Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/29/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES April 29, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:36 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Tim Dow, Don Crews, Dennis Georg, David Gilfillan, Gary Ross, and Ingrid Simpson. Linda Lang arrived at 8:10 p.m. Sharon Brown was not present at the Board meeting but did attend the worksession on April 26, 1985. Board members absent from the April 26, 1985 worksession was Linda Lang. Staff present included Sam Mutch, Joe Frank, Elaine Kleckner, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, Curt Smith and Kayla Ballard. Legal staff was represented by John Huisjen. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Mr. Mutch to review the consent agenda which consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of March 25, 1985 meeting; Item 2, Cache La Poudre Industrial Park - Master Plan, # 19-85; Item 3, Cache La Poudre Industrial Park - Preliminary, #19-85A; Item 4, Breakwater Estates - Preliminary, #20-85B; Item 5, Greenbriar Replat - Preliminary, #198-78B; Item 6, Evangelical Covenant Church - Master Plan, #9-85; Item 7, Evangelical Covenant Church - Preliminary, #9-85A; Item 8, Collopy Annexation, #20-85; Item 9, Collopy Annexation Zoning, #20-85A; Item 10, Stute 2 Annexation, #11-85B; Item 11, Stute 2 Annexation Zoning, #11-85C; Item 12, Stute 3 Annexation, #11-85D, and: Item 13, Stute 3 Annexation Zoning, #11-85E. Dave Edwards of the Landings Homeowners Association, requested to have Item #4, Breakwater Estates - Preliminary pulled from the Consent Agenda. Motion by Gilfillan to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Second by Ross. Chairman Dow abstained from voting on Items 2 and 3 due to a potential conflict. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-0. #20-85B Breakwater Estates - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates, represented Dr. Collopy, the applicant. Chairman Dow questioned if there is an agreement or plan with the homeowners association regarding the landscaping and fencing on this land. Mr. Rutherford replied that there is no agreement at this time. Planning and Zoning Boa. Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 2 Dave Edwards, Landings Homeowners Association, spoke regarding the concerns of the quality of landscaping at the corner of Breakwater and Lemay, the type of fencing along Breakwater and requested the Board to consider this as a PUD with more definite plans. Mr. Edwards stated that he approved of the annexation and density but was concerned about the quality of the landscaping and the maintenance of that landscaping. Dr. Charles Collopy, owner of the proposed subdivision, spoke regarding the intent of the proposal. He stated that the Landings does not surround his property on three sides, that he is surrounded by Medema Homes and Wood Brothers and Harmony Reservoir. He feels that the Landings wants control of his subdivision. He stated that the Landings killed two cottonwood trees, has unkept greenbelt area and has trash all over. He added that he has done landscaping work in his area. He stated he wants to develop the subdivision according to city standards and does not want interference from the Landings. He stated that even though he has big estate lots proposed, the Landings feels that he does not have sense enough to develop it but the Landings does. He stated that if the Landings will get out of the picture, he will design it according to city standards. He added that if he has to put up with any interference with them he will withdraw it and design it in a different manner. Steve Ryder stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the 660 foot cul-de-sac fire access requirement. Staff and the Poudre Fire Authority are not opposed to the variance. The applicant has committed to setting up a homeowners association. Staff recommends approval with conditions that have been agreed upon by the applicant. The conditions are that a landscape plan including fencing is to be provided at the time of final submittal and must address treatment of the cul-de-sac islands and the Lemay Avenue and Breakwater boundaries; and that the proposed homeowners association shall maintain the cul-de-sac islands, the detention area and any other common landscaping. Member Simpson asked if it will be a requirement that the people buying the lots belong to the homeowners association. Mr. Ryder replied that it would be a requirement. Member Ross moved to approve the preliminary plat as presented subject to the three staff recommendations and the requested variance. Member Simpson seconded. Motion to approve passed 6-0. i8-85 Mountain Gymnastics - Final David Gilfillan excused himself from the discussion and voting of this item due to a potential conflict. Steve Ryder gave a brief summary of the proposed project. Planning and Zoni 0oard Minutes • April 29, 1985 - Page 3 Mike Daly, architect for the Neenan Company representing the applicant, spoke regarding the building appearance changes, aesthetics, and height. He described the inside of the building. He added that the height of the building has been lowered to 24 feet from 32 feet, the roof is sloped more for compatibility to the surrounding area, increased the wood of the exterior, added high profile asphalt shingles and reduced the amount of masonry. He stated that the proposed materials are tongue -and -groove redwood siding stained naturally, the size and number of windows have been increased, the elevation has been reduced from 32 feet to 24 feet and more landscaping has been added in the front, west and the south. Other concerns addressed are a patterned concrete crosswalk has been added and the Trinity Lutheran Church has agreed to share parking for the times when the church or gym has a big event. Mr. Ryder spoke regarding the improvements made from the previous plans and stated the staff recommends approval. Member Ross asked if the mechanical on the roof shows and if there is a walkway for the overflow from the church's parking lot that is not shown on the plan. Mr. Daly replied that the mechanical is screened and that there is a walkway in the future but for the present time the use will be by the public sidewalks. Member Simpson asked what type of signage is planned. Mr. Daly replied that there will be a site sign according to the site plan which will be a low sign and possibly a small sign on the north wall of the building. Chairman Dow asked if there was a signed agreement with the church regarding the shared parking. Mr.Daly stated that all they have is a verbal commitment. Ron Barretta, owner, stated that the church council is to vote on approval of this agreement. Member Georg asked when the agreement is to be signed. Mr. Barretta replied at their next meeting which he believed to be early May. Member Georg asked that if the agreement were not signed how it would affect the plans of Mountain Gymnastics. Planning and Zoning Boa,: Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 4 Mr. Barretta replied that the only time overflow would be needed is cases when there are meets which is about 7 to 8 times a year. He stated that then they would recommend people coming to the meets use the parking lot in Spring Park. Chairman Dow asked if the south side mechanical devices will be screened. Mr. Daly replied that the mechanical the building and the other two sides level equal to the mechanical units. screening is enclosed on two sides by will be enclosed by the screen to a Chairman Dow questioned the potential expansion of the outdoor play area. Mr. Daly stated that there are no plans for expansion. Dennis Matsumoto, 500 East Stuart, asked what type of zoning restrictions will the building have if Mountain Gymnastics moves or vacates the building, what type of parking lot lighting will be used and will parking on Stuart or Whedbee be allowed. Mr. Mutch responded that if the building were to be abandoned as a gymnasium any other use would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board for approval upon complaint of the residents, the parking lot lights should be made a condition of approval of this project, and parking on Whedbee and Stuart could be monitored and if a problem, some restrictions could be placed on parking there. He stated that traffic impact and left hand turn would be addressed by Streets and Traffic department in the future. Connie Backes, Trinity Lutheran Church member, stated that on a previous plan for this project the church was going to agree to shared parking. She added that she was in favor of this project mainly because of the location. Cheryl Matsumoto, 500 East Stuart, stated she was concerned about parking on Whedbee and Stuart and how this will affect their property. Mr. Ryder stated that the additional parking that may be provided by the church is above what is required by the city for this type of use and will only be used about 8 to 10 times per year. Ailene Teiman spoke in favor of the project stating that children will be able to use bike paths and will not be on very busy streets, there will be less pollution and no vandalism. Pat Lewis, resident, stated she feels this is an educational building and not just a community service and is in favor of the project. Member Georg moved to approve Mountain Gymnastics PUD Final subject to the conditions that shielding of the parking lot lighting be implemented to prevent intrusive lighting from entering residential areas and the joint Planning and Zonin oard Minutes • April 29, 1985 - P e 5 parking agreement be completed before any meets are held. He stated the main reasons for the conditions is the fact that this is being located in a residential area and this is an infill area. Member Crews seconded. Chairman Dow asked Member Georg if he would consider having an amendment to the joint parking agreement that it must be complete before a C.O. is issued rather than before any meets are held. Member Georg agreed with this amendment. Member Ross stated that if the church does not approve of the parking agreement and a C.O. can not be issued the building would be useless. He stated that he was concerned this would be putting a hardship on this project. Chairman Dow stated that no Board member intends to make it difficult on the applicant but as a matter of consistency the Board needs to make that specific requirement. The same requirement was made on Mr. Bartran on the development at Lemay and Stuart. Member Ross stated that the difference between this condition and Mr. Bartran's condition is that the first one was preliminary and final and this is final with a condition. Mr. Barretta stated that Ken Oakley felt there would be no problem with this condition but the church council would have the final vote. Mr. Daly stated there are 10 spaces more than the city requires. He added that the parking could be increased on the site if the agreement is not made. The proposed amendment regarding finalizing the joint parking agreement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy was withdrawn. Motion to approve with conditions passed 5-0. I4-83D Cunningham Corners Master Plan Amendment Member Gilfillan rejoined the Board at this time. Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the proposed project. Frank Vaught, architect for ZVFK Architect/Planners, described the master plan and a brief history of Cunningham Corners, the neighborhood opposition to the connection of Windmill Drive, fire station response time of 4 to 5 minutes, the location of Cunningham Corners to the fire stations, the routes that various fire stations would take depending on the time of day. He stated the pros and cons of a having a connection or not are that Planning and Zoning Boa... Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 6 eliminating a connection would address the neighborhood and the elimination of the street improves the ability to plan Tract A, incorporate it into the open space and incorporate buffers along the north boundary between the two land uses. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant was agreeable with the condition of him being responsible for removing the existing stub of Windmill Drive and the installation of sidewalks and some landscaping where the stub street is. Mr. Vaught stated the applicant has no problem with this condition. Mr. Frank gave a staff recommendation of denial based on the requirement that the connection of Windmill Drive is consistent with past policies and plans for both Cunningham Corners and the Woodwest subdivision. He stated that since platting of Woodwest subdivision in 1977, Windmill was planned to extend through to the Cunningham Corners property. He added the reasons for this extension deals with the reduction of response time and reduction of the number of trips on other streets in the neighborhood. Larry Donner, Fire Marshall for Poudre Fire Authority, spoke regarding the response time of fire and medical emergencies and the closest location of fire station and ambulance. He presented some probable response routes and actual response times. Member Ross asked why this area has a better response time than any place else in town. Mr. Donner replied that the applicant dealt with average response times which takes into consideration the 220 square miles that are protected by Poudre Fire Authority. He stated many of those areas are in fringe areas which are bad. Lt. Donn Hopkins, neighborhood Police Coordinator for Fort Collins Police Department, commented on the police response time for this area, the boundaries of this district, and the quickest and safest response route. He stated the growth of this area should be considered. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, spoke regarding the construction of Horsetooth Road and improvement of traffic circulation and the installation of traffic lights at Horsetooth and Shields. He stated the traffic level is high in this area. He added a traffic count showed there are 700-800 vehicles per day which is significantly high. This extension could divert some of this traffic. Mr. Frank stated that if the Board approved this extension there should be conditions attached which would include future treatment of the Windmill stub. He stated if the Board feels the Windmill extension is not needed the stub should be vacated and the adjoining single family property owners accept the right-of-way. He stated the applicants should be provided all the necessary documentations for that vacation, the existing curb, gutter Planning and Zoninopoard Minutes • April 29, 1985 - Page 7 and sidewalk should be removed and replaced with acceptable ground treatment at the cost of the developer, the cost of any removal or relocation of any dedication of utilities which are needed should be assumed by the developers, sidewalk should be provided between Richmond and Gunnison by the developers and the applicant should be required to fulfill these requirements as any future phases of Cunningham Corners Master Plan. Staff is recommending denial but if the Board approves it, these conditions should be attached. John Lumb, 3312 Gunnison, spoke representing Woodwest homeowners. He stated their opposition to the Windmill extension is based on the amount of problem traffic increase, bad emergency response, landscaping of existing stub and the bike path. Eric Fuller, 3284 Gunnison, stated his concerns of the developer being responsible for the maintenance disposition of the Windmill stub and the lack of drainage facility at the detention area. He stated he would like to have good police, fire and medical protection and response time. Pete Stobhalaar, 3565 Windmill, stated his opposition to the Windmill extension is due to the increased traffic and reasons given by other residents that opposed to the extension. Mauri Rupel, City of Fort Collins S.I.D. Coordinator, stated that Mr. Vaught had implied that the city approved an S.I.D. for the interior streets without the extension whereas the city accepts anything that is dedicated if the petitioner wishes the city to accept it. He stated that since it was not dedicated and the petitioner did not present it to be accepted, it was not included in the special improvement district. Conrad Woodall, 3366 Gunnison, spoke in opposition of the extension due to increased traffic and the petitioner's understanding of response time. He stated he did not want to make a racetrack of their own street. Member Ross commented that the fire and police standards of the city should be upheld. Member Crews concurred with Member Ross. Chairman Dow asked Rick Ensdorff about drivers cutting through the Woodwest area. He asked if the residents would use Horsetooth as opposed to using Swallow and would this reduce traffic. Mr. Ensdorff replied that it would reduce traffic. Chairman Dow asked if there were current plans for curb cuts onto Shields Street and/or punching through Gunnison on the undeveloped parcel west of Gunnison and east of Shields. Planning and Zoning Boa,.. Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 8 Mr. Ensdorff replied that in previous plans for that area, a section of ground was retained as a future possible access from Gunnison into this area with the intention not to reserve it for making a new curb cut for accessway from Shields into Gunnison. He stated it was intended for some alternative access so in the future, as this piece of ground is developed, they would not be required or forced into a situation providing full access from arterial. Member Lang asked how the developer feels about the city recommendations on the bike path. Mr. Vaught replied that there are no problems with the concerns of the staff. Member Gilfillan moved to deny Cunningham Corners Master Plan Amendment. Member Ross seconded. Member Georg commented that he felt staff has been very clear at previous times, that it is not more convenient to have a higher response time, that the perspective of the city is to have a goal in response time and that this street concept is not new. He further stated that he believes that a lot of good points were made and will support city staff on this item. Motion to deny Cunningham Corners Master Plan Amendment carried 6-0 with Member Lang abstaining due to late arrival. Urban Growth Area (U.G.A.) Boundary Amendment Elaine Kleckner gave a brief summary of the UGA Amendment. Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak representing the Everitt Companies, spoke regarding the proposal, a brief history of the property, the cost to the city and the propertyowner, Warren trunk sewer capacity, and the base proposal. She stated that Everitt Companies approach was to meet with the property owners, to look at the cost per acre for them, to discuss with the city the city's cost, and to try to draw the proposed UGA boundary as narrowly as possible based on service consideration so only those properties that could directly benefit from the sewer and would be directly served from the sewer would be included in the proposed amendment. She added that the entire Ruff property should be included. She stated the construction cost would be $1,323,000, about $1,000 per acre. The city cost would be roughly $600,000. She added that the first alternative would be to place the line totally within the existing UGA which would up the cost to the city and to the property owner. She stated the second alternative would be to downsize the line to serve the property owners currently in the UGA which would up the price per acre. Dave Stewart, Stewart & Associates, spoke regarding the service area, the most economic route of the sewer line, gravity flow, the ground water Planning and Zonin0oard Minutes • April 29, 1985 - Page 9 level, topography, pipe size, rock depths and cuts required for proposed sewer line. Member Ross asked that since the property owners, utility departments and sanitation district are all in agreement to the location of the sewer line, would the UGA boundary have to be changed or could the sewer line be changed instead. Ms. Liley replied that it would be difficult to get necessary easements. If property owners would not benefit from the sewer, they would not dedicate easements across their properties. She stated they would be willing to dedicate easements if this is approved because they would be able to develop in the future and then benefit from the sewer line. She added that if the boundaries are not amended it will impact both the city's and property owner's cost. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff summary with the staff recommendation of approval. Member Simpson asked what is anticipated for the future as far as services needed for properties east of the UGA. Webb Jones, System Engineer for Water and Sewer Utility, stated the Ruff property will get into the sewer via lift station with the property east in the vicinity of County Road 9. Bill Slimak, 2522 E. County Road 36, spoke against the proposal emphasizing the number of acres in the city, the impact on the neighborhood, the lift station, the cost element, the placement of the sewer line and questioned why this must be done at this time and questioned whether this proposal met all the criteria for amending the UGA. Member Ross asked Mr. Slimak what he feels the negative impact would be. Mr. Slimak replied that their property backs up to the drainage area and he feels that having the city limits in their backyard would not be compatible with the rural non -farm way of life. Member Ross stated that the city limits stop short of the country club yet the country club is all within the UGA. Mr. Slimak stated that he was under the impression that the area would have to be annexed to participate in the special improvement district. Member Ross stated that he was not aware of this but would find out. He added that this was not an annexation question or zoning question as of yet. Mr. Mutch stated that under existing legislation, annexation would be required to participate in an S.I.D. Planning and Zoning Bock. . Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 10 Chairman Dow stated that the third criteria having to do with technical mistake is a separate and independent criteria. Helen Cook, 2124 E. County Road 36 propertyowner, spoke against the proposal questioning the flooding due to irrigation, the disturbance of the natural drainage area for placement of sewer line, high ground level, potential contamination and sewerline costs. Vern Mobly, 2521 E. County Road 36, stated that the growth to the south should be slowed down to encourage the growth to the north. Mr. Stewart replied that the high ground water depth varies between the alternate route and base line route in the vicinity of 5 feet. He stated the contamination is no different than any other line. He stated the sewer route is outside of the floodplain and the railroad acts as a dam for any flooding that would take place. He stated there is a proposed boring through the railroad that would then allow the flow to go to Timberline and County Road 9. He stated the only downsizing that has been done is only to what is needed to serve the proposed urban growth area. Ms. Liley stated that a lift station in Oakridge would only serve the Oakridge properties. She added a number of properties within the UGA now will have to be served by a gravity flow sewer and a line will have to go in if they are annexed into the city. Member Gilfillan asked that if this is approved, what type of zoning would be requested by the property owners. Ms. Liley replied that this has not been viewed as a land use amendment so it would be difficult to anticipate the zoning. Member Ross moved to recommend to City Council the Urban Growth Area Boundary be amended as to the base proposal. Member Crews seconded. Member Gilfillan asked for clarification of scheduling of review for changing the Urban Growth Area. He added that a UGA boundary change can not be for one particular person or specific group and has difficulty in seeing that this is not a specific group. Ms. Kleckner replied that as far as hearing this item at the present time outside of the months that are set in the criteria, there was no problem with staff to present it at this time. Following City review of the item, it will be considered by the County in June. She stated that the criteria does indicate that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to establish that it benefits the community as a whole. Mr. Mutch stated that it has been specified in the agreement that March, June, and September are the months when the UGA boundary amendments would be heard by the County. Y Planning and Zoninward Minutes April 29, 1985 - Page 11 • Member Ross commented there are similar areas where there are sewer problems where there is not enough consideration of the urban growth lines. He suggested a comprehensive study of the UGA perimeter might be appropriate. He stated that if this were put on paper it would not look like this were a special interest type project if the developer were to come in. Chairman Dow stated that this was a good suggestion but there are miles and miles of urban growth area boundary. Member Georg stated that in 1980 he given to the entire boundary in terms this proposal addresses the needs of the city's purpose. felt there was no solid consideration of its serviceability. He added that this particular applicant as well as Member Gilfillan asked if the city could participate in expenses or participate in an agreement to allow future development of the sewer line without changing the urban growth area boundary. Curt Smith, Community Development Director, replied that once the sewer line is run to the property it would take urban density development to reasonably benefit from it. He added that the magnitude of land use change that is occurring is not the guiding factor; there is a basis for changing the boundary, in this case, on the utility factor. Motion to recommend to City Council the Urban Growth Area Amendment carried 4-3 with Member Simpson, Member Gilfillan and Member Lang voting no. Meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m.