Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/26/1983MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS September 26, 1983 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman David Gilfillan at 6:32 p.m. on Sep- tember 26, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: David Gilfillan, Tim Dow, Randy Larsen, Sharon Brown, Don Crews and Gary Ross. Board members absent were Ingrid Simpson and Dennis Georg. Staff present included: Curt Smith, Linda Hopkins, Mauri Rupel, Cathy Chia- nese, Joe Frank, Sherry Ablertson-Clark and Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. These items were: The Solar Access Study; Raintree PUD Extension (#146-79B); Simpson PUD - Prelim- inary and Final (#62-83); Christianson Exemption - County Referral (#66-83); Trampe Special Review - County Referral (#67-83); Mulberry Commercial Plaza County Referral (#79-83); and Collindale VI - Subdivision - Preliminary and Final (209-79G). The following items were pulled for continuation from the Consent Agenda: The Landings 5th Filing (#40-79B); Park South PUD - Final (#166-79B); and South Groves PUD - Final (#22-83). Re-election of officers was presented at this time. Crews moved to re-elect David Gilfillan as Chairman and Tim Dow as Vice -Chairman for the coming year 1983-84. Member Brown seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Chairman Gilfillan briefly explained and reviewed the Consent Agenda. Member Larsen had a conflict with Item #10, Trampe Special Review - County Referral (#67-83). His vote had no effect on Item #10 but he did have the opportunity to vote on the balance of the Consent Agenda. Member Drews made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 6-0. TIMBERLINE APARTMENTS PUD - FINAL (#32-83A) Member Dow abstained from this discussion due to a potential conflict. Joe Frank gave a summary of the Timberline Apartments PUD - Final. When the preliminary PUD was reviewed in June, it was voted to approvve the preliminary upon the conditions that the final come back on the Discussion Agenda to review the setbacks on the northern part of the property and to review the landscape plan. The final plan is in conformance with the approved preliminary with the exception that ten units were eliminated. Staff recommends approval. Member Ross moved to approve the final plan. Members Crews seconded. Motion carried 5-0. P & Z MINUTES • Sept. 26, 1983 Page 2 DDA PARKING GARAGE I - PRELIMINARY Cathy Chianese gave the summary of the DDA Parking Garage. Member Ross stated he knew of the potential office space on the ground floor but questioned if the bulk of the ground floor is anticipated for parking garage. Chianese stated that at this point the request is for 3,000 square feet of office. Member Ross asked if there was a parking plan for the roof. Chianese stated yes, there will be parking on the roof which will be screened. There are 3 levels plus the roof. Chairman Gilfillan asked why only 4 spaces are allocated for handicap. Ed Zdenek ZFVK Architects and Planners, answered the question by stating that 1% of the total parking spaces are to be for the handicapped, which is a national standard. Member Dow asked Chianese to explain the status in terms of traffic flow and what will happen as a result of this :,plan. Chianese explained that the way the plan is laid out is to reduce the width of Remington to 38'. This will allow for one lane of traffic in each direction and a turn bay. It was deemed appro- priate to narrow the street and to make it more accessible to the people getting into the facility. Also, to take the median in Mountain, remove the center parking and put in landscape and prohibit left turns. She thus explain- ed the entrances and exits on the DDA garage site plan. Member Ross questioned if the exit lanes coming onto Remington will be one going left and one going right or will they both be right turns. Chianese stated they would be full exits. Ed Zdenek commented that Remington will be identical to what it is now with the exception of the curve bulge which reduces the pedestrian connection. Parking on the west side is allowed but discouraged. He continued to describe the elevations of the project. On the south elevation it is a solid wall with a combination of brick and precast concrete. On the east elevation, it will be brick and precast going back to the first bay. Member Larsen questioned the height of the wall at the roof. Ed Zdenek stated it is 3'6". Member Dow made a motion to approve the DDA Parking Garage PUD Preliminary. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 6-0. COLORADO IMPORT MOTORS - EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE (#64-83) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a summary of the Colorado Import Motors expansion. Albertson -Clark stated there was one unresolved issue. That is the additional right-of-way for College Avenue. A total of 40' from centerline on both sides presently exist. Staff has requested an additional 20'. This dedication is a standard procedure. Dedication would not affect usage of the site. City would grant an encroachment permit for the usage of that area so that the applicant could continue to use it. The applicant has indicated that he is not interested in dedicating that additional right-of-way. This is the basis for the staff's recommendation for denial. P & Z MINUTES • • Sept. 26, 1983 Page 3 Member Dow wished to know the basis in the LDGS for putting this kind of condition on a request. Albertson -Clark stated that there is none in relationship to the LOGS. Member Dow asked to know of any precedence where the right-of-way is required and then not granted approval of the request in lieu of being able to negotiate that with the developer. Albertson -Clark gave an example of this happening after Planning and Zoning review and staff recommendation for denial, the project went on to City Council. Prior to City Council review, a specific agreement was written up that would have given a time frame to the reservation of ROW. The project was subsequently dropped by the applicant. Member Brown asked when the right-of-way can be used by the City/State. P.upel stated that a plan is drawn up for North College expansion bud there is no time set as of yet. Member Brown also asked that when the ROW is used, what is the setback. Rupelreplied that the developer will not be required to move his building but he would lose some of his landscaping. Also variances to the sidewalk requirement would have to be given. Member Ross asked if there was an investigation on the number of buildings in regards to their location should the ROW be moved. P,upel responded that there wouldn't be any buildings that would have to be moved with the possible exception of one or two. Traffic lane on the west side is very close to the buildings that exist on North College now. Sherry answered Member Brown's question of the setback stating that it is between 10'-15' of the building from the proposed ROW line. Jerry Pedersen, applicant and owner of Colorado Import Motors, presented some slides showing where he would like to expand and the surrounding area. He is concerned about losing the area north of Hemlock, the pads on his lot, and the ROW. There will be handicapped restrooms inside the addition. One problem he stated he has is the property partner will not go along with this proposed expansion if he has to give up 20' of ROW. Bill Wyatt, attorney for Garden, partner in land with Jerry Pedersen, spoke stating that his client would be injured by taking 20' ROW. He feels the enhancement of the building does not take away any parking from the public. He stated that his client would not go for the proposed expansion. Member Larsen commented that it is unfair for the ROW, not the addition, to be deeded. Member Dow agreed with Member Larsen. Member Dow supports the request but not the condition. All the Board members agreed to addition but not to the ROW. Member Ross made a motion to approve the request as presented. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. P A Z MINUTES • • Sept. 26, 1983 Page 4 LARICO GROUP HOME REVIEW (#61-83) Cathy Chianese gave a summary of the Larico Group Home Review recommending approval with the condition of no more than 10 adolescents and four full time staff members. Staff has received three letters and/or phone calls on this item. One in favor of the project and two in opposition. Chairman Gilfillan asked what the reasons were for the people who are in opposition of the project. Chianese responded that the letter was handed out at the worksession and the phone call was in regards to the number of persons. They felt that 10 occupants plus staff was too many for the site. Also one felt that the use proposed by Larico might not be appropriate in the neighborhood. Member Ross questioned the amount of turning space without backing onto Pros- pect Street. Chianese stated that the parking is tight. The four spaces in the front will require people to make some maneuvering on site but not an actual backing on Prospect. Member Crews asked where the east property line is. Chianese said she assumed it follows the back fence line. Member Dow asked if there was a single lane curb cut on the southeast corner. Chianese stated that it is set up as a continuous cut. Chairman Gilfillan asked if this requires a variance for parking. Chianese- answered no, that that would be just on numbers of spaces. Parking will be treated as a single family home. Member Brown questioned the maximum number of spaces as being 4. Chianese stated that the driveway would be an additional space making 5 spaces. Member Crews asked if residents would be permitted to have Cars. Chianese said no, they will not be. That is why only 4 spaces. Member Dow asked about visitor parking. Chianese preferred that he ask the applicant about how the program is going to work. Member Dow asked what staff's response would be to closing the curb cut in the middle so people coming in the way the parking is angled and when they leave, they could back out to where they would have an exit out on the southwest portion without having an open curb cut. Chianese stated that one way in and one way out would be reasonable. Art Bivoso, director of Larico Youth Homes, spoke on the parking and visita- tion. The families will visit for family treatment on individual sessions. There will be two or three staff members on duty at a time. Most sessions will be conducted at night so families can utilize these empty spaces. Programs will be 45 days in length. This home will treat drug and alcohol abuse. Sept. 26, 1983 Page 5 Member Dow asked if there would be any problem with closing part of the curb cut. Mr. Bivoso said none what -so -ever. Chairman Gilfillan suggested encouraging off -premise parking for staff, such as the church or on Lake Street. Mr. Bivoso agreed. Member Brown asked Mr. Bivoso if he anticipated having part time staff or visiting specialists. Mr. Bivoso stated that there would be two specialists that would come in, on a staggered schedule basis through the week but not every day. Member Ross commented that he would feel more comfortable if people didn't have to back out onto Prospect Street. He also concerned about 4 staff people being there all the time. Chianese stated that 4 full time staff members means that that is the maximum staff number. There will not always be 4 staff mem- bers there at the same time. Chairman Gilfillan asked if there would be sufficient room to access and exit if there were an island in the middle of the frontage of the lot. Also, he asked about the width of the lot. Chianese stated that the width of the lot is 80'. Chairman Gilfillan suggested to Board and staff that when they landscape and mark that lot that they paint the parking spaces and make some indication of the traffic flow. Member Dow questioned if the job can get done, given the fact that this is a Special Review, if a condition is put on it. Chianese stated that she felt if it was made a condition of the approval that when the applicants do go to building inspection that's when the change would be made to the parking. Member Dow moved to approve Larico Group Home subject to the following condi- tions: 1) That the group home be limited to no more than 10 adolescents and four full time staff members, 2) that at the time of review by the building inspections as a part of the site plan, the site plan be modified to reflect closed curb cut in the middle of the property, an entry curb cut on the south- east corner and a standard exit curb cut on the southwest corner onto Prospect Street and 3) that the parking areas be appropriately striped and the entry and exit be indicated. Member Larsen seconded. Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. UNIVERSITY PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY (#63-83) Member Crews abstained from this item because of a potential conflict. Joe Frank gave a summary of the proposed request. Staff recommends denial of this project based on traffic impact and height scale. Frank also touched on issues in the staff report and on the traffic impact. The building height is over 40'. The City of Fort Collins has established a maximum height of 40'. This proposal is for a 104' building. P & Z MINUTES • . Sept. 26, 1983 Page 6 In terms of the privacy impact, the views impact, the light and shadow impact, these are acceptable impacts. In terms of neighborhood scale, staff thinks the location is inconsistent with the City's objectives for locating high-rises and activity centers. Mr. David Wood, attorney for John Q. Hammons, spoke. He asked that Jim Gefroh, Gefroh and Associates and the architect for this project, answer any questions that were asked. Also, that Don Parsons, Parsons & Associates, answer any questions on traffic for this project. Mr. Wood stated that the developer will bear his fair share of the needed street improvements. But he believes this is not the appropriate forum for this decision. Jim Gefroh spoke on the community and neighborhood scale. He also showed slides on various sites around the proposed project. These slides showed the mixed use of the neighborhood and how the building will look in aspect to the surrounding area. Don Parsons discussed the traffic issue. He feels the traffic issues are solved. He stated that these improvements should be a condition of development and would discuss later the participation that would take place for those improvements. Improvements on College and Prospect are needed with or without the hotel. To give an idea what sort of involvement Mr. Hammons will have in that intersection, he will be paying, as a condition of development, $25,000 for street oversizing fund, 15% of that will go to traffic improvement and the remainder goes to street improvements around the City. The cost of the improvement at College and Prospect is $126,000. He feels the right turn lanes will more than compensate for the traffic at the hotel. The cost for right turn lanes is $55,000. He also touched on the resolved problems of the utilities. Jim Gefroh continued his presentation. He stated that the staff comments were incorporated into the plans. He then explained the site plan. He also showed more slides. He briefly discussed landscaping and touched on the plans of the interior of the proposed building. He also showed slides showing the height impacts of the hotel from several angles surrounding the proposed site. Mr. Jim Banning, Vice -President of Student Affairs, CSU, stated that CSU supports this project. The CSU Alumni Association's Board of Directors also supports this project. David Wood spoke again on the traffic impact. He also discussed the building height and stated that he felt it is "old fashioned". He then introduced Mr. John Q. Hammons. John Q. Hammons, applicant, spoke on the need for a first class hotel in Fort Collins. He said he would be using the Holiday Inn reservation system because of I-25 being so far away. Chairman Gilfillan was concerned about the bulk of the building. He questioned if the primary height could be moved back toward the southern part of the lot and/or could it be sunk into the ground? Jim Gefroh responded by saying that moving one element would disturb the functions of all the other elements. P & Z MINUTES • • Sept. 26, 1983 Page 7 Chairman Gilfillan asked what the elevation slope is from the center of the proposed lot to the southern boundary of the lot.Mr. Hammons replied that it is 16 feet. Member Dow requested more detail regarding pedestrian treatment, provisions for pedestrian crossing north and the right turn lanes on either side of Center street on Prospect. Jim Gefroh responded that it is not required to have right turn lanes at that point by recommendation of City Traffic. He discussed the broad expanse of landscaping and walkway treatment on the site to Prospect Street. He further stated that the intersection is signalized and will help pedestrians in cross- ing. Member Ross questioned Frank as to the difference between the CSU Twin Towers and the Holiday Inn in height. Frank responded that he has not done an analysis of the Towers but feels there's no emerging character. He has pros and cons on how appropriate the center would be. Member Ross asked Mr. Hammons if he sees the problem of the location in regards to I-25 being so far away and the "convenience" of the hotel. Mr. Hammons replied that yes, he is aware of it.This is why he is having the reservation system. He feels a lot of business can still be received. Member Brown questioned the capacity rate to break even. Mr. Hammons replied by saying that what is needed is $58 per room and a 68% room occupancy. Member Brown also asked for an estimate, in percentage, that would be tied to the university in industry as far as occupancy and use of the facility and what would be the percentage of "drop in" business. Mr. Hammons stated that about 45-55% would be orovided by the university. The balance would be from commercial traffic except 8-12% from tourism. Gene Mitchell, Mitchell & Associates, spoke on his support of the City staff. He reminded the Board of the denial of an application on this site because it was out of scale with the neighborhood and community. He suggested that the Board be consistent in their policies in regards to the location of a hotel in Fort Collins. He does not agree with the site for a first class hotel. Chairman Gilfillan responded to comments by Mr. Mitchell. He stated that the decisions he referred to are past decisions and policies have changed. In reference to the proposed building of 90', it has been approved by City Council. The application he referred to was for a building higher than 90'. Phil Riddel, Sheely Drive resident, spoke in favor of the project. P & Z MINUTES • Sept. 26, 1983 Page 8 Rod Smith, 30 year resident of Ft. Collins, also spoke in favor of the pro- ject. He feels that Fort Collins needs a large hotel. The future is what to look toward. 90' buildings will be nothing in 20 years. Michael Arruabarrena, representing the owners of University Motor Inn and Thunderbird Motel, feels the project should continue. Tracy Roberts, representing the Pat Griffin Company, fully supports this proposed facility. Member Ross motioned to approve University Place PUD preliminary as presented. He foresees problems on traffic. He feels these need to be addressed. Menber Larsen seconded. Member Dow commented that the project should not be compared to past and future projects. He feels "a building higher than 40' must be in or adjacent to an existing or developing activity center" approval is a subjective criteria. He also commented that this should be looked at as an infill project. Traffic impact concerns are to resolve some problems with CSU relative to internal road networking on the final plan. He would like to see staff and the developer work together on the issue of right turn lanes going into and exiting the property at Center and Prospect. Member Ross commented about how he voted against the Hilton Hotel when it came to the Board. He sees reasons to approve the University Place. He has not been shown reasons not to approve this project. Member Brown commented that a tax base, jobs, and the need are part of this project but is not a concern of the Board. By establishing this building on this site, a precedent will be set for the future. Chairman Gilfillan agreed with others on the Board. Feels it is a strong step forward that CSU has cooperated with the applicant and hopes that in the final stages there will be an agreement between then for the road extension. He will support the motion. Member Larsen commented that he will support the motion for the reasons mentioned by the other Board members that are in favor of the project. Motion carried by a vote of 4-1. Member Brown voted no. Member Larsen made a notion to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.