Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/29/1983Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 29, 1983 (continuation of 6/27/83 meeting) Board Present: Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Randy Larsen Board Absent: Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Alberton-Clark, Curt Smith, Renee Oldham, Linda Hopkins, Bonnie Tripoli, Joe Frank Legal Representative: Ken Frazier Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW 31. #166-79B Park South PUD - 2nd Filing - Final was continued to July 25, 1983. CONSENT AGENDA 17. #76-79D Silverplume Estates - Replat of Cedar Village Subdivi- sion, 5th & 6th Filings 18. #3-83A Victorian Court PUD - Final 19. #76-81B Pineview PUD - Phase I - Tract A - Final 20. #28-83 Collinshaus Group Home 21. #31-83 Stanton Creek Ridge PUD - Master Plan 22. #31-83A Stanton Creek Ridge PUD - Phase I - Preliminary Georg: Motion to approve Consent Agenda. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL Gilfillan: Noted change in the agenda regarding the annexations. 25. #37-83 East Vine Drive - 6th Annexation Rupel: Gave description and location of annexation. P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 2 Ross: Should properties be developed into residential would it equal the building in the City with non -metered water? Rupel: City is working toward a guarantee for like costs with the water districts such as in the southern area of the City. Stoner: Motion to approve East Vine Drive - 6th Annexation. Georg: Second. - Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 24. #37-83A East Vine Drive - 6th Zoning Rupel: Requesting T-Transitional. Allows continuation of present use. Zoning to be requested by developer. Must act within sixty (60) days after request for zoning to Planning and Zoning Board. Georg: Under the current status there are no conditions for development and cannot see placing any on property Stoner: Motion to approve East Vine 6th - Zoning. Larsen: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 25. #38-83 East Vine Drive - 7th Annexation Rupel: Gave description of annexation location. Gilfillan: Explain contiguity to members of audience and Board. Rupel: In 6th annexation, a portion extends beyond County Road 9E, approximately 20 acres. Gain contiguity by abutting that property. Stoner: Plummer School would like to annex. Rupel: Owner not contacted, by the time she was contacted, the paperwork was too far along to add her. Dow: Why was small area not included in annexation in terms of flow and continuity as well as contiguity? P & Z Board Meeting • 6/29/83 Page 3 Rupel: Dow: Rupel: Ross: Rupel: Ross: Rupel: Dow: Larsen: Owner was contacted by petitioner and City, she was concerned about being able to continue farming. With this annexation she can pursue annexation at any time. Could City force annexation with these annexations? Could have, but do not want to force anyone into City. When is item on agenda for piece of ground north of County Road, 400 feet referred to. Next item on agenda. Concerned about potential conflict. Will it be in continuity with other portions of this annexation. It will be separate zoning, but considered under one item. Motion for approval of East Vine Drive - 7th Annexa- tion. Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-1. Ross voted against annexation because of necessity of annexation of the piece of north of the road within this particular piece. When within an approved subdivision in the County, the rest of the ground has not been platted and no development has taken place. North of the road not necessarily the case. Does not disagree with the property north; does not understand necessity of putting it with the property to the south when a definite physical boundary on the ground, why necessary to go across the road. 26. #38-83A East Vine Drive - 7th Zoning Rupel: Requested zoning in three parts: (1) portion south of ditch is requested for T-Transitional with no condi- tions; (2) area north of ditch and south of County Road 50 is requested t-Transition with condition, an addendum to petition which stipulates that the present number of farm animals and number of buildings (with possible one barn erected); and (3) north of County Road 50 is requested R-L-P since it has been considered in the County as developable property. Ross: Since piece is part of an approved plan and re -zone a portion to south 400 feet. If, by chance the north P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 4 portion were not annexed, what would happen to south. Why split it when all under same ownership? Curt Smith: It is not part of an approved plan. It is part of a master plan in the County, but has no validity in the City and they will have to re -plan the entire property. Ross: We have not annexed the northern portion yet. Smith: That is correct. It is before you in the series of petitions with the same property owners. Ross: _ The point is we are dividing it in portions, and there is something already there. I do not understand the necessity of dividing it up. I can not find out why it is divided. Smith: The property owners wanted to annex and instead of doing four petitions by going that much further into his property, they could do it in three. It is a contiguity situation. They needed to go that much further in order to gain the total contiguity and come in with three petitions rather than four. If they had split it at the road, they would have had to split Sangra deCristo and Ninteenth Green, as they are referred to into two different petitions and this way they are doing it as one and have come together as a single petition. Ross: If you had done that, you would have split it on property lines and ownership lines which would seem to be a little more appropriate than splitting things that are already out there and, basically, approved master plans. I do not think this is a good approach to doing it. Now that we have approved the southern portion, we are locked into having to go on with the north. I do not like that. Smith: I do not think you are locked in, to the extent the Urban Growth Area Agreement locks you in, they are locked into annexing into the City once the City limits is out in that area as well as the City is committed through the Urban Growth Area Agreement to annex the area. The whole process is changing out here. They have a master plan which is not a subdivision which has not come forth through any development approval and for them to proceed with specific development on the property, if the boundary were shifted down to County Road 50, they would have P & Z Board Meeting • . 6/29/83 Page 5 had to annex and go through the same process. Instead of just adding an extra month in the process of annex- ing a fourth petition, they said let's just all come together. All of the property owners in this area talked, hired an engineer and said give us the fastest set of annexations we can get. We will sign whatever petitions are needed. It was their process of coming together as to the least number of petitions and get it in front of the City since the UGA basically says that the City will annex those areas that are eligible. Gilfillan: Three different recommendations for zoning. Two of them are same, T-Transitional and t-Transitional with conditions and the R-L-P. Georg: Even though not annexed north of County Road 50 be the same zoning, makes sense regardless of mechanism used to achieve. Dow: Motion to approve recommended zoning: (1) T-Transi- tional for Summitview Properties area; (2) t-Transi- tional for K-M Company area conditioned on addendum considered part of the annexation petition; and (3) R-L-P with the condition the property being developed as a planned unit development (PUD). Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 27. #36-83 Country Club East Annexation Rupel: Gave description of property. P Y• Ross: Conflict, did not participate. Gary Boyack: Where is boundary? Part of County Road 11 will be inside City and part outside. Difficult policing. Rupel: Only problem is if accident on centerline. We have agreements with police department and Sheriff's de- partment. Boyack: Notify people within 500 feet that annexation is occurring? Several neighbors were not notified. Rupel: Do not check all addresses. Had three neighborhood meetings on these annexations. P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 6 Boyack: Density of R-L-P? Rupel: Density can vary from 6 units per acre, or lower, up to 18 units per acre. Marge Boyack: Will County Road 11 be involved in annexation? Rupel: Your property line goes to center of road, so only annexing area east of the section line. Larsen: Motion for approval of Country Club East Annexation. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Ross did not participate in discussion or vote.) 28. #36-83A Country Club East Zoning Rupel: Requested zoning is R-L-P. Staff recommends approval with the property being developed as a planned unit development. Property has an approved subdivision in the County and we will be accepting that portion of the development that has been approve by the County, Phase I, the north and south extremities of the property. Stoner: Can resubmit if they want to. Dow: Any problems with existing development. Rupel: Would not meet all of City standards, but developer has stipulation that there will be a fee attached to the lots for improvement of streets. Dow: Lots not developed. Rupel: Correct, only portion of master plan approved in its final state by County. Stoner: Pointed out problems developer would have in develop- ing area using Land Development Guidance System. Boyack: What is density of R-L-P zoning? Rupel: Density can vary. P & Z Board Meeting • • 6/29/83 Page 7 Stoner: Motion to approve R-L-P zoning with condition that it be developed under the Planned Unit Development Larsen: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0 (Ross did not participate). DISCUSSION AGENDA 29. #35-83 Whitcomb Corner PUD - Preliminary & Final Sherry Albertson -Clark: Gave property description. Three major concerns expressed by residents at neigh- borhood meetings were (1) parking; (2) storm drainage and (3) utility capacity in the neighborhood. Overflow from C.S.U. that impacts neighborhood. Applicant has decreased proposed unit to 10 units due to staff's recommendation that additional parking was needed on the site. Applicant has met City requirements in terms of tenant parking and recommended additional spaces on site. Staff recommended 1 space per 4 units for 18 vehicular spaces. Motocycle and bicycle parking has been included. Proposal is required to handle storm water run-off on site which has been addressed. Utility situation, applicant will pay for 1/2 of installation of new 6 inch water line in Myrtle Street. Sewer has been a problem. Problems caused by tree roots blocking lines away from site so adequate sewer capacity at this time. Scale did not relate well with neighborhood. Mixture of styles. Applicant reduced height of building as well as making drastic changes to roof structure. Mature trees will be retained. One in parking entrance on south side of building. Variance for less than 40 foot setback from flowline on Myrtle Street at entrance to parking. Staff recommends approval of project and variance. Stoner: What is north Fort Collins in density chart? Albertson -Clark: Laurel Street. Georg: What is distance between parking stalls, driveway area. How wide is that? Back ends of the two cars. Albertson -Clark: Twenty-four feet. P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 8 Dow: What buffering required for adjacent property owner? Albertson -Clark: Six foot fence on west and east and landscaping within fencing. Ross: Safety of seeing around the corner. Albertson -Clark: Change courtyard to northwest corner and maintain larger setback. Fifteen to 20 feet back from inter- section. No problem with sight distance. Bill McCaffrey: Representing Gary Nordic. Eight units are 458 square foot units,. Added extra parking. Corner lot with diagonal parking on Whitcomb and Myrtle. Natural wood trim with woodgrain hardboardo siding. Two slope roofs will be shake. Flat roof. 15 slant to fit more into scale of neighborhood. Gilfillan: Fireplaces? McCaffrey: None. Larsen: Problems with tightness of project, trying to fit a lot into a small area, and relation to rest of neighborhood. Gilfillan: Previous projects like this, concerns are shared, but they have reduced it down. Georg: Difficult to build in neighborhood. Applicant aware of concerns. Motion to approve Whitcomb Corner PUD Preliminary and Final. Ross: Second. Georg: Amend motion to include variance. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-1, Larsen voted no. 30. #30-83 Helmshire House PUD - Preliminary Gilfillan: Stoner has conflict and is temporarily leaving meeting Albertson -Clark: Encompasses southeast corner of College and Edwards. Existing site of Texaco station. Preliminary for 28 unit motel/inn with convention facilities, restaurant and lounge. Alternate land use of 28 unit apartment complex. Looking at both uses. P & Z Board Meeting • • 6/29/83 Page 9 Focus on motel/inn with bath and kitchen so easy conversion into apartment uses. Staff has no concern with land use, but parking spaces are not adequate. Motel/inn requires 1 space per unit. Application has met parking requirements. Apartment useage would require more parking than motel/inn. Apartment would require 1.5 spaces per unit or 42 spaces on site. Need for overflow or guest parking, guideline of 1 space per 4 units suggests 49 parking spaces. Without overflow parking, site does not meet tenant or occupant parking requirements. Variance to parking requirements, he will address that matter. Staff recommends denial based on inadequate parking. Gilfillan: Adjacent parking conditions in that area? Would staff recommend approval for motel/inn? Albertson -Clark: C.S.U. and College Avenue to west so no parking. Edwards has Burger King and approximately 12 spaces. East unimproved alley, additional parking east of alley next street is Remington Street. Staff discussed requesting motel/inn at this point, we would support motel use. Applicant has specific reasons for request- ing both uses. Larsen: How wide is alley and how deep are parking places next to it? Albertson -Clark: Alley is gravel is 20 feet. Applicant required to improve alley from Edwards Street to next intersection to the south. Parking stalls are 16 feet long with two foot overhang spaces and closest between landscaped island and far edge of alley is 24 feet. Applicant has attempted to maintain wider distance than required 20 feet of alley. Larsen: Parking spaces are 16 feet deep in whole parking lot plus 24 feet of access. Albertson -Clark: Option now in parking applicable for both uses (1) to either use 40% maximum of compact stalls or (2) to downsize all stalls on site to an 81 foot width and 18 foot length. Applicant is utilizing 2 foot overhang with wheel stops. Larsen: Depth of landscaping to north? Albertson -Clark: Four foot walk as well as 8 foot setback before park- ing stalls. P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 10 Larsen: Width of landscape strip? Albertson -Clark: About 8 feet. Parking stalls located in right-of-way for Edwards Street. Original 100 foot right-of-way on older streets. Applicant would request encroachment permit to allow parking spaces in right-of-way. Staff does not foresee problems with that. Applicant would commit to provide additional parking. Potential very slim. Gilfillan: Access primarily off alley? Providing any fencing, or shading to property owners to east? If both uses what would he have to do to change uses or would he have to go to City for changes? Albertson -Clark: Yes. Yes. PUD for specific uses, i.e., pursuing motel inn as useage and approved, at some later point change would require amendment and go through review process. Dow: What are construction materials? Albertson -Clark: Better to address Applicant on that question. Ross: Ingress and egress. Zoning across alley to east? Albertson -Clark: R-H Ross: Headlight fencing requirement when commercial along residential area? Albertson -Clark: Requirement if property used in residential useage that fence would be required. Fence would have to be placed off -site given present site design. Could provide. Ross: Major change in City's approach to allow access from alley. Access to alley denied on other side of street Inconsistent. Why appropriate here? Albertson -Clark: Other businesses not PUD projects. Ross: Therein lies the mechanism for change. Inconsistency is because of Land Development Guidance System and others not. Harry McCabe: Small units - 1 person or perhaps 2. Foxfire did statistical analysis for parking. Information indi- cated 1.5 normal PUD requirement is excessive for this • P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 11 0 location and units on.) (Tape illegible from this point Has option for six additional parking spaces across alley from the site. Ross: Struggling with access from alley. McCabe: There will be decorative fence. Will put up fence or landscaping across alley. Gilfillan: With increased density, need protection from increased movement. Should re-evaluate ingress -egress from Edwards. Bottom line - table item to later date for additional parking sites. McCabe: Additional parking across alley will include buffering Larsen: Packet mentions restaurant -lounge. McCabe: Bed/board inn restaurant added plus for motel. Larsen: The restaurant -lounge would be for inn guests only? McCabe: Yes. Larsen: Convention facilities? McCabe: Actually meeting rooms for approximately 30 persons. Could be rented for catered events such as wedding, luncheon meetings, etc. Larsen: Construction materials? McCabe: Framing. Larsen: Why considered mixed use? Albertson -Clark: Convention facility. Dow: Convention facilities would not be limited to guests and appears to exaccerbate parking. Georg: Consider fewer units? Likes concept; intensity great; parking as currently defined cannot support either use. Stoner: Clarification - not considered convention center. Ross: Struggling with egress to/from alley. P & Z Board Meeting 6/29/83 Page 12 Albertson -Clark: Eliminates two curb cuts from College Avenue and one curb cut from Edwards. Larsen: Motion for denial. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Stoner did not participate or vote.) OTHER BUSINESS Gilfillan: Joint meeting with City Council, July 12, 1983, 11:30 to 1:00 P.M. Worksession - July 22, 1983 Board meeting - July 25, 1983 Ross: Motion to adjourn. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Adjourned at 8:30 p.m.