Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/26/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES August 26, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the August 23, 1985, worksession were Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Sharon Brown, David Edwards, Don Crews, Laurie O'Dell. Absent were Sanford Kern and Alternate Linda Lang. Board members present included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Laurie O'Dell, Sharon Brown, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, Don Crews and Alternate Linda Lang. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Steve Ryder, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank, Bonnie Tripoli, and Gail Ault. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and introduced the new Board Members. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the consent agenda which consisted of: #95-81D, Seven Lakes Business Park PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary ; #25-81D, Villages at Harmony West PUD - 2nd Filing - Preliminary - One Year Extension; #24-80I, Park Central PUD, Phase III - Final; and, #58-85, Gardner Signs Special Review - County Referral Items continued to the September meeting were: #65-82I, Somerville PUD - Final; #112-79H, Four Seasons 5th, Phase 2, PUD - Final; and, #13-85B, Sherwood Street Commons PUD - Final. Member Ross asked the status of the Prospect Street Bridge in regard to Seven Lakes Business Park PUD. Bonnie Tripoli indicated construction was planned to start early next year. Chairman Dow asked for additional information on this at time of final. Member Brown stated she was not in favor of the Park Central PUD - Preliminary, but the final plan is in compliance and she will, therefore, vote in favor. Chairman Dow indicated he had a conflict of interest on items 3 and 8 and would abstain on those items. Member Ross moved to approve the consent agenda Items 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8. Member Crews seconded. Motion to approve passed on a 7-0. Chairman Dow stated the County Referrals would be heard next to insure they were acted on this evening. #61-85 - AMENDMENT TO THE LARIMER COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the request. Jim Martell, repesenting the applicant, stated the purpose of the request was to eliminate high intensity or density industrial uses. The request is for a 10 acre lot size and the City is concerned that 35 acres/lot would be a better size. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 1985 Page 2 Member Crews questioned the petition which had 90+ signatures of property owners while there were over 200 property owners in the area. Mr. Martell responded that he believed more than 90 had signed at this time and he was aware of only one person that was against the proposal and that was because he was against government controlling this type of development. Ms. Kleckner gave staff summary indicated the City was not supporting the item and believed the one unit per 35 acre requirement should be adhered to. This requirement was reaffirmed in 1980 when the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed and is consistent with the Zoning Resolution and Land Use Policy Plan. Jim Martell responded that eliminating the high intensity uses is consistent with the land use plan and this amendment is an attempt to move closer to modernizing the zoning ordinance and making it more consistent with the land use plan. Larry Stroud, area resident, reported on the results of the petition indicating several were still outstanding but most residents had been - contacted with only one person opposing the item. Eight or nine neighborhood meetings had been held with unanimous support. Member Edwards asked if alternatives had been discussed to eliminate inconsistencies and Mr. Martell responded the proposal had been written by the County. Member Ross felt the intent was to make a stricter zone and that was good; however, it doesn't bring the area into conformance with the land use policy plan and it is wrong to piecemeal changes. Member Crews agreed and felt chosing an urban ratio of 1 unit in 10 acres versus the rural density was inconsistent. Member Brown also agreed and felt the proposal was premature. Ross added it was too abrupt with the area across Douglas Road being zoned 1 unit in 35 acres. O'Dell also felt the Board needed to remain consistent with written guidelines. Chairman Dow disagreed with the concensus stating he was not convinced the County would act to bring the guidelines in conformance with each other i;n the near future. Motion to recommend denial to the county was made by Member Brown and seconded by Member Ross. Motion carried 6-1 with Dow voting No. Because the Burns were not in the audience the Board proceeded to the first Discussion Item. #51-85 - PINNACLE PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave description of the item. John Carroll representing the applicant indicated several persons were available to answer questions. He stated he took exception to staff condition requesting elimination of the southerly drive and parking as the drive was to provide access to the park area and overflow parking - both an asset to the development. Planning and Zoning August 26, 198� Page 3 Board Minutes • Member O'Dell asked if Mr. Carroll had been along the bike trail and enjoyed the beautiful site. She felt it would be a shame to asphalt it. Chairman Dow asked the distance from Spring Creek to the parking lot. Mr. Carroll responded the parking lot provided better access to the trail for the elderly living the proposed development. Mr. Ryder gave staff recommendation with included providing berming, preserving trees, additional landscaping with larger trees, and more diversity in intermediate size trees. Building elevations also needed to be provided at final and developer should explore the elimination of the southern parking for more open space. Chairman Dow asked if the two curbcuts on Prospect had acceleration or deceleration lanes and Mr. Ryder responded No. Member Ross wondered what would provide the continuity between the various subdivisions and Mr. Ryder explaned future expansion had been allowed for and curbcuts were not a serious concern. Rick Ensdorff, traffic engineer, indicated the City would like to reduce curbcuts on Prospect but existing developments prevent or limit the options available. Chairman Dow felt a deceleration or acceleration lane should be provided and Mr. Ensdorff responded they were used primarily in commercial projects. Traffic's concern was that overflow parking be closer to the units and not concentrated at one end. Member Edwards asked about the possibility of designing a deceleration lane to be created at a later date if needed. Mr. Ensdorff stated it was an option but funding would be a concern and a special agreement would be necessary. Member Crews asked if the interior streets would be the responsibility of an association and Mr. Ryder indicated that was correct. Member Kern asked if the area expanded was the layout, clustered positioning, appropriate. Mr. Ryder stated the applicant would like expansion option and staff would like an idea of how the future project might look. Member Kern felt the landscaping around the building was minimal and Mr. Ryder concurred. Mr. Ryder added alternatives to the parking area also needed to be pursued. Fred Goranson, 1405 Robertson, wanted some assurance the buildings would be for the elderly. He was also concerned with the flooding of Spring Creek and felt the project was too dense for the neighborhood. Hoped it would not eventually become a slum area. Mr. Ryder indicated no covenants had been proposed but the applicant stated it was for elderly housing. John Carroll, engineer, indicated the project would have little impact on Spring Creek. Member Edwards felt project would intrude in the rural nature of Spring Creek as the overflow area could become storage space for motorhomes, etc. Mr. Carroll responded regulations could be installed in covenants to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 1985 Page 4 prevent that happening. The developer is willing to intensify landscaping around the parking area and add a three foot berm. If they are required to move the units south this couldn't be installed as easily. Also a sewer trunk line in the area limits the movement to the south of the units. Member Ross asked about enforcement of protective covenants. Attorney Roy responded the primary group enforcing the covenants would be the homeowners. To be enforced by the City it would need to be stated on the plat and should be a condition of PUD approval. Member Crews felt homeowners would easily be able to amend and modify the covenants. Mr. Carroll felt a possible solution might be adding the condition to the PUD that motor homes could not be parked in the overflow parking. Member Ross felt the developer must address the elimination of the overflow parking. Member Edwards felt some parking spaces should be eliminated and reconfigured. Covenants would not solve the problem. Member Kern wanted the trail protected by design not by covenants. Member Brown felt project must be substantially changed at final for her to vote for it. Chairman Dow stated he had a difficult time supporting the plan unless a better design and layout was found with one curbcut and clustering of the buildings. Member O'Dell also could not support the project. Member Edward moved to approve the project subject to the three staff conditions: 1) final landscaping shall incorporate suggestions detailed in staff report; 2) building elevations shall be provided at final and design options for future expansion need to be explored ; and, 3) the application shall explore the elimination of the southernmost drive and parking area to provide more open space and buffering along the trail. Member Kern seconded. Motion to approve was defeated 3-4 with Ross, Kern, Dow, and O'Dell voting No. #38-85 - BURNS EXEMPTION - County Referral Elaine Kleckner gave staff description stating the proposal was denied earlier because of ROW dedication concerns which had been addressed. Allen Burns, applicant, pointed out the area to be dedicated and indicated they were agreeable with the proposed dedication. Chairman Dow asked if flood plain was shown on the plat and Mr. Burns indicated it could be shown. Ms. Kleckner indicated City felt a valuable ROW dedication had been received and there was no need for the road to be built at this time. Also, of the two residences on the first tract, only one was inhabitable with the other being used for storage. Staff conditions include showing on the plat that the ROW connection to Woodford is dedicated, utility easements, and the extent of the flood plain. Motion to recommend approval to the County of the Burns Exemption was made by Member Brown and seconded by Member Ross. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board MinUTes -. August 26, 1935 Page 5 • • #19-85 - MAPLE STREET APARTMuas - R-M SITE PLAN REVIEW - Final Steve Ryder gave description of the project. Tom Dougherty, 1129 Miramont Drive, for the applicant, indicated the. major concern at preliminary was the tight site on the west and trying to preserve the large trees. 1`or background he stated the original sought 15 dwelling units which was reduced to 13 after the neighborhood meeting. Every effort to use existing trees was taken and retaining the overall site for minimal impact on the neighborhood. Member O'Dell asked how far from the apartment the existing house was and Tom Dougherty stated the building was 9 feet 4 inches from the property line and probably 12-16 feet from the older home. Mr. Ryder gave staff recommendation inciated the Board was concerned about density, traffic generation, and the west elevation at preliminary. There now seems to be much more neighborhood concern than earlier but the staff, will remain consistant with its earlier approval. Member Edwards questioned what traffic measures were being taken to slow traffic down. Rick Ensdorff stated the City can't add speed bumps but options would be better posting of speed limits, adding a stop sign; however, they are not recommended in this instance as there is no evidence of problems in this location. Member Kern asked if there was a lawn area for the residences and Mr. Dougherty pointed it out. Chairman Dow asked for a show of hands of people here for this project and approximately 12 people raised their hands. Rebecca Austin, 1232 Maple, acting as spokesperson, indicated 100+ people opposed the Maple Street project. The Board was concerned earlier and now there were new home owners in the area and a greater awareness of the adverse impact of this complex. Her points were that the area was zoned medium density and this project is high density, the site specifies 36% green space but it is essentially unusable, the building is out of character with the surrounding buildings, traffic is already great and this will have an adverse impact, and not enough parking spaces are being provided. The input, letters and attendance at this meeting attest to the high neighborhood concern. Phil Leonhardt, 1212 Maple, stated the landscaping plan was inaccurate and some of the trr,es were not worth saving. He felt the three story building was out of ch:-,:-after. There was no space between the sidewalk and road so kids are using the street and the increased traffic would be a problem. Nancy Wick, 1232 Juniper Court, was concerned about the alley across the street. It is for non -motorized vehicles and is currently being abused. With this project it would only be worse. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August: 26, 1935 Page 6 Frank Vella, 1205 Maple, stated the neighborhood was predominately older or younder residents, marginal income families. There was a great concern for children of the area and this project would hinder raising them in a family -oriented neighborhood. David Gingerich, 1201 Maple, was also opposed to the project. It would totally dominate the neighborhood physically and socially and was inappropriate. Sherry Ryder, 409 Franklin, liked the quiet neighborhood and nice kids. The neighborhood doesn't need more population or a project not well maintained. Member Ross noted he would not be voting on the project due to a conflict of interest (owner of a rental in the area). Alternate Lang also noted she could not vote due to a conflict of interest. Tom Dougherty stated the project was done in two phased to acquire neighborhood input before investing heavily in time and money. The applicant had proceeded in good faith. Attorney Roy indicated under the PUD process the implication is that if a preliminary is approved and the final is in substantial compliance, the final must be approved. Under the R-'al review it is slightly different. The Board can exercise its discretion based on the input received tonight. It should be evaluated against a comprehensive plan, the impacts on the neighborhood are an important consideration and the site design should be compatible and sympathetic with the surrounding neighborhood. Member Crews indicated his feelings since the earlier meeting had changed. He felt the project too large and intrusive and landscaping was insufficient. Member Brown felt the proximity of the building to the west property line was inappropriate and also the design of the building needed to be changed. Member Kern agreed with the concept but the building was not compatible with the area. Member O'Dell appreciated the developer using existing trees and providing moderate income housing but the neighborhood had and effective presentation. Member Edwards felt the applicants' efforts were honorable and the time lapse had caused the neighborhood outcry. It was not sufficient to deny the project. Chairman Dow felt three specific items were to be addressed and had not been -•-the western side was not changed, the landscaping not changed, traffic generation perhaps couldn't be addressed except by reducing density, but: the density did remain too high at 26 units/acre. Member Ross indicated he had a conflict of interest, Alternate Lang also. Motion to deny was made by Crews, seconded by Kern. Motion to deny carried 5-1. Member Edwards voted no. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 198� • Page 7 63-79A LAKE STREET VILLAGE PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave project description. Jim Junge, representing the applicant Bruce Miller who was also available, indicated this was the eighth proposal since 1977. The neighborhood was concerned with traffic impact although the project had less than a 1% increase in street traffic. The neighborhood would like 20-26 units but that would have little or no change from this project. We have made many requested changes, garages to carports, broke up the mass of carports, increased the courtyard space, redesigned entry for more landscaping. The project was designed to fit into the community as an exciting land use fitting the goals of the neighborhood and infill projects. Mr. Ryder gave staff summary noting in July City Council requested the Board review their previous decision. Staff is recommending approval. A discussion followed on traffic flow including the possibility of extending summer Street. Member Crews questioned the distance between curbcuts and they were 200 feet apart. Lloyd Walker, President, Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, indicated there were roughly 40 people present for tonight's meeting and much effort had been put forth. Council wanted the parties to work together but thus far no negotiating had occurred between the neighborhood and the developer. The area concerned represents approximately 1 square mile of mixed land use; high density infill, commercial, CSU. It's an area in delicate balance. This project must be carefully considered. The neighborhood is concerned about maintaining quality of this diverse area. A slide show was presented showing the area. Ed Bishop, area resident, presented a model of the area showing the earlier proposal and the changes. He then presented slides showing the bulk of various area buildings. Lloyd Walker then stated the neighborhood has an idea of what they want in a project: reduced density - 20 du/acre; duplex or four-plex configuration; reduced building heights; integration of open space and housing; additional parking above minimal requirements; space for vehicles as well as storage; amenitites to keep residents for longer periods; and a management plan limiting the number of occupants in each unit. He stated there haven't been significant changes in the project although the building coverage has increased, open space has been reduced, and the buildings are now longer and wider. It would be an intrusive and disruptive element in the neighborhood. In summary the neighborhood has accommodated a lot of growth and, although the developer has a right to profit, it should not be at the neighborhood's expense. This project is not substantially different from the project denied in June; it is still intrusive and disruptive and the developer has made no effort to work out problems with the neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 1985 Page 8 Jim Junge, applicant, stated the developer is very willing to work out problems. The neighborhood should realize the Landmark project has a 12/12 pitch roof, this project a 5/12; and the buildings are not similar though they are constantly being compared. As an architect he is licensed in 12 states and experienced. Thirty-two units is the smallest manageable size for the apartments. The developer also would be willing to look at making the panhandle a neighborhood park. Member Ross asked what percentage of the neighborhood at the meeting was apartment dwellers or owners. Mr. Walker stated he felt the area was reasonably representative. He added traffic turning onto Shields is a problem. Chairman Dow asked if the neighborhood would like joint use of the panhandle area. Walker felt he could not say without first consulting the neighborhood. He responded he felt garages with adequate storage were more desirable than carports to Chairman Dow's question on that. Chairman Dow asked about the traffic impact. Rick Ensdorff responded the current traffic on Shields is approximately 19,000+ vehicles a day. This project would generate 190 to 200 vehicles and does not change the current delays. A 20 du project would result in approximately 120 vehicles daily, 26 du would be 160-170 each day; still less than 1 percent change per day. Responding to Chairman Dow's question on eliminating or limiting certain movements, Mr. Ensdorff stated Fort Collin's rarely utilized such options. They are confusing to motorists and though eventually the City may have to use them they would prefer not to at this time. Once the improvement of Prospect to west of Shields is completed the area will operate more efficiently. The City feels a one-way system might be abused and, therefore, is not considering it as an option at this time. Member O'Dell questioned access from Sumner Street. Mr. Ensdorff stated it might ease the problem. Member Kern wondered if the parties could come up with an agreeable solution. Attorney Roy stated the plan needs to be acceptable to the Board. The Board can't delegate its responsibilities to the parties involved. Member Ross moved to approve the project. Member O'Dell stated she felt the buildings were nice looking but the way they are situated makes them appear more dense. She would like the buildings reconfigured. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Member Kern felt that reconfirguration was a good idea since the green space is hard to utilize since it is so segregated. Chairman Dow proposed adding the following conditions: 1) developer and neighborhood work together on creative design/joint access of the open space; 2) consider some connection between the site and green space by eliminating parking spaces or reconfiguring; 3) developer should continue good faith efforts to work with the neighborhood for use of green space, etc.; and, 4) developer should working with City traffic to determine if any solution as restrictive turns onto Shields are possible. Member Ross indicated the conditions were acceptable. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 198� ► Page 9 Member Edwards felt the Board was anticipating a problem that might not occur. Chairman Dow added the issue of carport versus garage should be resolved the two parties. Member Brown stated she must vote no. The developer has tried to address some concerns but mass and bulk of the buildings has not changed. She is also concerned about the building setbacks and carports. Member Crews also will vote no. There are no marked changes and the project remains too dense. Member Edwards is in favor of the project as an acceptable use in an area in transition. Motion to approve was denied by a 3-4 vote with Kern, O'Dell, Crews, and Brown voting no. #52-85 CREAGER PLAZA SOUTH PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave brief description of project located at 3835 S. College, now Foothills Chrysler Plymouth. Cathy Chianese, representative for Osprey, stated the project has College access (restricted to a right-in/right-out) and must deal with existing buildings which were developed under the building permit process rather than the PUD. The developer has been working with the City to utilize the access sites, promote Mason Street, and open up the area to other facilities. Building elevations and materials are similar to Park Central and Riverside Junction. The project favorably addresses the guidance system. Member Ross questioned the distance between the northwest building and the Mann Theater. Ms. Chianese responded 30 feet. Member Edwards asked how the substantial grade level change would be mitigated. Bob Mooney, architect, responded that would be dealt with at final but ramps and steps would be investigated. , Member Brown questioned the traffic flow and Ms. Chianese pointed out the general traffic patterns and noted project has no specific users as yet. They will not submit final until they have users. Bob Mooney indicated there would be no loading docks, rather door entrances and landscaping could easily be added. Ms. Chianese indicated they were looking at small bays as a video store, pet shop; stores not marketing large items. Member Brown asked about the service area for Tract D and Mr. Mooney responded it would be at rear of theater. Member Edwards questioned the traffic flow. Ms. Chianese responded to his concerns stating as Mason grows in popularity it will be a logical traffic choice. The median in College will hinder access there, Creager and Colboard will be limited with no lefthand north turns. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Ryder gave staff report indicating internal circulation was a primary concern as well as building setbacks. The developer has met most of the City concerns and the circulation pattern is considered workable. The landscape plan shows good intent but the rear of the buildings will be looked at at final as well as berming and landscaping along College. Additional loading zones may be necessary but can be worked out at final. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that an access agreement be reached between the applicant and the property owner to the south by time of final review. Member Ross was concerned that the mechanical apparatus not be in the back of the buildings because of small setback. He also wondered if curbcuts further to the west would be a better solution. Ms. Chianese stated access was better handled further in site and by final the developer would have an agreement with the property owner to the south. If the agreement did not materialize the buildings would be shifted south with little difficulty. Member Ross indicated he would vote against the project as the agreement is central to the proposal and needs to be confirmed first. Member Brown concurred and felt it was premature to approve at this time. Ms. Chianese pointed out how buildings could easily shift to south should it be necessary. She stated they felt confident bringing in the preliminary proposal without a final agreement. Bob Mooney indicated they had hoped to have a letter from the property owner showing has agreement to the project but did not have it yet. However, there seems to be no problem in getting the agreement signed. Motion to approve with condition access agreement with property owner to south is signed was made by Member Crews and seconded by O'Dell. Motion was denied 3-4 with Ross, Kern, Dow, and Brown voting no. There was no further business. Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.