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.