Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/24/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 24, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Laurie O'Dell, Sharon Brown and Alternate Linda Lang. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Ken Waido, Steve Ryder, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Jan Shepard, and Kayla Ballard. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Ms. Hopkins to review the consent agenda which consisted of: #40-85, Opera House Block Building PUB - Preliminary; #4-80D, Scenic Views PUB - Final; #198-87C, Greenbriar Replat - Final Subdivision, and; #20-85B, Breakwater Estates First Filing - Final Subdivision. Item #3, #19-84A, Maple Street Apartments - R-M Site Plan Review - Final was continued until the August meeting. Member Brown requested that Item #2, Scenic Views PUB - Final be pulled for discussion. Member Ross stated he will abstain from voting on Item #4, 198-78C, Greenbriar Replat - Final Subdivision, due to a potential conflict. Member Brown moved to approve the consent agenda which consisted of Items 1, 4, and 5. Member O'Dell seconded. Motion to approve passed on a 5-0 with Item #4 vote 4-0. #4-80D - SCENIC VIEWS PUB - FINAL Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh and Associates, introduced Blair Kiefer, the applicant. He stated staff concerns have been addressed on this project. Member Brown stated she requested this item be pulled so she could vote no. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff report recommending approval. There is also a recommendation for approval for the off -site improvements and a variance request. Funds are being escrowed for the eventual construction of Overland Trail, therefore, the variance is in order. The building and landscape plans have been improved and conditions met. Member Ross moved to approve Scenic Views PUB Final based on the fact that it is in compliance with the preliminary approval and the conditions that were set on that approval. Member Lang seconded. Motion passed 4-1. Member Brown voted no because of the proximity of the canal to the buildings, the Planning and Zoning Bo,_ . Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 2 alignment and regimentation of the buildings, the setbacks on the southeast corner of the site, the density on the western boundary of the UGA and the sameness of the buildings. k56-85 - FOOTHILLS AREA URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY AMENDMENT Ken Waido gave a description of the UGA Amendment request and a history of the UGA. Staff is recommending approval based on the following factors: 1) the change is strongly supported by the City and County comprehensive plans; 2) water utilities, designated for uses other than urban development, have been eliminated through the construction of the new water storage facility; 3) the boundary change will give more realistic guidance to the public and private sectors about future utilization west of Overland Trail; 4) the change will place an annexation requirement on development proposals in the area; 5) as properties are annexed, the zoning designation will have a condition placed on them that the development must proceed as a PUD; 6) the sewer utilities capacity restraints will make it difficult for development proposals to achieve high residential densities west of Overland Trail; 1) the community's open space will be helped; and, 8) the aesthetic views of the foothills can be reviewed on a case -by -case basis so view impacts can be minimized. Recommendation of approval is not intended to allow urban development on any privately -owned land in the area that is west of the natural hazard line. Chairman Dow asked if there would be any benefit in attempting to include publicly -owned land. Mr. Waido replied that at this time there is no benefit it include publicly -owned lands. Member O'Dell asked what would happen if the land was developed on the west side of one of the parcels and was not adjacent to the City. Mr. Waido replied that there are several phasing criteria in the Inter- governmental Agreement that apply to properties that are not eligible for annexation into the City that are in the UGA. These criteria include the provision of public water and sewer, an off -site road improvement requirement and an emergency services requirement. The waiver criteria are designed for an infill site and not development in a peripheral location. Member Brown asked if amendments to the UGA are normally from specific applicants and not by staff. Mr. Waido replied that a precedence has been set to allow staff to bring forth a boundary change to the governing entities. The precedence was the A/B UGA Amendment. Alvin Miller, surrounding resident, asked if the UGA is extended to the west, is it mandatory for annexation to proceed in a set time frame. Planning and Zonis Board Minutes • July 24, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Waido stated that annexations is a phasing element within the Intergovernmental Agreement and that annexation would be required for contiguous properties. In order to force annex property, the city limits must completely surround that property for at least 3 years before annexation can occur. All annexations have been voluntary. Rex Miller, surrounding resident, asked what happens to the existing subdivision that was approved by the County. It was agreed that those property owners would not oppose that subdivision based on the density that was established by the county and certain trade-offs as far as green space adjacent to their property. He understood that any development that is adjacent to the city that wants city utilities must annex. Mr. Waido stated that the County has agreed not to rezone any property or approve any subdivision or PUDs which are eligible for voluntary annexation. Mr. Miller asked that if this is approved and there is an existing master plan with the County and they begin development, would they be obligated to annex. Mr. Waido stated that a first phase of the subdivision in addition to the master plan has never been finalized. A subdivision has to be accepted by the City upon annexation if it is an officially approved subdivision. This could be negotiated with the developer at preliminary plan stage. Mr. Miller asked that once this is passed, does it put this under the grounds of the point system. Mr. Waido replied that it has been the policy of the City to condition annexations to be developed as a PUD. Any annexations that occurred in this area would also have a similar condition in their zoning. Mr. Miller stated he understood that the number of units that could be placed on that ground is substantially higher than what is currently there. Chairman Dow stated that there is no assurance as to the ultimate density but there are some strict practical limitations given the total size of the area and the economics of development that would require and constitute enough benefit to the developer to put in major off -site water and sewer and street improvements. The transferable development does not appear to be a viable option. Mr. Miller stated that this subdivision was passed by a trade-off. Will the developer come back and say now that he has to be within the County, he can not afford to do it "this way" because the cost of development is too high. The City would like him to believe that the reason none of this ground was included in the UGA is because they could not service it with water. This is not the case. The case is they called in their own expert witnesses to say pollution was a problem, hazardous building conditions were a problem, Planning and Zoning Ba d Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 4 etc. They are turning around and saying those things do not count anymore. What will be the City's policy 5 years from now? If this is passed with no assurance of a density ceiling, the City may decide they need a park out by Timnath. The City's position is too flexible. This should be taken into consideration before a decision is made. Chairman Dow stated that every landowner in the City has that concern because development is under the guidance system. Mr. Miller stated he would feel more comfortable if the situation that needs to be addressed is what happens to the subdivision that was just passed by the County. Would it stay the same? Would the density be limited to that density? He does not want to fight 12 dwelling units per acre 10 years in the future. Member Ross stated he may have to fight the County anyway if they decide they want to do it there, too. Mr. Miller stated he would like to see a limitation set as to the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on this ground. Dennis Vetter, surrounding resident, asked what the process is by which this amendment would be passed. Mr. Waido replied that the item is heard by the Planning and Zoning Board, then a recommendation would be made to City Council by that board. Then City Council would make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. The County would have the final decision. Mr. Vetter asked that since the industry in Fort Collins is slowing, where is the growth demand to expand the UGA. Are there adequate existing transportation and utilities? Will the impact of this urban amendment request upon the immediate neighborhood vicinity be a positive one? What is the public's reaction? He stated property owners were notified just a few days prior to the information meeting held on July 8th, after the holiday weekend, and that they were not notified of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Dow stated there will be at least two more hearings to discuss this proposal. There was also a public worksession 2 weeks prior to this meeting that was publicized. Mr. Waido stated the coordination of the notification to the property owners was done by Jill Bennett of Larimer County Planning.The Coloradoan did publicize the meeting prior to it on July 8th. J.R. Astell, 218 Overland Trail, read and presented a letter from Mrs. Levinger which was signed by surrounding property owners opposing the extension of the UGA (see attached letter). Planning and Zoni•Board Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 5 Barbara Munn, property owner, stated that at the July 8th meeting, the majority of the people at that meeting opposed the propose amendment. Norman Holmes, property owner, spoke in favor of extending the UGA because it is a logical extension of the City, the utilities are already in place, Overland Trail will be enlarged and it is logical to do this all at once. Ruth Burns, property owner, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Albert Barnes, property owner, stated he was opposed to the UGA extension unless there are strict restrictions. Member Brown asked if the land were annexed, who would be responsible for the off -site sewer improvements. Mr. Waido replied those would be the responsibility of the developer if the existing facility is not adequate to provide the necessary capacity to allow development. Member Ross asked if there was anything that stimulated this study at this time or is this just a logical extension in completion of studies done in the past with staff thinking that this would eventually develop rather than doing it on a "piecemeal" basis. Mr. Waido stated that what brought this up was the Overland Trail subdivi- sion and discussions that staff has had with the County Commissioners in relation to that development. The County Commissioners initially wanted the City to annex that subdivision into the City. The City pointed out that in the Intergovernmental Agreement it agreed not to annex property outside the UGA without first amending the UGA. Member Lang asked how the approval process is affected or is it protected and could it be changed if approved now. Mr. Waido reiterated what was told to Mr. Miller. If this UGA is approved, the process would include the County Commissioners hearings in October. When the development came in for final approval of various phases of the master plan, negotiations would be attempted to develop annexations of those pieces of ground and design of City's standards for streets and storm drainage of that development. Member Brown asked if this is approved, can the developer propose a new master plan with a higher density. Mr. Waido replied yes, but the Water and Sewer department would review the availability of the utilities of that proposal. Member Ross moved to recommend approval of the Foothills Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment as presented. Member Lang seconded based on the controls of the LDGS and good continuity. Member Brown stated she was voting no due Planning and Zoning Bo. _ Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 6 to no growth demand for this area, urban sprawl will be closer to the foothills, there are adverse environmental impacts in the area and the location is inappropriate for higher density. Chairman Dow stated he would be in support of the proposal based on the boundary being intended to be flexible and control of future development. Member O'Dell stated this is not an easy decision and the Board needs to look at the controls of the future development. Motion to recommend approval passed 4-1 with Member Brown voting no. #37-85 - STUART URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY AMENDMENT Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed amendment recommending approval to the County. Jim Martell, representing Jim Stuart, spoke briefly describing the existing and surrounding area. This proposal should remain as a separate application based on the fact that the issues are different than the Foothills UGA Amendment. Member Ross moved to recommend approval of the Stuart Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment. Member Lang seconded. Motion to recommend approval passed 4-1 with Member Brown voting no. p65-82G - FAIRBROOKE MASTER PLAN AMENDED Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Randy Larsen, Larsen & Associates, spoke regarding the changing of the location of the day care center to Tract G and having a residential use in its place. Member Ross asked Mr. Larsen how he would approach the school children crossing on Hampshire Street. Mr. Larsen stated this would be addressed at site plan approval. Mr. Ryder gave staff report recommending approval. Member Brown asked if the day care center were not originally included would it have changed the approval of the facilities. Mr. Ryder stated that Tract B did not take any credits for a child care center. Lower density is in Tract E so there is no requirements. Member Lang moved to approve the Fairbrooke Master Plan Amendment. Member Ross seconded stating this is an improvement over the previous one seen by the Board and the interior buffering is at a better location. Motion to approve passed 5-0. Planning and Zoni Ward Minutes • July 24, 1985 Page 7 565-82H - SOMERVILLE AT FAIRBR00KE TRACT C - PRELIMINARY Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Randy Larsen, Larsen & Associates, stated the setbacks in the front yards would be 20 feet, 15 feet in the back yards, and a 5 foot sideyard. There will be garages on the sides of the units, consolidated driveways with one curb cut each and 36 foot wide streets. The landscaping would be of street trees, evergreens and flowering trees. There will be on -lot landscaping which will be handled by the buyer and under architectural control of the developer. There will be a variety of elevations and colors of the buildings. Member Brown asked if there will be any treatment of the canals behind the properties, either by fencing, landscaping or maintenance. Bob Mooney, Larsen & Associates, stated on the final landscape plan provisions will be made to seed grass along the ditch banks. No specific recommendations have been made by the ditch company. Member Brown asked what the distance is from Building 1 and 2 to the ditch right-of-way. Mr. Mooney replied there is a 6 foot utility easement but a 7 foot sideyard setback will be used. Member Ross asked if the ditch company has a road along the ditch. Mr. Mooney stated there are no roads currently. The ditch is new and has been realigned. Member Ross asked if there are any roads anticipated along the ditch. Mr. Mooney replied they are having discussions with the ditch company now for a sewer line agreement. Mr. Larsen stated there is no road and none has been requested but there is space available. Member O'Dell asked if the surrounding area except to the east is vacant. Mr. Larsen stated this is in R-L Tract E Phase One and is under construc- tion. To the north and northwest and east of Tract C is Charleston PUD. Mr. Ryder gave staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) engineering improvements must be completed by final application; 2) additional points on Density Chart must be gained; and, 3) modify landscaping to mitigate bulk of buildings. A letter in opposition of the project from the Simons was presented to the Board. Planning and Zoning Bo. . Minutes i July 24, 1985 Page 8 Member O'Dell asked if one unit were eliminated, would the amount of required points be raised. Mr. Ryder replied it would depend on the density but would be difficult to anticipate. Chairman Dow stated this proposal merits approval with the conditions as stated. He asked when the improvements that are underway would be completed. Mr. Ryder replied that the developer plans to complete the engineering improvements as soon as possible and staff recommendations are based on that assumption. Chairman Dow asked if this tract is by the same developer as the others. Mr. Ryder replied yes. Member Lang moved to approve Somerville at Fairbrooke Tract C - Preliminary with the three staff conditions. Member Ross seconded. Motion to approve passed 4-1 with Member Brown voting no because of the mass and bulk of the buildings. #27-85 - BURGER INN PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Elaine Kleckner gave a description of the property. Larry Mickelson, applicant, spoke regarding the landscaping, the need of this type of business on North College and the traffic impact on the property. Member Brown asked for the colors and location of the building signage. Mr. Mickelson stated the location and size of the sign is similar to the drawings but simpler and further apart. The sign will be of natural redwood or a yellowish color which the franchise prefers. There is currently no freestanding sign planned for in front of the building. Ms. Kleckner gave staff report recommending approval stating the traffic flow is acceptable, a 20 foot additional ROW dedication can be made in the future and the building materials, signage and landscaping are acceptable. The LOGS review does not achieve the required points due to the small property not needing to be master planned. This is why staff is asking for a variance to the point chart on this project. Member Ross asked how the north and south curb cut will align. Bonnie Tripoli replied the curb and gutter will be built at the asphalt level so there will not be an area where the street indents. •.i$ rt. 4"italkii✓Mn Cie .'.'.. ... . - .....{. ,.,.. Planning and Zonioard Minutes • July 24, 1985 Page 9 Chairman Dow asked what the distance is from this site to the proposed expressway. Ms. Kleckner stated it appears to be 150 feet from the location of the future ROW and even more from where the ramp would occur in the preliminary design of the expressway. Chairman Dow asked if there is a plan for a right turn -in deceleration lane or will this occur only if the right-of-way is eliminated. Ms. Tripoli replied that a right turn -in deceleration lane was not necessary. Member Lang asked what hours Burger Inn would be open. Mr. Mickelson stated from 6 a.m. until midnight. Member Lang stated the parking lot is well lit. Chairman Dow asked what the shading is on the sun room. Mr. Mickelson replied that it screens most of the sun with optional shades. It will not be reflective and will mostly be used for heating in the winter. Member Brown asked if the number of parking spaces is adequate to accommodate 70 sit-down customers. Ms. Kleckner replied it is within the range of recommendation by city standards. Member Lang moved to approve Burger Inn PUD - Preliminary and Final and the Point Chart Variance. Member Brown seconded. Chairman Dow stated an amendment to the motion should be included stating the developer is to restrict a left turn movement exiting onto southbound College Avenue if requested by the City of Fort Collins or the highway department. Members Brown and Lang concurred. Motion to approve passed 5-0. #146-79H - RAINTREE COMMERCIAL PUD - PHASE 1 TRACTS Q, B, C - REVISED PRELIMINARY #146-79I - RAINTREE COMMERCIAL PUD PHASE 1, TRACTS A & B - FINAL Steve Ryder gave a description of the two properties. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects, stated the purpose of the entire parking lot being requested for approval is to present a more finished look to the entire center and benefits to shared parking. Concerns addressed are: 1) right turn curb cut on Shields has been eliminated; 2) Tract C building pad setback has been increased to 30 feet; 3) improvement of landscaping has Planning and Zoning Bc 1 Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 10 been addressed; 4) 8 existing trees have been identified and preserved; and, 5) architectural style is compatible with the center. He briefly spoke regarding the landscaping and fencing and showed slides of the area. Member O'Dell asked where the parking entrance is off of Drake Road and Tract C. Mr. Vaught stated the entrance is channelized to prevent continuous flow in front of the food store. This will rise up going north. The setback varies from 45 feet to parking on the north and increases to 55 feet in the southeast corner. Member Brown asked if changes have been made from north setback in Tract A and west setback from internal drives. Mr. Vaught replied the setback is 42 feet from the north and approximately 15 feet from curb with no changes on the internal drive. Member Brown asked if any changes have been made in Tract c. Mr. Vaught replied the north setback increases 30 feet due to visibility purposes. Mr. Ryder gave staff report recommending approval of both projects. Member Brown moved to approve Raintree Commercial PUD Phase 1 Tracts A, B,, and C Revised Preliminary. Member Ross seconded. Motion to approve passed 5-0. Member Brown moved to approve Raintree Commercial PUD Phase 1 Tracts A and � B Final. Member O'Dell seconded. Motion to approve passed 5-0. . 196-81A - WILLIAMSBURG PUD - PRELIMINARY - ONE YEAR EXTENSION Steve Ryder gave a description of the property. Howard Jones, 1805 Kedron Court, represented Mr. Stover, the applicant. He stated Mr. Stover has been an active participant in the special improvement district in the area that has cause Shields Street to be improved and the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields to be improved. He stated the storm sewer, sidewalks, and streets have been addressed. Mr. Clark, a resident of the area, has a problem with the median strip required by the City. This makes it difficult to exit from his driveway. This is not Mr. Stover's problem. What is being asked of Mr. Stover regarding access. Mr. Ryder gave staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) the final site and utility plan meet engineering and fire requirements; 2) the quantity of materials be increased in quality of design and the final landscape plan be improved as suggested in the staff report; 3) the applicants provide four vehicular access from the Planning and Zoni•Board Minutes • July 24, 1985 Page 11 undeveloped property on the northeast corner to Richmond Drive at the time of final submittal; and 4) final building elevations be provided for all buildings in the project and indicating all exterior materials and colors as part of the final submittal. Mauri Rupel, stated the connection of Williamsburg PUD to the Clark property will be moved away from the intersection. City standards are 200 feet and the City asks that this be an exception and move it back to 165 feet. The City has asked the Clarks for a right-of-way on their property with two points of access. Member Ross asked why give this particular site two points of access. Mr. Rupel replied this would be primarily for fire safety access in case one access gets blocked off. Member Ross asked why Mr. Stover's property should carry the burden of the second access. Mr. Rupel replied that the criteria was set by the Board at the time of the Williamsburg Phase 1. Howard Jones stated the alignment on Richmond Drive reduced the parking and screening on Stover's property. The width of the right-of-way would make a substantial difference. Does Mr. Stover provide an easement and that is it or will he be asked to provide for another mans' property with the curb, gutter, streets, landscaping and sidewalks. Doug Konkel, representing Mr. and Mrs. Clark, gave a description of the Clarks' property and their access points on the property. He requested that Mr. Stover either agree to live up to the implied representation or that the City does not grant the extension. Member Ross asked what would happen if Mr. Stover's ground is not developed and someone buys Mr. Clarks' house to put in 18 units. Will Stover have to grant an easement and build the access? Mr. Konkel replied that this plan was proposed quite a while ago and everyone has acted in reliance on it. This is merely a proposal and not an agreement on MR. Stover's part. The real problem is if Mr. Stover never makes a decision. The Clarks' are not concerned about the location of the second access as long as they can get to Shields without going completely out of their way. Member Ross asked what Mr. Konkel's opinion is if the access is granted but the street is not built. Mr. Konkel stated Mr. and Mrs. Clark just want the access. They do not expect Mr. Stover to put in the curb and gutter. Planning and Zoning Bc i Minutes July 24, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Roy stated if Mr. Stover develops and continues to owns the ground, there will be requirement of an easement. An agreement can not necessarily be made on the extension of this plan. Member Brown asked if the city has any liabilities since they are the ones that installed the medians that cut off the access to the north. Chairman Dow replied that this is what is being discussed in the eminent domain proceedings in terms of what the compensation would be. Member Ross asked that if this extension is granted would it extend it to where it was subject to any conditions that the Board may put on it such as bringing the landscaping up to current standards. If this is already on the plat wouldn't this continue to stay on the plat if extended? Mr. Roy replied yes. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Konkel for his opinion if this extension were denied. Mr. Konkel stated that if denied it would be a benefit for the Clarks. They could then ask the Mr. Rupel why should Mr. Stover get the road when the Clarks and Mr. Stover are in an equal position. This would create a lot of problems for the Special Improvement District and this is not what the Clarks want. Mr. Ryder stated that the City would require that point of access through Richmond Drive especially if it is an emergency access. Mr. Jones asked for clarification of "access" versus "easement". Mr. Konkel stated all his clients are asking for is an easement and a commitment that this will exist across Mr. Stover's property at a location that is agreeable to him and the City. Where it is located on his plat is acceptable to all concerned. Chairman Dow stated the Board should approve or deny just the extension and not to redefine the points of access. He then asked Mr. Ryder why Mr. Stover requested six months and staff is saying is for a one year extension. Which time period is is being requested? Mr. Ryder stated that Mr. Stover's request is for six month but staff felt a one year extension is more appropriate when being presented to the Board. Either six month or one year extension can be granted. Chairman Dow stated that the Board should go with a six month extension as opposed to a one year extension. Planning and Zonin*oard Minutes • July 24, 1985 Page 13 Member Lang asked that if all of the previous extension requests not been approved, would there be all these problems with Cunningham Corners and Richmond Drive. Mr. Rupel stated that yes, these extensions would present problems. They did influence the location of Richmond Drive as far as Cunningham Corners is concerned. Member O'Dell moved to approve the Williamsburg PUD - Preliminary - One Year Extension with conditions and staff recommendations. Member Ross seconded stating condition 13 should be changed from "access" to "easement". Member O'Dell concurred. Member Ross stated that it should be made clear that the Board is not saying "either" "or" should pay for the easement. Motion to approve passed 4-1 with Chairman Dow voting no because enough extensions have been requested. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.