Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/25/1985w PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 25, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Tim Dow, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, Don Crews and Alternate Linda Lang. Member Ross arrived at 6.38. Member Sharon Brown was absent. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, and Gail Ault. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the consent agenda which consisted of: N189-78, 19th Green - One Year Extension; and N4-83 , Cunningham Corners PUD - Seven Eleven - Final, Larry Gettinger, representing Grubb Ellis Commercial Real Estate, marketers for Globe Homes Ltd., stated their only concern on item 189-78 was the requirement that a new plat be filed to upgraded City standards within 6 months. Substantial engineering expenses would be incurred early on. In discussions with staff they had arrived at a agreeable solution not requiring plat until the one year timeframe. Staff concurred with this statement. Motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Member Edwards and seconded by Member Crews and included the amendment to the 19th Green. Motion carried 7-0. N62-85 EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Member Kerns excused himself from the discussion and vote due to a potential conflict of interest. Joe Frank gave brief staff summary regarding the 18 months of work on this item. Eldon Ward indicated he was available for any questions. Ethel McMillan McCurry, 900 East Elizabeth, noted that she wished the boundary for the proposed park to be amended excluding her property. Mr. Ward stated the boundaries should be considered general in nature, not specific, and the property in question was included only because it was adjacent to the existing school and vacant. The plan for the park is a policy statement of the neighborhood desires only showing an 8-20 acre park in the area of Laurel School. Member Dow asked the timetable for the park and whether the property owners would be a part of the final plans. Mr. Ward responded the owners would be consulted. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Frank stated additional wording noting the drawings and maps included in the plan were not exact but offered as illustrations would be included. Barbara Liebler, 817 Peterson, urged passage of the policy portion of this plan leaving the implementation portion for further work. Ken Bonetti, 722 West Mountain, echoed Ms. Lieber's statements of support provided the internal conflicts of plan were resolved. He also felt close attention should be paid to the implementation. Bob Evans, 315 Garfield, Vice President -CORE, indicated this was a first step in a long journey. The neighborhood was a pleasant place to live and they appreciated others caring about their neighborhood and was recommending passage of this portion of the plan. Louise Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, was concerned with preservation of the neighborhood and felt the buildings must be treasured. The area enhanced the whole community. Tom Skillman, 818 E. Elizabeth, stated while he may disagree with some aspects of the plan and certain specifics needed to be addressed as the follow through on the Laurel Street extension and the traffic impact on East Elizabeth. He liked the idea of a park and minimizing traffic by routing it around the neighborhood. Don McMillen, 700 E. Elizabeth, produced a petition signed by 37 residents of East Elizabeth Street asking Laurel be extended. Mr. Frank stated the existing drive is private drive for loading/unloading of Albertson's trucks. Mr. McMillen stated in talking with H.R. Phillips he was given a ballpark figure of 3-4 years before the park might actually be developed. Elizabeth Street will continue to have traffic going to the shopping center all that time and he would like to speed up the timetable. He personally liked the Pennock Street alternative. Dr. Charles Hatchette, 700 E. Elizabeth, indicated he also was in favor of reducing the traffic on E. Elizabeth. Member Edwards asked how the Board should proceed. Chairman Dow felt the plan should be passed with suggested changes stated in the November 25 staff memorandum attached. Eldon Ward asked for restatement of what was occuring with the Mulberry/Magnolia intersection. He understood by February 1986 it would be determined 1) that Mulberry would be widened, or 2) a one-way couplet west of Matthews would he added. A one-way couplet east of Matthews had been determined to be inappropriate. Mr. Frank concurred. Traffic engineering and planning would put together the needed information to make the determination. Member O'Dell moved to approve the Eastside Neighborhood Plan with Chapters 1 and 2 but excluding the last part of 2.8. Chapter 3 was to be studied further. Member Edwards seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zo�g Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 3 Steve Roy, Attorney, asked if staff memorandum could be incorporated to further define the motion. #113-80C AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM Joe Frank stated there would be no detailed presentation but he was available for questions. Debra Sweetman, 1232 Constitution, United Neighborhoods Spokesperson, indicated they supported the recommendation in general. Specific comments to clarify points of interest were: 1) more land use information is necessary in the neighborhood profiles, 2) neighborhood input should be written and the comments included, 3) land use needs to be elaborated to include sociological and economic information, 4) the profile material should be permanently available to the neighborhoods, 5) projects should be graded according to impact and planning -related terms (as immediate environment, visual impact, historical integrity) should be defined, 6) concurrent preliminary/final submittals should be approved only when significant impact is not a factor of the project, and 7) resubmission should have new evidence but a definition of new evidence needs to be included. She added that adequate notification of neighborhoods should also he reviewed. Fact sheets included with the notification would help as well as adjusting the geographical area (with 500 feet as a minimum), compilation of the Affected Property Owner lists needs to be monitored by planning, and renters should be included (either addressing to resident or using the utility billing list). Curt Smith, 2219 Hiawatha Court, Director of Development for Del Webb, stated he had sent a summary letter to Board Members and felt the proposed changes were generally warranted. He added rehearing is a cumbersome process and resubmittal the easiest and most fair. He was strongly opposed to one year waiting period between denial and resubmittal and felt that was like taking the use of a developer's property from him. The PUD condition is to gain City standards for the public improvements and the timeframe of the private improvement should be left to the private entity. Regarding neighborhood impacts he felt the City's policies should be checked. In fill needs to he defined and determined if it is still a policy with the apparent change of perspective among Council members. Neighborhood profiles might be more useful in earlier stages when the neighborhood can get greater cooperation from the developer because he is in the early stage of development. He went on to discuss the rising cost of preliminary submittals. Developers need some assurance of conceptual approval before expending huge sums of money. As an example the PUD condition on an industrial park becomes prohibitive. A firm needs to know they can get started in three months but the PUD condition and required review precludes that. The LDGS needs to be flexible in order to be competitive in attracting industry in a rapid and timely mannner. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 4 Member Ross questioned the increase of preliminary approval costs from 25-35 percent to 50 percent of total costs. Mr. Smith remarked the level of detail required, including engineering studies, etc., and the expense of neighborhood meetings drive up the costs. Chairman Dow wondered if the requirements came from the LDGS or the planning staff and Mr. Smith felt the Board was requiring more detail at preliminary. Member Ross added the Board felt locked in, if the preliminary was approved, to approve the final and doesn't know where to draw the line. Mr. Smith felt if the final version varied from the preliminary the Board should have no problem denying the project. Chairman Dow questioned if a third level of review, more conceptual in nature, would work, or if the preliminary should be less complete. Mr. Smith felt the preliminary should he more preliminary. Randy Larsen, 312 Starboard Court, noted there were a few minor changes to the Septemberf proposal. The Board should set policy before it sets rules. The preliminary needs to be addressed as does the subject of neighborhood compatibility, but the process needs to be flexible. Preliminary/final packages should be permitted if as much detail is given early on. If neighborhood meeting notices were more than a location map neighborhood input could be better. In general the proposed LDGS changes are counterproductive turning the LDGS into a zoning book. The process should achieve quality but not build roadblocks. Bill Bartran, 430 Spinnaker, agreed the preliminary submittals require too much and encourages preliminary/final joint submittals if the developer wants to take the risk - it's tax saving, time saving and cost saving. A registered landscape architect should not be required remembering that additional project costs are passed on to the user. Consider the cost of a neighborhood profile could cost and all you have is a hypothetical, personal statement. This is contrary to the LDGS initial purpose. Freeman Smith, 1000 W. Prospect, member of the Prospect Shields Association, made personal comments relating to the neighborhood's need to interact with the developers. While he agreed with the developer on the problems surrounding mounting preliminary costs, neighborhood's should be involved at conceptual level because their flow of feelings is important. Some concepts need to be retained but there is room for well done conceptual plans that interact with the neighborhood. The neighborhood profile is a very important part of this document. Member Ross asked what he'd like from a developer at conceptual that wouldn't bring on the complaint that there were not enough specifics noting the other side of the coin is when the developer provides the specifics he's locked into the project because of costs and won't make changes. Mr. Freeman Smith felt conceptual should go the the staff, then to the neighborhood via a neighborhood meeting (or more than one if necessary) and then preliminary submittal. Reed Mitchell, 809 E. Elizabeth, stated, regarding in -fill in older neighborhoods, he liked the zoning system. The developer wanted exceptions to the old way and was interested in speeding up the process yet neighborhoods wanted lots of meetings. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 5 Mel Johnson, 1600 Linden Lake Road, Commercial Investment Team, wondered what happens to those worthwhile projects that are scraped because of the process - those developers not persistent enough to do all the City's requirements. The process is prohibiting. Member Ross asked him, as developer of the Fox Theatre, what his costs were. He responded the building was remodeled retail use to be used as retail and the additional requirements added $150,000 and it wasn't worth it. Lloyd Walker, 1027 W. Lake, Prospect Shields Association Member, felt the neighborhood profile was important. As a profile is developed it can be kept and revised as necessary. He felt the resubmittal, rather than rehearing, was a better choice. If rehearing is allowed the guidelines need to be tightened. Randy Larsen agreed with Freeman Smith that the amendment had good intentions. Most developers keep neighborhood compatibility in mind and this subjective area can't be quantified. Mr. Frank also noted the increasing costs of preliminary plans. There is a lack of information available to staff on projects to make intelligent decision on neighborhood compatibility. Staff looks at physical characteristics, not sociological or demographic. There has been a steady trend to require more information up front and staff may need to vary the requirements for infill projects and those at the edge of the City. Chairman Dow called a 20 minute break to allow Board time to review staff recommendations. Chairman Dow questioned how we could modify the developer's expectation that if the final is in substantial compliance there is a right of final approval as it relates to PUD in industrial park areas with a Master Plan. He also suggested that an Economic Task Force could possible review the system for modification and suggested some change to the "in substantial compliance" language. Member Ross questioned the change in perspective on policies stating there was a shift in importance and possibly neighborhood profiles were not needed. He asked if in -fill policy required direct compatibility and sameness. Mr. Frank felt a policy issued needed to be discussed but it didn't relate to the amendment. There would he two readings by City Council of this amendment and citizen input would he accepted at. e,ich. Regarding neighborhood profiles it needed to be emphasized we were looking at physical attributes. Chairman Dow indicated we would accept individual motions, then Board comments, and then the vote. Member Kern asked if the notices could include definitions of planning terminology. He disapproved of the gathering of demographic information as intrusive of privacy and individual rights and would like motion adopting some of the recommendation but not some of the general characteristics. Planning and Zoning`Hoard Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 6 Member Ross was sympathetic with both developers and citizens and wonder if staff could prepare a profile on a couple future projects for Roard review prior to adoption. Chairman Dow stated Item 1 was preparing administrative guidelines to define neighborhood profiles. Mr. Frank indicated staff merely wanted an indication of whether the Board felt it was a good idea. Member Ross wondered if it was necessary. Member Kern agreed it was necessary and felt staff should begin the profile with the developer and neighborhood contributing input. Member O'Dell felt United Neighborhood's concern for social and demographic information was inappropriate to ask of the developer but we could welcome the information if provided. Chairman Dow also felt the profile was not needed. The system provides it under compatibility standard and the addition would not help the planning process. Member Crews also disagreed with the recommendation stating the tendency to make compatibility mean sameness equates with sameness meaning zoning and the LOGS is to circumvent the zoning sameness. Member Ross moved to deny recommendation to establish a policy of neighborhood profiles as a necessary document. Member Lang seconded. Motion to deny recommendation passed 6-1 with Member O'Dell voting in favor of the recommendation. Member Ross added the above action was to not make neighborhood profiles obligatory, but they could be provided if desired. Member Lang added she felt the LOGS should stand as written. O'Dell felt it would be helpful to Board to know neighborhood status. Edwards felt neighborhoods felt adversely impacted by infill. Chairman Dow clarified by stating the Board is merely saying the additional formal procedure is not needed. Mr. Frank defined Item 2 as an amendment to the definition of building height in the zoning ordinance regarding location where the measuring begins. Member Kern moved to recommend approval and Member Ross seconded. Motion to recommend approval carried 1-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 3 as allowing the planning director the authority to require professional landscape designer. Item 12 relates to the administrative guidelines describing the criteria under which a professional landscaper would be utilized. Member Ross felt it was adding another layer on requirements to the developer. Staff could withhold recommendation on the project and leave the choice to the developer. Member Ross moved to recommend not adopting the change. Member Edwards felt it was difficult to define a landscape professional and while landscaping can be a mitigating factor the developer should take the initiative. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion carried 1-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 4 as the enforcement policy of PUD documents which would be added to the zoning document. Enforcement could be on final only or include Master Plans and preliminaries. Planning and Ang Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 7 Chairman Dow asked the advantage of enforcement at the preliminary stage. Mr. Frank stated conditions couldn't he enforced until the building permits were issued on final. The Board should vote for the option they wish. Legal representative Roy stated their office leaned toward the more comprehensive option and the need was there for adoption of enforcement procedures. Member Kern moved to recommendation adoption of the more comprehensive option. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 5 regarding concurrent preliminary and final submissions on a limited basis as approved by the Planning Director and Item 13 showing guidelines for same. Member Crews asked if the Board would still have the option of approving the preliminary and tabling the final. Member Edwards wondered if we were taking away the right of the developer to submit concurrently if he chooses. Member Ross stated it was now up to the developer however no guidelines were provided. Chairman Dow felt controversial projects should he reviewed twice. Mr. Frank noted each project would need to be looked at separately. Member Ross confirmed that staff would have the final authority. Member Ross supported the change but will watch closely to insure the staff's authority does not become lopsided. The guidelines need to be reasonable also. Member Kern had the same misgivings. Member Crews wondered is this was better than status quo. Member O'Dell felt it was better since Board would not be forced to deal with something concurrently. Member Lang supported the amendment but with reservations. Mr. Frank added it will give staff more time for reviewing. Member Edwards was not sure giving the Planning Director absolute discretion was the appropriate solution. Chairman Dow indicated he did not support the amendment. More time was needed but this didn't provide that. The developer should make the decision. Member Ross moved to recommend approval of the amendment and Member Kern seconded. Motion carried 4-3 with Members Crews, Edwards, and Dow voting against. Mr. Frank defined Item 6 as rewording of what changes of the PUD can be administratively approved. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval, Member Crews seconded, motion carried 7-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 7 regarding resubmittal of denied PUDs and rehearing based on "new evidence". The one year waiting period had been an option but was no longer a part of the amendment. Legal representative Roy wondered if it would be best to address resubmittal and rehearing separately. Discussion regarding who was entitled to a rehearing (neighborhood, developer), definition of new evidence, and who makes the determination followed. Chairman Dow asked was related to efforts to streamline the appeals process. Mr. Roy stated a person would not have to go through rehearing to appeal. Planning and Zoning, and Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 8 Member Edwards asked the rationale behind the 14 day waiting period. Mr. Roy indicated it was not critical but used to he consistent with other criteria. Member Ross asked if there was not relief through rehearing, would there be the right to appeal. Mr. Roy indicated there remained the right to appeal. Member Kerns moved to recommend denial stating he didn't want the neighbors sandbagged by new information. Member Crews seconded but wondered if the items should he separate as he supported resuhmittal but opposed rehearing portion. Member Ross asked if we didn't recommend this what happens when the Board denys a project. Mr. Roy explained legal rationale and Chairman Dow noted Board could table an item rather than deny. Board has flexibility now with this additional burden. Motion to deny recommendation was approved 7-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 8 as requiring all portions of preliminary plan to have a final plan as well as putting extensions in the regulations. The term "substantial completion" is clarified to be all engineering improvements installed and completed. Member Ross asked what if extensions are not granted. Mr. Frank indicated the PUD still exists but the right to develop has expired. Member Ross asked if defining substantially complete is detrimental to the public because he found it too intense, too restrictive. Mr. Frank believed there was no risk. Member Ross posed the question of what happens to the status of the PUP if the developer goes broke. Mr. Frank indicated a new developer would have to proceed with a new PUP. Member Edwards pointed out this was to eliminate confusion but didn't seem to be working. Member O'Dell moved to approve, Member Lang seconded, motion to recommend approval passed 6-1 with Member Ross voting no. Mr. Frank defined Item 9 as the repeal of Appendix C which is in Section 3A of the code. Member Edwards moved to recommend approval, Member Ross seconded, motion carried 7-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 10 as neighborhood meeting guidelines. Additions include applicant contacting project planner for area to be notified, address suggestions made by the committee, agenda for meetings, aerial map available at neighborhood meetings, presentation includes how project fits into the area, fact sheets available at meetings. All would be at the development's conceptual stages. Chairman Dow asked if other suggestions as far as notice had been addressed; i.e., tenants, interest groups. Mr. Frank stated there were practical problems relating to identification of renters; however, signs, newspaper notices, and neighborhood organization newsletters should help. Member Kern moved to recommend approval with the condition that the notice would include informational aspects as well as interactional aspects and land use information would be provided. Also fact sheets MAY include additional information as determined by staff. Planning and 7oning Board Minutes Nov 25, 1965 Page 9 Member Ross noted he was unable to second since he didn't support the last item and felt it was unnecessary. After a period of time Chairman Dow noted the motion died for lack of a second. Member Edwards moved to recommend adoption. Chairman Dow asked if Member Kerns first condition was included and Member Edwards agreed, Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Frank defined Item 11 as amending of administrative guidelines to clarify developer's responsibilities when changes are made. Member Crews moved to recommend approval, Member O'Dell seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Dow added substantial compliance language needed to be modified so a vested right of approval at time of final was not a given. Mr. Frank indicated this should be pursued at a public forum. Chairman Dow felt it could be passed on to City Council. Legal representative Roy indicated public input could be at that time. Chairman Dow asked for a unanimous consensus of the Board to pursue this and it was received. Chairman Dow recommended an Economic Development Study to consider possible LOGS changes. He received unanimous consensus from the Board. N51-85B THE PINNACLE PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave staff description of the project. Bob Dunn, managing lid rtner, InLroduced Jim Rie(loI,, ArchILect. and John Carroll, engineer. He stated it was the second time through preliminary and the project reflected the highest potential compatible use. Elderly family condomiums were appropriate for the central location, near shopping, medical, on a transportation route. Neighborhood meetings with 60 or so attendees were positive. They might also incorporate passive solar into the project with attached garages for security. Mr. Ryder gave staff analysis indicating previous denial was because trail needed work and clustering of buildings should be looked at. The revised project eliminated the southern most area and added two units. Staff was recommending approval but was concerned about the landscaping. One letter of opposition had been received relative to increased traffic. There was no public input. Member O'Dell questioned why there was no layout change though the applicant knew the board was concerned with that. Mr. Dunn stated they had looked at various possibilities but the site dimensions made them prohibitive. The sewer limited the southern movement, City setbacks on Prospect limited that. Maximum efficiency for solar was with this layout. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Nov 25, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Ryder noted the City forester believed landscaping could be worked out. Member Lang questioned turning from Prospect and Mr. Dunn replied they were trying to keep a simple traffic pattern. Member Ross asked about parallel parking and Mr. Dunn replied the spaces were designed to City standards and were primarily for overflow parking. In reply to Mr. Ross' question on patios Mr. Dunn replied they were under the roofline. Member Kern asked about the bus stop, cost of units and other related questions were brought up by other board members. Mr. Dunn responded noting that traffic projects had been looked at and the clientele of semi -retired and retired individuals might make it inaccurate. Member Lang moved to approve the preliminary project, Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 4-3 with Members Ross, Kern, and Dow voting no. Member Ross added he felt the density was too high and some parking spots were impossible to get in and out of. Member Kern expressed similar reservations. Chairman Dow concurred and added the projectg had improved but he still had major layout concerns. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Dow indicated the mayor requested the Board to send a letter of support for designation of the Poudrr River as wild and scenic. It was the unanimous consent of the Board to do so. December will have two meetings, the 16th and 18th. Board members concurred they would prefer having the meetings on consecutive Mondays rather than Monday and Wednesday of the same week. Meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.