Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/23/1985' f • • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES September 23, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the September 20, 1985, worksession were Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Sharon Brown, David Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern and Linda Lang. Don Crews was absent. Board members present included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Sanford Kern, Tim Dow, David Edwards, Sharon Brown and Linda Lang. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard and Kayla Ballard. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting. Linda Hopkins stated Item 4 - #13-85B - Sherwood Street Commons PUD Final has been continued to October; Item 5 - #4-83G - Five Oaks Village PUD Phase One Final has been continued to the Wednesday, September 25th meeting, and; Item 9 - #66-85 - Milford Acres Rezoning - County Referral has been withdrawn. Item 11 - #26-85B - Robinson-Piersal Plaza PUD Phase One Final and Item 12 - Robinson-Piersal Plaza PUD Phase II Preliminary, has been continued to October. Chairman Dow stated the applicant of Item 10 - #63-85 - Laes Exemption - County Referral has requested this item be pulled for discussion. DeeAnn Vink requested that Item 3 - 65-82I - Somerville PUD - Final be pulled for discussion. Member Edwards moved to approve the consent agenda which include Items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. Member Kern seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. #65-82I - SOMERVILLE PUD - FINAL Chairman Dow asked Mrs. Vink if she had a specific question regarding this item or if she wished to have a presentation. Mrs. Vink stated she only desired to know what the three conditions were that were placed on the approval of the preliminary of this item. Steve Ryder stated the conditions were: 1) that Charleston PUD, the adjacent project, be at or beyond permit stage by the time of Somerville final review, 2) that additional point requirements by the Density Chart be resolved by final review, and 3) landscape plan be modified by final review to include additional plantings which were shown on the preliminary landscape plan. These issues have been addressed. Staff recommends approval of Somerville PUD Final. I Planning and Zoning Boar' Minutes September 23, 1985 Page 2 Member O'Dell moved to approve Somerville PUD Final. Member Ross seconded. Motion to approve carried 7-0. #63-85 - LAES EXEMPTION - COUNTY REFERRAL Clarence Laes, representing his father, stated the 20 foot right-of-way is too steep. The 7 foot stoop on the house lessens this from 24 feet to 18 feet. The reason this item was pulled is because he disagrees with the 20 foot right-of-way dedication request. He would like to discuss this with his father and get his decision as to what to do. Elaine Kleckner gave a staff report. The riyht-of-way should be granted according to the affected city's needs. The Master Street Plan designates Taft Hill as a major arterial. A total of 100 foot right-of-way is required. This is why there is a requirement of 50 feet from centerline that needs to be dedicated. The County operates by the same Master Street Plan as the city. . Staff also recommends that both residents be hooked onto the public sewer system. Chairman Dow asked if the right-of-way is given, how much distance will there be between the structure and the road. Ms. Kleckner replied there would be 24 feet between the structure and the road. Member Ross asked if the right-of-way should be required since there are existing structures. There have been other exemptions requiring an additional right-of-way that did not have existing structures. Ms. Kleckner replied that there have been additional right-of-way requirements on properties that did have existing structures, such as Burns Exemption. Member Ross stated that on this property, a second structure is not going to be built as on the Burns Exemption. In the past, the city has permitted residents to stay on a septic system as long as it does not present a health hazard. To make them hook up to a sewer system to get an exemption is not realistic. Ms. Kleckner stated the County Board of Adjustments gave up to a year to hook up to the sewer system. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Laes how he felt about the requirement to hook up to the public sewer system. Mr. Laes replied that an agreement was made with the County that he would buy the taps now and connect to the sewer line before each house was sold. Member Ross asked Mr. Laes if he has talked to an attorney about the necessity of dividing this as an exemption to sell off one of the houses. Member Ross felt this exemption is not needed. Planning and Zonin and Minutes September 23, 1985W • Page 3 Mr. Laes stated that it is one piece of property and one house can not be sold on one piece of property that belongs to someone else. Chairman Dow suggested that this item be continued to the October meeting to allow Mr. Laes time to discuss this with his father and to negotiate with the City and County staff. Mr. Laes replied that it would be inconvenient to continued this because he travels from Denver for the meeting. Member O'Dell asked that if the 20 foot right-of-way is not dedicated now, what would need to be done when Taft Hill is improved. Ms. Kleckner replied that there would be several options without the right-of-way dedication, such as the city negotiating for the purchas of the land and that the property could be condemned. Member Ross stated he felt this is not a development request and does not need an exemption. Members Brown and Kern concurred with Member Ross. Member Ross moved to recommend approval of Laes Exemption with the condition that public sewer would be required to be hooked up if and when there is additional development or if a public hazard develops with the septic system. Member Edwards seconded. Chairman Dow stated he would vote no because he felt this should be tabled and that the Board need not review this item. Motion to recommend approval passed 6-1 with Chairman Dow voting no. #53-85 - CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - ZONING #53-85A - CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - MASTER PLAN 353-85B - CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - FILING 1 PARCEL A - PRELIMINAR7 Member Kern excused himself from discussion or voting on this item due to a potential conflict. Joe Frank gave a description of the zoning, master plan and filing one preliminary of Center for Advanced Technology. Gary Haxton, President of Everitt Companies, introduced Bob Everitt, Chairman of the Board, and Ron Young, Vice -President of Everitt Companies. Mr. Haxton stated that an option is open for Everitt Companies to purchase up to 90 acres of CSURF's land. This leaves approximately 140 acres for CSURF. Their plan is to upgrade the existing streets and add arterial streets as their development requires it. A market study was done of the entire city and a community center was found to be needed. Forestal Center and Stanford Research Park were visited by Mr. Everitt and himself for a comparison to their proposal. Bob Hutchinson, President of CSURF, spoke regarding the need for a mixed use high-tech park in this area. The balance of the land will be leased by CSURF to private industry for a 45-65 year period. Planning and Zoning Boar' Minutes September 23, 1985 Page 4 Carr Bieker, ZVFK Architects, discussed and showed slides of the Research Triangle in North Carolina, Princeton Forestal Center in New Jersey, Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, and their high-tech and mixed use developments along with CSU Research Center. He also showed slides of the proposed area and the surrounding area and uses. Important goals to achieve are: 1) to develop a relationship between CAT and the university; 2) to antici- pate technological advancements; 3) to deal with neighboring developments sensitively; 4) to promote high quality users, and; 5) to phase logically from a point of view for the development, the city and the neighbors. The master plan has four uses - high-tech, bio-tech, retail and recreational. He discussed clustering, which they are promoting, the monorail system and versatility of the buildings. In terms of the phase one plan, features include the expandable flexibility of buildings with multiple tenants, berming of parking lots, screening of service areas, promotion of jogging trails with mid -block crossings, compartmentalized parking, clustering of buildings and recreational areas. Development considerations are phasing, land use, zoning of I-P and B-P, drainage and surrounding neighborhood. Lee Samons, of Hammer, Silar, and George Market Consultants, spoke regarding the land use. He stated that approximately 54% of the shoppers are from Fort Collins, 34% from the county area, and 12% from tourists and out of state people. These are components for future retail demand and income. What is needed for planning over a 20 year period is over 600 acres of retail development. Joe gave the staff report recommending approval of CAT Zoning as I-P, Industrial Park for the entire CAT property rather than I-P and B-P, as required by the applicants for reasons as stated in the staff report and approval of CAT Master Plan subject to the conditions that: 1) phasing of improvements to surrounding arterial streets, 2) that Center Street be extended, 3) that impact study of Stuart, Worthington and Meadowlark streets be completed, and 4) that additional information be given to the city on the applicant's development standards. Staff also recommends approval of CAT Phase 1 Parcel A Preliminary subject to the same conditions as CAT Master Plan. Member Ross asked if it is more meaningful on an infill project to zone in lines of anticipated use, such as Anheuser-Busch and Del Webb, which are not infill projects. Ken Waido replied that Del Webb and Anheuser-Busch are peripheral master plans and not infill projects. The intent of this project is to define what the property will be used for. Member Ross asked if it is staff's function to set policy on whether or not a regional shopping center should be located off of College or is it the Planning and Zoning Board's or City Council's policy to set the policy. Mr. Waido replied that the responsibility is with City Council. It is the obligation of staff to offer alternatives, suggestions and recommendations to City Council in establishing that policy. Planning and Zoningrd Minutes September 23, 1935 Page 5 Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the analysis of this project showed it could work from a transportation standpoint. The "if's" involved include: 1) the arterial street in and around the site needs to be adequate to handle traffic, 2) the need to develop Center Street with the phases of the commercial areas, 3) combination storm drainage and street design needs to be resolved, and 4) neighborhood impacts needs to be worked on. Allen Lamborn, Sheeley Drive resident, requested some discussion on the height of the buildings. Mr. Bieker stated there are 2 height zones - the city's standard of a 40 foot height requirement and the zone of 10 stories, or 130 feet, such as in hotels. These are what is requested. Mr. Lamborn stated he felt the Board should review the role of the neighborhood meetings in terms of information presented in the master plan. One of the big selling points at the neighborhood meeting was the height zone being low. He fundamentally supports the project with the exception that care should be stressed in the development of the commercial area. He questioned how the developer would integrate the retail and commercial area into the heart of the city without undercutting the value that is there. He felt the property should be entirely zoned I-P, Industrial Park, as recommended by staff. Freeman Smith, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, asked which piece of property would be sold to Everitt and which would be retained in title to Everitt. Mr. Haxton replied that the immediate southwest corner, south of the ditch, would be sold, which is approximately 90 acres. No more that than can be sold or bought. Mr. Smith asked if the LOGS states that a final plan can not be granted unless the entire piece of property is under one ownership. Mr. Frank replied that he was not aware of that requirement. There is a section in the LOGS that states if someone owns a larger piece of property, part of it can not be brought in, all must be brought in, for review. Mr. Bieker stated that the land retained by CSURF would have only one difference associated with it and that is that the land can only be leased for an extended period of time. CSURF would go through the same process that Everitt goes through with the city if a developer came in to lease the land. Mr. Smith asked if CSURF is committed to the master plan or if the remaining property can be immediately put into another master plan for the Bay Farm. Chairman Dow stated that anyone could go before the Board subsequent to the approval of a master plan and ask that the master plan be amended. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1935 Page 6 Gail Rains, 806 Wagonwheel, asked what a major shopping center inclu(n-s and if a grocery store be included in this proposal. Mr. Frank replied that a community shopping center of 350,000 squa-•- feet on 35 acres is proposed. In comparison, Toddy's is about 155,000-._5,000 square feet on 9 or 10 acres. A community shopping center compar .:le in size to the proposed is University Mall. At this point, a grocery s.. re is not proposed. Joan Avins, resident of Meadowlark Avenue, was concerned about the possible parking problem on Meadowlark and in the neighborhoods. She felt a stipulation to the density of use should be required. She also reciJested more details about what sort of industry is proposed for this develc1:1ment. She asked if the monorail is a real possibility. Chairman Dow replied that the developers would be required to �—:)vide adequate parking for the on -site needs. Mr. Frank stated that the existing signal at Meadowlark will rema•-1. In regards to the parking, almost 300 parking spaces are proposes. The monorail is a potential for the future. Chairman Dow stated that the build out is 15-30 years befog= the development is totally complete. The industry type is currently wid= open because no one knows what the demand will be for industry. Mr. Bieker stated that the air pollution would be self -regulated an,: more strict than the city standards. Member Brown explained to Mrs. Avins that as each facility is bui1=, it must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board for preliminary and final approval. Mr. Frank stated that neighborhood meetings will be held before revew by the Board. Mrs. Avins asked if there are plans to extend Meadowlark south. Mr. Frank replied that there are plans for this extension but is not a part of the CAT proposal. Member Ross asked if there would be any need to take off the existing parking on Meadowlark. Mr. Ensdorff replied that the parking on the south side of the center would be residential in nature. Kevin Keane, 837 Winchester, endorsed the plan and encouraged the Board to watch and support the development. He had concerns regarding the traffic on Drake, which includes no left turn onto Worthington Street and would like to see a visual separation between the residential area and the development in terms of parking. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 23, 1985 • Page 7 Drake, which includes no left turn onto Worthington Street and would like to see a visual separation between the residential area and the development in terms of parking. Wayne Shepard, 830 Wayonwheel, agreed with staff in recommending the I-P zoning. He asked that, based on the projected traffic flow on Drake Road, what kind of modifications are necessary to accommodate that traffic. Mr. Ensdorff stated that Drake would be brought up to city standard arterial with a right hand turn at Worthington with raised medians. This would depend upon where the pressure points would be of the development. Any improvements of the street would be done on the north side so as not to affect anyone's property. Member Ross had strong beliefs in the LDGS and feels this is a sensitive area. The theme should be industrial park. He stated the developer has flexibility with the I-P zone and agrees with staff in recommending the I-P zone. Mr. Haxton stated he does not see the wisdom of zoning this I-P when it is known a shopping center is part of the plan. Member Edwards stated he shares the impact concerns of the audience. He asked for an explanation of commercial development being the market force behind the future development of a bio-tech or research facility. Mr. Haxton replied that when talking to Stanford, their shopping center was built early, providing the income to build the infrastructure of the high-tech is adequate. This is the driving force behind the development. Member Brown asked if it was the trends of the other high-tech parks to lease the property or to purchase it out -right. She asked what is the marketability of the whole concept. Mr. Haxton replied that the land was not purchased but rather leased for a 45-65 year period. Forestal Center, the most successful and largest, leased 80-90% of the land and purchased the rest. Chairman Dow commented that since there will be a PUD condition placed on this item, it makes no difference on how it is zoned. He stated it is more appropriate to go with the B-P zoning on the southwest part and the I-P zone on the rest. Member Ross moved to recommend to City Council that Parcel A be zoned B-P, Planned Business, Parcels B, D, and F be zoned I-P, Industrial Park, and Parcels C and E be zoned T-Transitional with the condition that all of these parcels be developed as a PUD. Member Lang seconded. Motion to recommend approval passed 5-1 with Member Brown voting no. Member Lang moved to approve the Center for Advanced Technology Master Plan with the conditions that: 1) phasing of improvements to surrounding arterial streets, 2) that Center Street be extended, 3) that impact study of Stuart, Worthington and Meadowlark streets be completed, and 4) that Planning and Zoning Boarc.Minutes September 23, 1985 Page 8 height of 40 feet throughout the site should be kept and that the site is not far enough away from the College Avenue corridor. Motion to approved passed 6-0. Edwards moved to approve Center for Advanced Technology Phase 1-Parcel A - Preliminary with the same four conditions as the Master Plan. Member O'Dell seconded. Member Ross commented that a large amount of time was spent on reviewing drawings and details of this project by the Board. He did not want anyone to think that this has been done in a "steamroller" effect and not studied carefully. Motion to approve passed 6-0. #55-85 - WHITCOMB GREENS PUD - PRELIMINARY Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Phil Taylor, Al Hockett Construction, presented slides to the Board of the site and drawings of the proposal. He discussed the existing landscaping along the street, the entry and exit ways of the site, the existing dwellings and the proposed parking. Member Ross asked if either of the existing dwellings are used as duplexes. Mr. Taylor replied they are both used as duplexes with a total of 4 units. There will be 6 more units built in the back for a total of 10 units. Member Lang asked if any work would be done on the existing curb cut for accessibility to the 10 unit complex. Mr. Taylor replied that it is a 10 foot wide drive and would be kept that way. This may need upgrading but not widened. This is an entrance only. The Fire Department would use the alleyway to access the building. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant is aware of the 3 conditions that staff has recommended. Mr. Taylor stated the only problem he has is that the southern boundary landscaping should not be intensified since it is already overgrown. Member Kern asked how many parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Taylor replied there are 13 proposed spaces with a place for 2 more spaces. Member Brown stated the parking problem should be resolved before final review. Member O'Dell asked if parking spaces will be designated. Mr. Taylor stated that it does save fights to have designated parking spaces. Member Edwards asked if the units will be economically feasible for one student to occupy a bedroom. Planning and Zonineoard Minutes September 23, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Taylor replied the rent would be around $125-150 per student. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff report recommending approval with the conditions that: 1) the applicant participate in future alley improvements, 2) enhancement of building elevations be kept with the neighborhood character and exterior materials be provided at time of final, 3) landscaping adjacent to buildings and on southern property line be intensified, and 4) additional parking be addressed at final. Member Ross felt that this is a redevelopment rather than an infill. He was concerned that the 22 dwelling units is too heavy. Ms. Kleckner stated that it is not heavy in comparison with the surrounding dwelling units. Member Ross asked if the utilities can handle this additional use. Ms. Kleckner replied that the utility department said there are no problems with this. Chairman Dow stated that in terms of intensity and impact, this proposal should be a duplex or 3-plex instead of a 6-plex. He felt the parking is short about 6 spaces. Member Kern asked if there is any noise mitigation in the design of the building. Mr. Taylor replied the surrounding area is compatible to the proposal. Noise mitigation will be with fencing and landscaping as well as light pollution. Member Edwards moved to approve Whitcomb Greens PUD - Preliminary with the following conditions: 1) that the applicant participate in future alley improvements, 2) that enhancement of building elevations be in keeping with the neighborhood character and exterior materials be provided at time of final, 3) that landscaping adjacent to buildings and on southern property line be intensified, and 4) that additional parking be addressed at final. Member Kern seconded. Member Edwards comments that this project has uniqueness and is a good redevelopment project but needs more details at time of final. Chairman Dow suggested the consideration of buying the strip of land adjacent to the alley to allow for additional parking. Motion to approve passed 4-3 with Members Brown, Ross and Chairman Dow voting no based on the high intense of use. #49-85 - STERLING SEAWORTH PIT BATCH PLANT SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Mike Refer, Sterling Companies, A batch plant is currently on the south side of Taft Hill Road. Staff is recommending denial because they want the road from the river back to Laporte be improved to 4 lane status. This is not economically feasible for a 42 acre site. Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes September 23, 1985 Page 10 side of Taft Hill Road. Staff is recommending denial because they want the road from the river back to Laporte be improved to 4 lane status. This is not economically feasible for a 42 acre site. Member Ross asked how long they anticipate to be in the proposed batch plant. Mr. Refer replied that the pit is 42 acres and they are mining 8-10 acres per year on each side of the river for a total of 20 acres per year. This could be open for 10-15 years. Member Lang asked if this were denied, would they proceed as normal and what would be done with the current plant. Mr. Refer replied they would proceed as normal. The current plant would be reclaimed to mine land reclamation standards. When done mining an area, that water will fill into a pond then native grasses, trees and shrubs are planted. Some property has been turned over to the city for bike paths and future parks. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff report regarding the city's right-of-way needs, aesthetics, traffic and road conditions, road improvements needed and concerns of a waiver not being obtained. Staff recommends a waiver be processed addressing the entire Taft Hill Road operation prior to any other approval being granted. Chairman Dow asked what options there are in the waiver process. Ms. Kleckner stated that she met with the County staff and they suggested adding something to the Intergovernmental Agreement, such as assessing this type of use a dollar amount per acreage per year. This is not a fixed agreement. Chairman Dow reiterated by saying that the options are to either accept staff recommendation and deny the project or to ignore staff's recommendation and approve the request. Member Ross asked if a ton mile tax is paid by the plant, and if so, is this money used for road improvements. Ms. Kleckner replied that County staff stated some of this is filtered back to the local areas but by the time it is assessed and filters back, there is not a substantial amount to do those kind of road improvements. Member Edwards stated that since this is a recommendation to the County and if denied by the Board, the County could do what they please anyway. The only real option is to make the strongest statement possible to the County. Member Kern moved to recommend approval of the Sterling Seaworth Pit Batch Plant Special Review with the conditions that: 1) the applicant continue to negotiate with the County and City staffs for provision of a trail easement along the Poudre River, 2) that the right-of-way dedications are given to allow a 50 foot setback from the centerline of Taft Hill Road, 3) that a Planning and September 23, Page 11 Zonin and Minutes 1985 0 staff be asked to negotiate a fee to contribute to a street repairs/over- sizing fund. Member Edwards seconded. Motion to recommend approval passed 6-1 with Member Brown voting no based on staff's recommendations. #64-85 - LEE EXEMPTION - COUNTY REFERRAL Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Dorothy Lee, owner, stated she applied for a building permit to build an addition but found the division of land was not approved by the County Commissioners. The plans for property is to continue its present use and replace an existing farmhouse with a newer home further back on the property. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff report stating there were concerns regarding the previous division of land, development potential zoned commercial, and existing use of land being used as mobile homes. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that an additional right-of-way be dedicated along the east frontage road up to 68 feet total and a condition be placed on the plat stating there can be no further development without a PUD plan. Chairman Dow asked how much additional right-of-way is needed. Ms. Kleckner replied it would be a total of 68 feet and the applicant is requested to provide 1/2 of the right-of-way. Chairman Dow asked Mrs. Lee if she had any problems with these conditions. Mrs. Lee stated she had not heard of these conditions until now. She would need some time for some consideration of these conditions. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval with the conditions that an additional right-of-way be dedicated on the frontage road on I-25 up to 68 feet total, 1/2 the difference made by the applicant, and that a condition be put on the plat that any further development be reviewed as a PUD plan. Member Lang seconded. Chairman Dow asked what the requirement is on the policy when the other side of the road is owned by a governmental entity as far as dedication is concerned. Bonnie Tripoli stated that normally the right-of-way would be required from the property, not from the state's right-of-way. This would be less than 18 feet additional land. Motion to recommend approval passed 6-1 with Member Brown voting no because she does not consider this an exemption of streamlining the subdivision. Planning and Zoning Boi, I Minutes - September 23, 1985 Page 12 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Gary Ross nominated Tim Dow for Chairman. Linda Lang seconded the nomination. On a vote of 6-0, Tim Dow was elected to continue serving as Chairman. David Edwards nominated Don Crews as Vice -Chairman. Sanford Kern seconded the nomination. On a vote of 7-0, Don Crews was elected to continue serving as Vice -Chairman. Meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m.