Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/26/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES June 26, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Tim Dow, Don Crews, David Gilfillan, Gary Ross, Sharon Brown, and Alternate Linda Lang. Dennis Georg and Ingrid Simpson were absent. Board members absent from the June 21, 1985 worksession were Linda Lang and Don Crews. - - Staff present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Steve Ryder, Joe Frank, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, and Gail Ault. 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: #9-80H, The Arena, Phase 5, HMW Office Building PUD-Preliminary and Final; #24-80G, Park Central, Phase 3-Revised Preliminary; and #24-80H, Park Central -Revised Preliminary. Item 19-84A, Maple Street Apartments was continued to July. The applicant for Park Central requested the item be discussed at the end of the agenda and the Board agreed to do so. All items were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion by the Board. 9-80H THE ARENA, Phase 5, HMW OFFICE BUILDING Preliminary and Final Elaine Kleckner gave description of property indicating PUD plan from July 1982 was no longer valid. Member Brown removed herself from the discussion and vote due to a possible conflict of interest. Ed Zdenek, project architect, introduced Don Bunday, Project Manager, Mark Linder, Mitchell and Company, who were all available for questions. He gave presentation comparing the old project to the proposed project indicating the landscaping was increasing and the building square footage decreasing; however, the building would be an additional story in height. The project has more than the required parking and would be a precast concrete in earthtone color. He described building scale, landscaping, and setbacks with the aid of visuals. Chairman Dow questioned the elevations and Mr. Zdenek used the visuals to answer the questions. Miss Kleckner gave the City staff report indicating the project had many good points: compatible with its stepped back facade, presented a strong architectural statement, and the site design was substantially the same as former approved project. The overall package plan needs to be reevaluated but staff recommended approval of the Office Building PUD. Planning and Zoning and Minutes June 26, 1985 Page 2 Member Gilfillan asked if the color was out of character with the area, questioned the roof top equipment, and asked about landscaping on the south and west. Mr. Zdenek responded the mechanical equipment would be completely screened but the hotel will look down upon the equipment. Miss Kleckner stated there was no requirement on size of screened area. Bob Huber, principal in developing the project and a Fort Collins resident of 18 years, felt the building will be a contribution to the community and supported the project. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the project and Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 5-0. #63-79A - LAKE STREET VILLAGE PUD Steve Ryder gave project location. Glenn Magee, architect for the project, described the project as 9.8 du/ac with 1.5 parking spaces per unit ratio and 57.8 percent of the project open space. This lower density is different than the previous plan, also the fact that everything is oriented toward the interior. The residences to the west are buffered with the play area and the garages buffer the other three sides. The traffic impact analysis shows the project is of minor significance to the area. At the end of the presentation he requested five minutes after the public input to allow the developer time to respond to their concerns. Mr. Ryder gave staff presentation stating that differences between the neighborhood and the developer had not been totally resolved but staff feels their concerns, as well as some neighborhood concerns, have been addressed; particularly, 1) it is an appropriate site for higher density; 2) traffic volume is not affected by the project significantly; and 3) landscaping does effectively buffer the project from surrounding areas. Chairman Dow questioned the cul-de-sac and asked the traffic engineer to provide City information regarding this section of Shields. Rick Ensdorff stated the impact is less than one percent of existing volume. The congestion in that area of Shields may be relieved by the widening of Prospect from Shields to Taft which is anticipated in 1987-88 and widening of Shields from Prospect to Laurel which is targeted for 1989. Neither project is currently funded but both are identified as needed. A possible option to temporarily help the congestion would be to limit left turns at certain times. It is restrictive and can cause confusion but should provide some improvement to the traffic situation. Pat Graham, 730 W. Prospect, member of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, gave a presentation in opposition to the project. First she asked all neighborhood members present to stand and approximately 30 individuals stood. Her slide presentation showed the area one mile square centered at Prospect and Shields. She indicated until the last decade it was almost exclusively owner occupied but that had changed. It is a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • June 26, 1985 • Page 3 desirable place to live and the association wants to assure it remains so. Traffic, both auto and bicycle, presents a concern as well as the influx of additional rentals with four or more residents. The area needs a balance between short and long term occupancy but if the residences remain vacant it has a negative affect on the neighborhood. There is a dominant tie of the neighborhood to CSU and the static enrollment at the school plus the vacant rentals in the area possibly indicate future development is unnecessary. The recent surge in high density residential development was of great concern. This area is zoned low density residential and the general deterioration of the quality of life in the area seems to be in danger through over development of the area. Incompatible development must be resisted and this area is saturated with high density housing. Chairman Dow asked for positive aspects of the project and Ms. Graham asked to allow the other residents speak first. Ed Bishop, association member living on West Prospect, indicated it was difficult to visualize the project from drawings and, therefore, he had a model to show the board. He presented the model first as the area looks currently and then added the proposed buildings pointing to a garage that was over 150 feet (almost one city block) in length. He summed up his presentation stating the neighborhood would have to live with the project while the architect/developer will move on. The bulk/size was incompatible, the density too high, and the neighborhood currently has sufficiently dense projects that another is unnecessary. Member Ross asked if the apartments to the east had been shown how it would affect the model and whether the building dimensions were envelope or actual footprint. Mr. Bishop stated the other large buildings in the neighborhood are some distance away and also that the model represented actual footprints. He added he could support the project if it was a lower density and a one story -two story type dwelling. Lloyd Walker, 1027 W. Lake, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated the presentations were going from general to specific and he had some specifics. This was approximately the 8th proposal the neighborhood had seen since 1977. While they were willing to accept growth they did not want to sacrifice quality, character, diversity, or stability of the neighborhood. His slide presentation showed the Landmark PUD as an example of a project of roughly the same size. The neighborhood had developed a compatibility criteria which included density, building design, and amenities appealing to long-term residents. This projects good points included the mixed 1, 2, & 3 bedroom unit configuration with the 1 and 3 bedroom unit size reasonable, covered garages as amenities and used to create a buffer to the existing neighborhood. The problems were really two: the density was too high and the building bulk too large. The west end of the neighborhood had lower density while further east the density increases. Parking is already impacted. The pool/balconies are noise generators. He would like to see the green space integrated among the clustered buildings rather than separate and was concerned the developer might, at a later date, put more density on the green space. He asked how the neighbors' privacy would be respected and if there would be a fence. He stated fireplaces in the units would create air pollution. The developers marketing decisions were questioned when in a three month period he changed Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1985 Page 4 from 92 to 32 units, originally had low income housing and now none and he felt that $60,000 for a 700 square foot unit was not targeting the market well. The engineering for storm water retention was believed to be inadequate, creating retention ponds of the sunken parking lots. Mr. Walker made the following recommendations: 1) reduced density, suggesting 20 units; 2) smaller building size as duplex or 4-plex more in character with the area; 3) building height lowered suggesting all units have ground level entry; 4) integrate housing and open space with more creativity; 5) parking should be well above minimum requirements and visitor parking available; 6) enclosed garages should also have storage space so garages can be used for parking cars; 7) provide amenities that appeal to potential long-term residences (larger size two -bedroom units with a minimum of 1000 square feet or private outside space); and 8) a management plan limiting the number of unrelated adult occupants to one per bedroom. He stated the Land Development Guidance System had a goal of protecting existing neighbor oo s rom intrusive encroac ment which conflicted with the goal for high density infill development. Further development increasing the already large seasonal population in this neighborhood would errode the neighborhood. He requested denial of the project as an intrusive, disruptive element in the neighborhood. Linda Hopkins asked the Board members if they had received the comment letters on this project and wanted to insure they were included as part of the record. Jim Junge, member of architectural firm handling the project, stated the proposal had been well thought out and, when the 92 unit solution was unacceptable, they had lowered the dwelling units to 32--a tremendous drop. The density of 9.8 du/acre is considered low to medium density not high density and results in 57 percent open space. It is a sensitive land plan and density with 2 cars per unit parking provided which reflects parking for both the user and guest. Lack of access to Prospect is to help gear outdoor activities to the interior, contained area. Regarding the model, the actual ground coverage of the footprint is just under 4000 square feet. The buildings are two stories in height at the eave level and he went on to point out differences between Landmark PUD and this project indicating it is not the bulk or mass of Landmark. It is not a given the project will be student housing but a favorable infill project. Development opportunity is the developer's right and they have made an effort to have livability inside with fireplaces, balconies, and pool as amenities that create quality for the longer -term tenants. Member Crews indicated concern about enclosed garages becoming storage places. Member Gilfillan felt this was the better of the plans presented and questioned the possibility of eliminating some fireplaces or making Planning and Ang Board Minutes • June 26, 1985 Page 5 some natural gas. Member Ross questioned the use of the pool and the possibility of covering it. Mr. Junge felt the above could be addressed by the developer. Ross asked if the units contained laundry facilities and Mr. Magee responded they did. Member Brown was concerned the condo project might become unmarketable and be bought up as an investment and rented. Also the proximity of buildings to each other seemed too close and she felt there was too much concrete on the interior facade. She partially agreed with the neighborhood on the bulk of the building. Chairman Dow felt the key issue was the _neighborhood compatibility and traffic impact. He wasn't convinced the project should be approved on the basis the traffic was already beyond belief and this project wouldn't impact it that much. Member Ross moved to approve the project with the condition that alternatives for the cul de sac be addressed at final. Also, the garages should be changed to carports, the pool covered, buildings arranged to allow more room between them, and landscaping details on the west would be required at final. Member Gilfillan seconded asking that the elimination of fireplaces be included. Member Ross felt uncomfortable with that addition and Gilfillan withdrew his second. To keep Member Gilfillan's support he asked the applicant to reduce the number of fireplaces or convert to natural gas. Member Crews indicated he would vote against the project because it was too crowded. Too many small units in four closely spaced large structures were unattractive. Member Lang seconded. The motion was defeated by a 3-3 tie with Crews, Brown and Dow voting no. Member Ross complimented the neighborhood on a persuasive presentation. 112-79G FOUR SEASONS 5th PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave project location and description. Ted Borstad, Engineer with M&I Donahue was available for questions. Mr. Ryder stated the project was a 120 lot project required to be done as a PUD because of the Master Plan. The City won't accept responsibility over the dentention area and the applicant doesn't want the responsibility either. Fencing and landscaping plans for Tracts D, E, F, and A need to be seen at final. Project problems can be resolved by final. Staff was recommending the following conditions: Resolve Tract A, request variances for lots 63 and 64 to be doublesided, submit landscaping and fencing guidelines for Tracts D, E, and F. Member Dow asked the reason for the volume of conditions and Mr. Ryder replied they were basically of an aesthetic nature. Dow then questioned the status of the school site on the southeast corner. Mr. Ryder indicated it needed to be platted for future use. Linda Hopkins added the school district has a F&F, at your own risk, permit for the foundation at this time though they are not required to get a permit. If the Planning and Planning and Zoning ---ward Minutes June 26, 1985 Page 6 Zoning Board denied the Four Seasons project the lot for the school could be subdivided separately. Member Gilfillan asked about the school's access and Linda indicated the primary access was Moss Creek Drive. Traffic engineering and the school will work together on plans for drop off and parking. Member Ross questioned the possibility of fire during the school construction since the surrounding area was not developed. Ms Hopkins answered that the F&F is for structural element only which is not subject to burning. Water to the site would be an important element before additional construction occurs. Member Gilfillan asked if the Board would be creating a variance out of character for the existing neighborhood and Mr. Ryder stated they wanted 45 not 50 feet of ROW for all four cul de sacs. Ross questioned the size of lots and Mr. Ryder indicated engineering felt it was not a significant issue but there was no real reason why the lots should be smaller. Ted Borstad stated the 45 foot ROW doesn't affect the curb and gutter. If design standards did change they would still conform with City standards. Developer just intended for the homeowner to have a little more front lot. Also regarding the Tract A maintenance the HOA could handle that. Applicant supported guidelines for fencing and landscaping and would work closely with staff on those. Chairman Dow asked whether the school district was jumping the gun by beginning construction of the school. Bill Robb, representing the school district, stated the property was purchased from the developer believing the PUD was mostly approved. The District was concerned the school be ready for the fall of 1986 and, therefore, it must be under construction now to meet the schedule. In the past the District has not gotten permits but they have changed their policy and only at that point realized the PUD haed not bee approved. Member Ross asked who will build the street if the developer can't or doesn't build it. Mr. Robb was unable to respond accurately but the District did have a contract with the developer. Member Brown asked the City's obligation in such an instanfce and Dow asked about access points and parking. Mr. Robb indicated they would be determined based on the Board's approval. Chairman Dow asked if the project was approved with conditions and the developer came back next month for the final, would it interfere with the project. Mr. Robb stated it was imperative the construction continue on schedule. He couldn't give the School District's position should the project be denied. Chip Grant, 736 Butte Pass Drive, the property adjoining the proposed PUD, wanted to understand what was being offered and insure the project was done decently and in order. He felt the cart had gotten before the horse regarding the proposed new school and stressed the importance of good communications. A concern was the irrigation ditch or low—lying area through the project which had a tremendous amount of mosquitos. Hid two year old daughter had gotten a staph infection from them and he wondered if the developer could alleviate them in any way. Member Lang stated the problem would somewhat cure itself with development. Chip asked what would buffer the proposed neighborhood and Mr. Ryder indicated that would be at the homebuyers discretion. Member Gilfillan asked if the irrigation ditch Planning and �ng Board Minutes • June 26, 1985 Page 7 was vacated and Bonnie Tripoli assumed it was abandoned. It doesn not show up on the plat. It could be filled in by applicant if it was abandoned. Member Brown asked where McClelland Creek went and Bonnie stated it crossed the school. Mr. Robb concurred but added it was a very wide ditch. The School District intends to grass the ditch and it is wide enough that it will not retain any water. Mark Middel, Park South property owner, was concerned about nuisance water on their grassy swale Les Smith, 830 Butte Pass Drive, commented the school would be welcomed. His daughter currently goes halfway across town. Member Brown asked about the nuisance water. Member Gilfillan wondered if condition 2 covered it. Mr. Ryder stated Tract A is the dentention area and more specific information would be forthcoming at final. Member Ross was concerned at the number of conditions. Mr. Ryder indicated they were general of a cosmetic nature as the the maintenance responsibility and landscape and fencing for drainage channel. Member Ross asked if it was a good plan or if it was being expeditied for the School District. Mr. Ryder stated it originally came in as a preliminary and final and had been separated. The school site had not changed at all. It was an acceptable plan and could be refined by final. Member Ross asked about City's obligation to the School District. Legal Representative Steve Roy indicated many legal issues were raised. The issuance of a permit prior to many things being done created concern. He'd like the item tabled until the end of the evening, or longer, to search for better answer. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the item with six conditions. The five submitted by staff were 1) variance request concerning the cul de sac widths; 2) resolve maintenance issue of Tract A; 3) Resolve landscaping and fencing guidelines for Tracts A, D, E, and F; 4) Resolve the half -street at Marble Drive by final; and 5) Tract B, half -lot, be deeded to adjoining lot or viable alternative reached by final. The Board added 6) Prior to final a traffic plan will be agreed on with traffic access submitted and approved prior to school opening or occupancy of Tract C. Member Ross seconded. Ted Roestad noted applicant was working to submit final in early July. Chairman Dow asked the note be added that final will be before the Board at the next regular meeting in July and the applicant agreed. Approval of the item will expire if the item is not heard in July. Chairman Dow asked staff to untangle the web as quickly as possible. Motion carried 6-0. 38-85 BURNS EXEMPTION County Referral Elaine Kleckner gave staff introduction. Allan Burns, son of applicant, reported his father desired to give him the land for an additional residence with a private drive. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1985 Page 8 Member Gilfillan asked the location of the power line. Ms. Kleckner stated the City believed ROW for power line had been dedicated. Access is of primary concern. The exemption plat submitted is unacceptable if dedicated ROW is not shown. Another issue is of non -conforming use of two residences. The County indicates it is legal because they existed before the subdivision process. City of Fort Collins provides sewage service. City is recommending denial. Member Ross asked if applicant proposed to hook up to City Sewer and Mr. Burns indicated yes. Joanne Burns, owner and resident of 24 years, stated the north house was unoccupied and they reside in a mobile home on the property. She and her husband, who has terminal cancer, desire to have a home located near by for their son. Member Ross asked how much ground to the right is owner. Allan Burns stated there is the 3 acres in question, 7 additional acres to the east. Chairman Dow asked if the Burnses would be agreeable to the condition to extend an access if the ground to the east is subdivided. Mr. Burns indicated there was no problem with dedication of ROW but they did not want a through street. Ms. Kleckner indicated if the property to the east was developed and subdivided Woodford would be the logical choice for access. The power line exists there and there is also the possibility of underground lines. Member Gilfillan moved to recommend approval provided the applicant give dedication of future street ROW upon future development. Mr. Burns asked who would pay for construction of the road. Ms. Kleckner stated development should pay its own way; therefore, the developer would pay. Member Ross added the applicant would not be paid for the land, however. Member Ross seconded the motion. Motion was defeated 2-4 with Members Ross, Brown Crews, and Dow voting no. 24-80G PARK CENTRAL, PHASE 3 CONVENIENCE STORE Joe Frank gave staff description of the retail convenience center to include gas pumps. Cathy Chiahese, Osprey Inc., gave applicants presentation addressing both phases together. City's goal is to encourage mixed use and the quality and intent of the project are visible. The center of the project has been temporarily withdrawn while parking and other items are addressed more fully. The applicant has a committment from 7-11 to use Park Central building materials as well as extensive landscaping and shared access with rest of site. No additional curbcuts are needed. The second proposal on Welch and Prospect is for 9,000 s.f, of office. It provides a transition from large health club to smaller office buildings and then to the residences. An attempt was made to locate the office building near Spring Creek Trail. Member Dow had questions regarding parking, traffic flow, setbacks, distances between buildings, etc. Member Ross wondered where the tennis Planning and Z.ng Board Minutes • June 26, 1985 Page 9 courts were. Randy Larsen responded to the questions. Member Gilfillan wondered what the amount of open space was compared to the earlier project. Mr. Larsen was unable to respond. Regarding the convenience store, traffic circulation was explained as having three movements to access the 7-11. The four pump setup was to provide additional ease. Member Crews questions if parking spaces had been sacrificed from the prior plan and Mr. Larsen responded three. Member Ross felt it was a substantial change, but one for the better. Bob Pennock, applicant, indicated the merchants wanted more traffic and are in support of the project. Merchants felt they would have more storefront parking. Member Gilfillan questeioned - signage; Chairman Dow the landscaping and setbacks, Member Brown the tank storage and delivery procedure. Mr. Frank gave staff recommendation indicating staff felt a good job had been done incorporating this into the shopping center. Minor items needed to be addressed at final, but they were basically cosmetic: architectural design, canopy, signage, landscaping, parking lot and streetscape, interior traffic circulation. Ms. Chianese felt there would be no problem with these items. Regarding the offices, the loss of open space and treatment of the parking lots were concerns of staff. Applicants had been cooperative in responding to neighborhood and staff concerns. More detail will be needed at time of final. Staff is recommending approval with conditions 1) berming be required on north and west walls; 2) two northernmost parking spaces be eliminated and landscaped; 3) additional landscaping around parking islands; 4) elevations and building materials be submitted at time of final; 5) north elevation should be carefully treated; and, 6) traffic circulation refined. Member Lang moved to approve with staff conditions, Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 4-2 with Members Gilfillan and Brown voting No. Chairman Dow asked about the proposed expansion to the health club affecting the offices. Ms. Chianese indicated the expansion is currently occurring. A parking analysis and traffic study have been done. Neighbors are cvoncerned about customers parking on the street which is part of the reason for oversizing the office parking lot. Member Ross asked who owns the health club and Bill Albrecht responded it was owned by a limited partnership. Wayne Nelson, Luke Street resident, north of the health club, was glad the Welch access was eliminated but was concerned with parking. Health club parking was being eliminated by this project and he felt there was currently not enough parking spaces available. Chairman Dow noted the Board had some of the same concerns. Kathy Nelson, thanked applicants for closing Welch and was concerned about parking and what will be constructed in the center area, particularly since there are several vacant shops. Planning and Zoning .-.jard Minutes June 26, 1985 Page 10 Member Ross wondered how long it would take to dump a load of gas and discussion on the procedure evolved. Mr. Larsen then stated they hoped to alleviate parking problems with the design of the center section. Ms. Chianese noted truck circulation at the would not be a major problem with deliveries once a week at non -peak hours. The 7-11 had reviewed the plans and was committed to a quality project. Responding to Member Gilfillan's concern regarding future accidents, Mr. Frank noted the plan was tight but staff didn't expect major problems. Further discussion then evolved on the stacking, parking, pumping situation and Mr. Larsen noted 16 cars could be in- the area. Member Brown felt there was too much in this area. Member Crews moved to approve the project subject to: 1) 3-4 foot berms between parking and street including additional shrubs; 2) more mature evergreeens be used on north; 3) formal street planting along Welch Street; 4) additional foundation plantings and along trail and open space; and, 5) submit elevations and building materials at time of final. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 4-2 with Members Gilfillan and Brown voting No. Member Ross commented the neighborhood seemed happy with the changes. Member Brown couldn't support due to loss of open space and felt the setback from Welch was insufficient. Chairman Dow supported the project and asked staff to address Welch setback by final as well as parking. OTHER BUSINESS Member Brown asked when the Mariotts landscaping would be in. Mr. Frank indicated they had two years to plant. Member Lang pointed out planting usually takes place in the fall. Chairman Dow asked to review July's agenda. Ms. Hopkins indicated the majority were finals; therefore, possibly one meeting would be sufficient. Member Crews stated he would be absent. Member Ross indicated fireplaces were becoming a "hot potato" and whether Board needed to think about requiring market analysis on projects since so many condos and office buildings are being constructed.