such a height that they would be similar to skylights. Member Crews made a motion to approve the project. Member Kern moved to second the motion. Member Brown stated she would have to vote no because there was too much on the site. Member O'Dell asked if there had been any concerns stated by the neighbors on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Frank stated there had been one call concerning the noise from the gymnasium and the view. They would look further at the setbacks of the church at the time of final. Member Brown suggested the size of the gymnasium could be decreased. Member Kern stated he was concerned with the closeness of the church to the other properties because the facility might block the sunshine from the other homes and that he too shared Member Brown's concerns about the west side of the church property as to setbacks. Member Dow requested a voted be taken. The project was approved 6/1. Member Brown had the dissenting vote. ITEM 8. #89-85, WEST GLENN PUD - PRELIMINARY Staff member, Steve Ryder, stated the project involved 86 modular homes on 17 acres that was zoned RP and RLP. James Brannan, representing the applicant, gave the logistics of the site. He stated that the northern half of the site would be reserved for adults only. That each lot would be for sale to individuals qualifying for conventional loans and those homes on permanent foundations would be selling for $40 - 50,000. As far as maintance of the lots, the homeowner's association would be responsible for that -Page 5- and the private drives and walks. Mr. Brown showed slides of possible styles of modular homes being placed on the site. He stated he was aware of the conditions the staff had placed on the project and said he would be willing to work with them. Mr. Ryder gave a brief summation of the project and stated staff recommended approval with conditions as to landscaping, foundations and orientation of building sites as detailed in the staff report. Member Dow asked besides building orientation, landscaping and variety of color what did staff mean by the site being re -worked? Mr. Ryder stated the building site envelopes needed more variation in their placement. Member Dow opened the discusion up to public. Mr. Rodney Hanson came forward and stated he had 123 signatures on a petition from the surrounding neighbors and businesses stating they were against the proposed project. The reasons for their feelings were due to the chemicals stored at Forney Industries and that the Increased population would lead to increased vandalism and crime rate. Bill Eckert stated he was against the project because he felt the property values in the area would be decreased. Mel Shagle, 330 N. Taft, stated he was against the project because it was not compatible with the rural setting of the area and there would be a problem with the resident's dogs chasing the livestock in the area. Ms. Clausen, 530 N. Taft, inquired what school the children would be attending. She stated she belonged to the Irish PTO and stated that at this time Irish was overcrowed by 200 students. She stated she opposed the project due to the rural nature of the area and the overcrowding in the schools. Member Dow stated that it was up to the school board as to what school the children from the area would be attending. Cynthia Hobday stated her father lived at 1948 Laporte, and that they were against the project because it would lower their property value. Dawn Hamilton, 1940 Laporte, stated she was against the project because of increased traffic flow, the problem of ground maintance and that it would become an "across the tracks" area. John Forney, 1825 W. Vine, stated he was both a resident of the area and owns a business adjacent to the proposed project. He stated he felt the added traffic would be a serious problem and that the added children and dogs in the area would present a problem due to the fact that his business stored chemicals outside. Further, the ditch which ran along the property was not fenced and would be a safety hazzard to the children. -Page 6- John Ball, stated he was against the project because his property would be de -valued, and cited problems with traffic, the school bus stop and the irrigation ditch. He thought that with the added children there would be more of a likelihood of vandalism to the neighboring cemetery. The Pastor of the Foothills Wesleyan Church stated he was concerned with the closeness of the project and the access road next to the church. Mr. Ryder stated the road connection included a future second point of access that would not be constructed at the present time. Debra Kaestner, 1700 W. Mountain, stated she concurred with the other area residents and further stated she felt the lots were too small; not enough open space for activities; street too narrow for extra cars; problems with possible renters; and, the proximity of this project was too close to other trailer parks in the area. Brian Keith stated he opposed the project. Member Dow closed the discussion to the public and opened it to the board. Member Brown asked Mr. Forney how many people he employed at his business, what was the nature of his storage now and if he had fencing for security. Mr. Forney stated that he employed between 120 and 150 people. That EPA required him to provide a concrete structure or fencing for the area because of the chemicals he needed to operate his business. He further stated that the ditch canal area couldn't be fenced. Member Edwards asked the applicant if the north side of the site was for adults only, would there be two homeowner's associations to administer the covenants for each section. The applicant stated that there wouldn't be that much difference in the covenants. Member Edwards asked if the green areas would be developed initially or if it would be phased in as the project progressed and at what stage would the homeowner's association take over. The applicant stated the green areas would be phased in and then passed to the homeowner's association upon completion. Member Edwards questioned the percentage of green areas and the applicant stated that 65% would be left as open space, not including streets. Member Lang questioned the types of homes being put on the site. The applicant stated they would be 16 ft. wide homes up to double-wides. Member Brown asked if the project met the low-income guidelines. -Page 7- Mr. Ryder stated a rental agreement and income guidelines had not been discussed in detail. Member Brown made a motion to deny the project for the following reasons: lack of neighborhood compatibilty; site design needs to be re -worked including open space, parking and guest parking; and amenities. Member Edwards moved to second the motion stating he agreed with Member Brown and there are already two trailer parks in the area. Member Lang agreed and further stated that she was distressed by the audience reaction to the low-cost housing because such housing is needed. Member Edwards further stated that the developer needs to be more creative so it is more compatible with the area. The project was denied 7/0. Item 9. #137-8011, ARBOR PLAZA PUD - FINAL Staff member, Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the proposed 154,000 sq. ft. shopping center on approximately 15 acres. He stated that on October 28, 1985, Planning and Zoning gave their approval of the preliminary with conditions. Jim Gefroh, representing the applicant, gave a summation of the project as to the time frame, landscaping, traffic flow and parking for both cars and bikes. He further stated that the developer was committed to provide the College Avenue median by obtaining Special Improvement District funding. Member Brown asked legal staff if the developer was committed to building the streets whether or not he obtained the SID funding. Mr. Roy stated the improvement was required as a condition of the development of the project. Mr. Frank stated that staff recommended approval of Phase 1 of the project. Member Dow inquired about payment of the $25,000 required by the City Council because of the fill in of Mill Creek. Mr. Frank stated the developer agreed to make payment upon issuance of the building permit. Member Brown inquired about the existing tree on the site. Mr. Gefroh stated that as many of the existing trees as possible would bm craved at the east end of the site. Member Crews asked Mr. Gefroh if Walmart would be against blocking the view of the front of the store with landscaping. Mr. Gefroh stated that Walmart had been given the plans and that the -Page 8- landscaping would be a variety of heights and therefore not block the view corridor entirely. Member Dow asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Member O'Dell moved to approve the project. Member Lang seconded the motion. Mr. Roy sug ested that a condition be added that the developer needed to pay the25,000 mitigation fee prior to issuance of the building permits for the project. Member Brown concurred. Member Kern stated the project did not take into consideration the natural lay of the land and the larger mature trees. The project was approved 7/0. Item 10. #50-85A, FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER - THE PAVILLION PUD - FINAL Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the project and stated that staff recommended approval of the final. Applicant, James Sullivan, stated that the staff's conditions had been met. They had added extensive landscaping to project and that the National Car Rental site had been been re -designed in response to staff concerns. The National Car Rental car wash had been placed inside the building and the gas pumps would be hidden from view due to location and landscaping. Mr. Frank stated that on August 28, 1985 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the preliminary with conditions. Staff recommended as conditions of approval that street easements be shown on the PUD, an off -site storm drainage easement obtained, utility plans signed, and Pavillion Drive dedication be taken care of in 45 days, or the Final PUD would have to come back before the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Dow asked Mr. Sullivan if that was agreeable to the developer and Mr. Sullivan indicated that it would be agreeable. Stan Meyers, Consulting Engineer, described the storm drainage for the area. Member Brown inquired about the mechanical equipment on the roof tops and if it would be hidden from the public view. Mr. Sullivan stated that it would be hidden from view. Member Kern stated the word "Pavilion" was spelled two different ways and wondered what the correct spelling would be. Mr. Sullivan stated it would be spelled P-A-V-I-L-I-O-N. Member Kern questioned Mr. Sullivan about the parking spaces allowed for National Car Rental. -Page 9- Mr. Sullivan stated there would be 120 spaces allowed for National Car Rental and the cars would be parked back-to-back for storage. Member Edwards asked who represented National Car Rental. Mr. Sullivan stated that National Car Rental business would be owned separately from the other businesses on the site. Member Dow opened the discussion up to the public. There was none. Member Kern moved to approve the project with conditions to be met prior to the start of construction on the site. Mr. Sullivan stated that they would agree with the 45 day commitment and if they need more they would come back before the Board. Member Q'Dell moved to second the motion. Member Dow stated that Mr. Roy and Mr. Frank needed to get together and determine the precise language for the conditions of the approval. The project was approved 7/0. ITEM 11. i77-85, SUMMIT VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK, 2nd Filing - MASTER PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN AND OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENT WAIVER - COUNTY REFERRAL Staff member, Linda Hopkins introduced the proposed project to the board and recommended approval of the project with conditions. Harold Fisher, representing the applicants Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett, stated the applicant disputed the amount of Timberline to be dedicated for the purpose of road improvement. He stated the applicant would be willing to dedicate half of the 120 feet requested. Ed Laudick, owner of Alpine Manufacturing and potential buyer of the proposed site, stated his concerns over the required right-of-way dedication. Ms. Hopkins stated she agreed that the Alpine Manufacturing was a good business for the proposed site. The matter of the right-of-way needed to be addressed as it needed to be dedicated to offset the improvement otherwise required to improve Summit View. Member Dow asked if condition 3 pertaining to the fee could be changed to just the developed portion of the site. He asked Mr. Ensdorff to address the transportation issues. Mr. Ensdorff stated Summit View is in bad condition and that the staff was making recommendation as if the site was in the city not the county. Maintenance would be high and the money coming from the waiver was not sufficient to fix the road, but with dedication of the needed 120 feet of right-of-way the situation would improve. Member Dow questioned the level of impact on the roads. -Page 10- Mr. Ensdorff stated there were now 6,000 vehicles a day on Summit View and Alpine Manufacturing would add another 322 vehicles a day. He further stated that this was not as significant as most industrial development because the plastics would be light weight. Member Lang asked about the time frame as to the road improvements. Mr. Ensdorff stated that improvements to Summit View would be needed in 2 to 3 years. Timberline would be constructed in 8 to 15 years. Member Lang inquired if the monies collected for the off -site waiver fee would be used for road improvements in the area. Ms. Hopkins stated the monies would be collected by the County and staff would encourage the County to spend the money in this area. Member Lang asked if there was a guarantee the money would be spent in the area. Ms. Hopkins stated there was no guarantee under the Urban Growth Area agreement. Member Dow opened the item up for public comment. Mrs. Bartlett, owner of the property, came forward and asked about the need for Timberline crossing their property as proposed. Ms. Hopkins stated that at the time they did not know when Timberline would be developed but it was a needed addition to the streets network and as indicated in the city's master street plan. Mrs. Bartlett stated that Timberline would cut their property in half. Ms. Hopkins stated that the parcels could still be developed. Jean Laudick, owner of Alpine, came forward stating they needed the larger building to expand their business and they had over 100 employees to be concerned about. She further stated that the trucks from the sand and gravel business, iron business and Anheser-Busch were doing more damage to the road then their business would be. Member Dow asked Mrs. Laudick if, she were opposed to the waiver fee or the 120 feet right-of-way. She stated she felt both were excessive. Mr. Laudick asked staff if they paid the waiver fee for the portion of land they developed and at some future date they wished to expand their building on the same acreage would they be liable to pay another fee? Ms. Hopkins stated that if Alpine Manufacting would expand then staff would have to the look at the project again at the time of expansion. Member Brown asked Mr. Laudick what his understanding was of the problem. Mr. Laudick stated they had to pay a fee per acre in lieu of road upgrading. Member O'Dell stated she felt Alpine Manufacturing would be hit twice if they expanded. -Page 11- Mr. Bartlett stated he had already given up quite a bit of his land for public roads, water lines and to the light company for right-of-way. Member Dow asked staff what the fee per acre would be. Mr. Waido stated the County Commissioners set the fee at $5,575 per acre for industrial use. Member Dow stated there would have to be two separate motions for the the project, one for the Master Plan and Preliminary PUD Phase Plan and one for the Off -site Street Improvement Waiver. Member Brown moved to approve the project with the conditions of (1) 120 ft. of right-of-way dedicated; (2) further property development would occur as a PUD; and (3) that the plans would require compliance with the City's Non -Residential Energy Code. Member Crews seconded the motion. The motion was denied 5/2. Member Dow stated the wording of the motion needed to be changed. Member O'Dell moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. The portion wide), bisecting be dedicated; 2. A note added that any further 3. That the Cit be met. )f right-of-way for Timberline Road (60 feet Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 of the Master Plan area, to the PUD Master Plan and Preliminry Phase Plan development must occur as a PUD; and I's Non-residential Energy Code requirements must Member Edwards moved to second the motion. The motion was approved 7/0. Member Kern moved to recommend approval of the waiver from off -site street improvement requirements for the project with the following conditions: 1. The county should make a more accurate assessment of the road impacts of this use for purposes of the fee. 2. A 60 foot right-of-way for Timberline Road as described above shall be dedicated. 3. The waiver fee shall be paid. 4. The approval of the waiver is for this use only and the city will reevalute the need for off -site street improvements upon expansion of this use or development of other tracts. 5. Consideration shall be given to spending the waiver funds in this area. Member Lang seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7/0. Item 12. #2-86, TRAPPERS POINT SUBDIVISON - COUNTY REFERRAL Rick Mattingly, representing the developer, gave a brief summary of the proposed project. -Page 12- Staff member, Bob Wilkinson, recommended denial of the project because such a developement would be classified as low density resi.dental. It is not in conformance with the land use plan and the inter -governmental agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County, and the zoning is inconsistent with the land use plan. In addition, there is a potentional for impacts on adjacent farm lands. Bill Wyatt, owner of the property, stated the area of the surrounding area was developing more as a residential area than farming. He further stated that the proposed lots would be 2.29 acres. Member Dow questions if the board would be weakening the inter -governmental agreement if they recommended approval. Mr. Roy stated that Vick vs. Larimer County Board of County Commissioners dealt with the issue of inconsistency between the land use plan and zoning. Member Dow stated the reasons for the conflict were zoning versus land use planning. Mr. Roy stated he had nothing to add but they may have a problem recommending denial. Mr. Mattingly stated the site has two existing lakes to provide a park -like setting in the area. Mr. Waido stated the county would be re -looking at their zoning plan in the next 1 - 2 years. Mr. Roy indicated that he may have a conflict as he was once a resident in the area of the proposed site. Member Brown wondered if it would possible to receive a legal opinion from staff. Mr. Roy stated they could have a legal opinion from staff. Member Brown moved to table the item until the February 3, 1986 meeting. The motion was not seconded. Member Brown stated she was at a loss because the motion was premature due to the legal bind on denying the project. Member Dow stated the county needed to change their zoning. Member Kerns agreed and asked if the developers had submitted a PUD plan. Mr. Mattingly stated the developer had not submitted a PUD plan. Member Brown asked that the issue be addressed by staff. -Page 13- Mr. Wilkinson said that staff was concerned with the land use in the terms of its conformance with the inter -governmental agreement, county land use plan, and impact on adjoining properties. Member Brown stated it was her understanding that zoning took precidence over usage. Member Lang asked if the county recommended denial. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the county staff had stated they were recommending denial. Member Dow asked if it was for the same reasons as staff. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the reasons were the same. Members Crews, Brown, Kern, and O'Dell stated that they felt it was inappropriate for them to approve it at this time because of the points presented by staff. Member Brown made a motion to recommend denial of the project. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to deny the project was approved 5/2. OTHER BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 AM -Page 14-