Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/26/19870 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING JANUARY 26, 1987 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members who had attended the worksessionsyn January 23,1987, included Dave Edwards, Tim Dow, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang, and Alternate Bernie Strom. Board members present at the meeting included Dave Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Linda Lang, Tim Dow, Sharon Brown, and Alternate Bernie Strom. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Barb Hendrickson and Chris Randall. Legal Represen- tative was Paul Eckman. Michael Davis, the new Director of Development Services, was introduced by staff member Tom Peterson. Mr. Davis went on to explain the purpose and goals of Development Services, and then gave a brief background of his experience. Staff member Tom Peterson noted two agenda changes. First, that #5-84B, Prospect/Overland PUD Amended - Preliminary and Final be pulled from the Consent Agenda and second, that #78-86,A Bath Annexation and Zoning be lifted from consideration until next month's meeting. Both requests were made by staff. Mr. Peterson then gave Agenda Review consisting of the Con- sent Agenda: 1) December 15, 1986 Minutes; 2) #80-86, Bockman Subdivi- sion - Preliminary and Final; 3) #13-82L, Oak Ridge Village PUD, Phase II - Final; 4) #21-83D, Brittany Knolls PUD - Final; 6) #35-868, Clarendon Hills Subdivision, Phase One - Final; 7) #143-80G, Spring Creek Profes- sional Park, Building F - Final; 8) #81-86, Vine Drive Properties - Sec- ond Filing Subdivision - Preliminary and Final; and 10) # 83-80A, Ader Estates PUD - Preliminary - County Referral. Item 2 was pulled from the Consent Agenda by the audience. Board Member Edwards moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Member O'Dell seconded and the motion carried 7-0. BOCKMAN SUBDIVISION - Preliminary and Final - #80-86 Debbie deBesche described the request for Preliminary and Final approval of three single-family residential lots. The applicant, Larry Bockman, explained his goal to split the property into two lots. Mr. Bockman also stated that he would complete the cul-de-sac and install a fire hydrant. Planning and Zoning [ rd Meeting - January 26, 1987 Page 2 Ms. deBesche stated that although the request meets most of the require- ments of the subdivision regulations, lot 3 does not achieve the 150 foot depth requirement adjacent to an arterial. Staff recommended a variance and approval. William Benton, 2401 Evergreen Dr., asked for clarification of the number of houses to go up on the lots. Tom Peterson explained that one house already exists and two more will be built. Member Brown moved to approve Bockman Subdivision, Preliminary and Final. Member Lang seconded. Motion carried 7-0. PROSPECT/OVERLAND PUD AMENDED - Preliminary and Final i5-84B Joe Frank gave staff summary on this 3.61 acre PUD in the B-Lzone. The request was to amend lot 3 of an existing development. John Dengler, applicant, gave background and explained the changes made to the old plan. The new plan consists of several smaller buildings instead of one large building. The new plan also consists of adding more trees and shrubs. Mr. Frank gavea summary of the project and the new improvements. Staff recommended the approval of the amendment to lot 3, Preliminary and Final. Member Brown expressed her concern for the setback of buildings A and F, and for the height of the buildings. Mr. Dengler explained that both buildings were set back 8 feet at the clos- est points. He also explained that the height of the buildings were 19 feet in along the perimeter and 30 feet at the peak of the roof.. For com- parison's sake, it was determined that the buildings' height was approxi- mately the same as a two-story residence. Member Brown questioned the lighting of the buildings. Mr. Dengler explained that there would be wall -mounted lights as well as pole lights. The pole lights would be directional and only shine down on the buildings and parking lots, not towards residences. Ms. Brown also questioned the access hours. Mr. Dengler stated that the hours of operation for the man- agers office would be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sunday through Saturday, and 6 a.m. through 9 p.m. for the electronic gate. Member Strom moved to approve the Preliminary and Final revision to the Prospect/Overland PUD. Member Edwards seconded. Member O'Dell stated that letters objecting commercial development had been received and read by the Board. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and ZonieBoard Meeting - January 26, 19• Page 3 SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD Amended Master Plan #57-868 b Phase I Prelim. #57-86C Ted Shepard gave staff summary of the project, located south of Horsetooth Rd. and a quarter mile east of Timberline. The school district is inter- ested in purchasing 7 acres, so there is a reduction in Phase I of 26 sin- gle-family lots. Representing the applicant was David Shupe of Landmark Engineering. Mr. Shupe explained what provisions would be made for the school. Chairman Crews questioned the existence of a detention pond on the site. Mr. Shupe explained that the school would be located next to the detention pond and that the athletic field would be on a raised portion of the detention area. Mr. Shupe stated that the school has indicated that they will maintain that portion of the detention area. There would only be water in the pond 4 - 6 times a year. Member Brown questioned how the land will be accessed if the school does not choose that site. Mr. Shupe stated that single-family lots would be developed and a phase plan later on would show the layout. It was determined that the developer would construct Caribou Drive. Of the seven conditions to which the devel- oper agreed, #2 had been deleted. John Dude, 2307 Wapiti, asked if the drainage easement would be landscaped and would there be a soccer field. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be landscaped and that the pond would be an athletic field. Lou Samsa, 2215 Peoria, expressed his concern for open space as an area for children to play in. He questioned whether or not a greenbelt would be developed. Tom Peterson explained how the Park Land fee helps fund the development of recreation areas. Lynn Johnson, resident of Fox Meadows, questioned the need for further development in the area and expressed concern for problems that go along with a detention pond and maintenance of the greenbelt. He also asked if the 10 foot easement was included in the 40 foot easement. It was deter- mined that it was not. Another concern Mr. Johnson had was that of prop- erty value. Mr. Shupe explained that prices for the houses will probably range from about $70,000 to $125,000. The developer would be responsible for the maintenance of the greenbelt area until it matures to an area that requires no maintenance. That is if the school should not come in and take over the maintenance. City will take care of the drainage basin and the drainage easement. Planning and Zoning B A Meeting - January 26, 1987 Page 4 Member Dow proved to approve Sunstone village PUD - Amended Master Plan. Member Strom seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Edwards moved to approve Sunstone village Phase I - Amended Prelimi- nary. Member O'Dell seconded. It was stated that it includes the seven conditions set, except #2. Member Edwards commended the developer and City staff for their efforts. Motion carried 7-0. 19TH GREEN PUD - Phase I - One Year Extension of Final Approval #189-78 Debbie deBesche gave staff summary of this request for a one year extension of Phase I approval for lots on approximately 29 acres. Staff recommended denial of the one year extension because of non-compliance with standards. Larry Gettinger, representing Globe Homes Ltd., stated the issues which need to be resolved. He explained that it would take substantial expense to bring it up to standards. Lastly, he acknowledged the discrepancies and expressed his hope to work with others in order to extend the sewer line. Ms. deBesche stated that a traffic impact study is now required and that staff has a list of thirteen reasons on which they based their recommenda- tion for denial. The applicant came to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 25, 1985 and staff recommended a 6 month time period so that the applicant could provide a site plan that met standards. The Board gave them one year. Secondly, the developer needs to agree to a $700 per unit fee for off -site road improvements. There has been no action by the developer. Member Dow moved to deny 19th Green PUD - Phase I - One year Extension. Conditions warranted denial and the developers were advised to start again with the PUD process. Member Brown seconded. Member Edwards explained that by denial, the City intends to achieve good planned communities. Mem- ber Dow explained that extensions could not be made whenever circumstances change. Chairman Crews noted that there is a lack of seriousness on the part of the developer. Member Edwards stated that it is not a punitive measure, however. Motion carried 7-0. CIRCLE K PUD - Amended Final #43-86B Ted Shepard gave staff summary of the request to amend the Final approval to add a spanner board. The concerns of the staff include the compatibil- ity of the, architectural desion and the control of signage. Staff recom- mends denial. Tom Olund, with ZVFK Architects, was there to represent the Circle K Cor- poration. He explained what a spanner board was and what the intent of the Circle K store was. He noted that it was allowable by the sign code. It is not known whether or not signs would stay in the windows if a spanner board went up. It was determined however that there would be no blinking lights. The spanner board would be located above the windows. As to why standards for signage were not set in the original PUD, Mr. Olund explained that it was simply an oversight. It was noted that the store had other Planning and Zoninoard Meeting - January 26, 1980 Page 5 options besides a spanner board. Staff was looking to set precedents for convenient store designs. Tom Peterson stated that the issue was compatibility and that the Board and staff worked hard to achieve that. Member O'Dell moved to deny the Circle K POD - Amended Final. Member Brown seconded. Member Edwards stated that he thought standards for convenience stores should be tightened. Member Dow expressed his wish that the request be granted. He noted that the spanner board would be within the boundaries of the sign code. Member Edwards explained that as long as the store had other options and that business was not adversely affected, the Board could set standards of quality. Member Brown agreed and felt that the Board has the responsibility of reviewing color and signage. Motion carried 5-2. WARREN LAKE ANNEXATION AND ZONING #77-86,A Members Dow and Edwards will abstain from discussion because of a conflict of interest. Ken Waido gave a staff summary of the request to annex and zone R-L-P approximately 190 acres. Staff recommends the R-L-P zoning. A letter from Mr. Bockman requested R-M-P zoning. The major concern of the staff was that expectations may be different. It could not be guaranteed that any application for higher density residential would be approved. It was determined that Mr. Bockman was a property owner. The expectations have to do with density and property value. Member Brown moved to approve Warren Lake Annexation and Zoning with the R-L-P. Member O'Dell seconded. Member Strom expressed his feeling that R-M-P would be more appropriate. Motion carried 5-0. FAIRVIEW POD PHASE II - Administrative Change Request #72-79C Joe Frank gave staff summary of the amended site plan of Fairview. The barrier would be permanent, while still removable by the Fire Department. Bill Bartran, property owner, reviewed the options and gave a history of the area. Member Edwards asked if there was any opposition to installing the barrier. It was noted that all of the businesses that responded approved the bar- rier. No representative from Wendy's Restaurant had responded. Member Edwards questioned the possibility of approving a temporary subject in order to allow review by the tenant. Legal Representative, Paul Eckman, stated that he thought it was possible and that it would allow options later on if changes occur or if new concerns arise. Member Edwards questioned the review of a temporary barrier every few years and suggested that it not come back up for review until an objection is made. Member Brown stated that such a barrier could be called "permanent". Planning and Zoning Be Meeting - January 26, 1987 Page 6 Mr. Eckman suggested calling it simply a "barrier" without noting if it was permanent or temporary. Mr. Frank commented on the problem with parking at Nautilus, then listed options: 1) Deny. 2) Deny, but work to design for the future and have a close study done on the parking problem. 3) Approve on a temporary basis until the health club relocates. 4) Approve as submitted. Mr. Frank stated that Staff was recommending either option #2 or #3. Scott Hudson, representing Chesterfield, Bottomsley & Potts, expressed his concern for the parking problem and stated his ideas on the cause. Member Dow moved to approve the 4th option,(to approve as submitted). Member Lang seconded. Member Edwards stated his support for erecting a temporary barrier. Member O'Dell commented that in the event of any changes in the future, the Board should have options to choose from. Mem- ber Strom, however, that in any event circulation would be reviewed in the future. Motion carried 4-3. Chairman Crews reminded the Board that two members would be sent to the APA Conference. It was decided that Members Dow and Strom would go, and that Member Edwards would be an alternate. Mr. Crews also asked Mr. Bartran if he would update the Board on the parking situation. Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. .. �.. . JCOUNTRY '•1•••. •. •• willo lb.h SAND CREEK VILLAGE.. "'s 't: •: NAUTA EXEMPTION •• ' N " ,.{:: •"' .:i'' r WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT #1 REZONING .•.c.t• THE GROUP: — — .•.•.•.•.•.•.•:::......� ...,; ROBINSON—PIERSAL tt; ::: •} ,,; • ,,� :,.,t,;, UPLAND; S PROSPECT BUS PARK , r :BA ;:, ; ................. KINC S002FR5 .qKP ON i r• WEST DRAKE ANNEXATION•••••••'••••:•;{• �•. v 1 :* HORSETOOTH COMMONSX.'• COLLINDALE'187 SKYLINE ACRES REZONING *;SPRING CREEK 3rd REZON R ;.;G.•._ ...:::: •.'i?:;.• w .;..::;_::::.•�.•..; SUNSTONE l �.•`•�•�•.•...•'.• �• .HARBOR WALK P[JD� THE PAVILION PUD: o \ \. \. ��h J X PINE RIDGE TRILBY RO. CO RD.•6.•.'.' •••.:•. UX ; DD�UECK PROPERTIES ''::::�:::. •' ANNE} TION,`