Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/24/1983! 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1983 Board Present: Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Ingrid Simpson Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Joe Frank, John Dewhirst, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Paul Eckman Meeting called to order 6:30 p.m. Roll was called. Note: Gary Ross arrived at 6:35 p.m. Gilfillan: Presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Barbara Purvis whose resignation would be effective following the January 24, 1983 meeting. AGENDA REVIEW: 7. #24-80D Park Central PUD - Preliminary - CONTINUED to February 28, 1983 8. #84-82 Upper Crust PUD - Preliminary & Final - CONTINUED to February 28, 1983 12. #83-82 College Inn PUD - Preliminary - CONTINUED to February 28, 1983 13. #72-82 Willox Corner PUD - Preliminary - CONTINUED to February 28, 1983 14. #93-82 Schultz Rezoning - County Referral - WITHDRAWN Chianese: Requested that Item #89-82 Scotch Pines Ninth Filing PUD, Preliminary & Final - Scotch Pines Seventh Filing PUD, Amendment - Scotch Pines Eighth Filing PUD, Amendment - be "pulled" from the Consent Agenda. Purvis: Requested that Item #30-82B Miller Townhomes II R-M Site Plan Review be "pulled" from the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: 1• Approval of December 20, 1982 Minutes. 3. #91-82 First Free Methodist PUD - Preliminary Page z 1/24/83 P & Z • 5. #194-79D Villa PUD - Final Subdivision Ross: Moved to approve the Consent Agenda items 1,3, and 5. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 2. #89-82 Scotch Pines Ninth Filing PUD - Preliminary & Final Request for preliminary and final approval of a 36 apartment unit PUD, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, located at the north- east corner of Edinburgh Street and Strachan Drive. Applicant: E. E. Mitchell & Co., 3555 Staryard, P.O. Box 1208, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: General discussion ensued between Board members and staff con- cerning the number of curb cuts, the loading area for Toddy's supermarket, screening, and possible diesel fume problems. Bill Brenner: Applicant. Stated that he would be available to answer ques- tions. Stated that they had had a neighborhood meeting and he felt that it was quite positive. Stoner: Questioned if the ownership would be retained as apartments or would it be converted by ownership to condominiums. bark Linder: Mitchell & Co. Stated that they were not certain if they would retain ownership or not. !on Schmidt: Area resident. Stated that his main concern was about the density of the project. Stated that he would like to see a quality neighborhood maintained. Also expressed some concern about air pollution problems in the area created by higher traffic and fireplace use. Dow: Moved to approve Scotch Pines Ninth Filing PUD, Preliminary and Final. Stoner: Second. Vote; Motion carried 7-0. Scotch Pines Seventh Filing PUD, Amendment Request for preliminary and final amendment to an existing PUD for a 95,000 sf neighborhood shopping center on 10.7-ac, zoned B-P, Planned Business, located on the southwest corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. Page 3 1/.24/83 P & Z t • Applicant: E. E. Mitchell & Co. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Ross: Questioned if the tenants of the shopping center had been noti- fied of the proposed changes. Chianese: Stated that Mitchell & Co., as owner of the shopping center, and then responsible for the parking, tenants, etc., would be the individual that we would deal with on the request. Bill Brenner: Applicant. Stated that all of the tenants had been notified of what was happening. Stoner: Moved to approve Scotch Pines Seventh Filing PUD, Amendment. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Scotch Pines Eighth Filing PUD, Amendment Request for preliminary and final amendment to an existing PUD for 22 residential units on 2.7-ac, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, located on the southwest corner of Edinburgh Street and Drake Road. Applicant: E. E. Mitchell & Co. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Ross: Moved to approve Scotch Pines Eighth Filing PUD, Amendment. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 4. #30-82B Miller Townhomes II R-M Site Plan Review Request for R-M site plan review for 91 residential units on 5.22-ac located at Belmar and Azalea Drives, zoned R-M, Medium Density Residential. Applicant: Bruce Miller, c/o Parson & Associates, 432 Link Lane Plaza, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Purvis: Questioned if there would be any landscaping or buffering along the east side of the project. Hage 4 1/24/83 P & Z Chianese: Stated that there was landscaping proposed along that boundary plus a 6' wooden fence. Purvis: Questioned if there was any landscaping between the parking and the adjacent property. Chianese: Stated that according to the zoning, parking areas have to be screened from adjacent residential areas. Dow: Expressed some concern about the density. Stated that it seems that this particular area is fairly conjested with high density housing. Stoner: Moved to approve Miller Townhomes II R-M Site Plan Review. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 6. #57-82A Amendment to Building Height Review Criteria This request proposed the elimination of the PUG Building Height Benchmark District Map and revisions to the Building Height Review Criteria to bring them into alignment with the Land Development Guidance system. Applicant: City of Fort Collins. Dewhirst: Gave a staff report outlining the revisions in present admin- istrative objectives and criteria. Ross: Questioned if a 40' building included apparatus on the top of that building in the form of rooftops or housing for elevator shafts, things of this sort. Dewhirst: Stated that it excluded the usual mechanical equipment that goes on top of buildings. Georg: Asked how a "canyon effect" could be avoided in the area north of Harmony Road to the Foothills Fashion Mall. Dewhirst: Stated that one way would be to evaluate each of the appli- cations on their own merit and how they relate to what had been either developed or approved in the surrounding area. A second way would be to do an area or neighborhood plan for the area and outliningg expectations of the height. A combination of factors are a�nlicaDle to all high-rises. First of all what is the definition of the area and what is it's scale; the second is the use of setbacks, site planning techniques and tools; and the third would be to do an urban design plan for that area so expectations are known. Page 5 • • 1/24/83 P & Z Georg: Stated that none of these elements were included in this pro- posal. Dewhirst: Stated that they are all included except the idea of having an urban design plan or an area plan. Stated that you have to keep in mind that this is only one part of the Land Develop- ment Guidance System. The other setbacks, the appropriateness, -the ra ic, o er things like that, are all considered. This will add five criteria that will specifically look at highrises, but as those other elements of the LDGS apply, will also be evaluated against these criteria. Gilfillan: Asked if this were passed by Council, would this force an appli- cant to come back through for another review, as an example he was thinking of the Arena that had been approved on the corner of Horsetooth and College. Rupel: Clarified that the Arena had been approved with a specific height on it, and that that particular site plan would not have to come back in. However, if a preliminary plan had not been approved with a specific height, it would have to come back in for review. Stoner: Moved to recommend to City Council to delete the PUD Building Height Benchmark District Map and revise the present adminis- trative objectives and criteria used in the review of buildings over 40-ft in height. (Reference Memorandum dated January 24, 1983, from the Planning Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board). Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1. (Georg voting no.) Georg: Commented that he could agree to removing the map but that he felt that the criteria were very subjective. Stated that the City does have an opportunity to be objective about whether or not it wants to be a low profile City or not. DISCUSSION AGENDA: 9. #88-82 Amendment to the Foothills Convenience Center PUD Request to amend the final site plan to gain approval for expan- sion of the existing theatre from a 2-screen to a 3-screen facility. This will involve extending the building north ap- proximately 35 feet, addition of 3,990 sf to the building area. Seating capacity will increase from 480 seats to 720 seats. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 344 East Foothills Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: Discussion followed between the Board members and staff concern- ing additional lighting, lease agreements for the use of the parking lot, restriping, number of parking spaces, a possible one-way traffic situation, and noise problems. r1 Ah CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Planning and Development Staff SUBJECT: Building Height Review Criteria (Case No. 57-82) DATE: January 24, 1983 Request This is a request to delete the PUD Building Height Benchmark District Map and revise t e present a mtntstrattve o 7ecttves an criteria use to t e review o ut tngs over - t to height. ere is no or tnance amendment require . Background The City Council adopted the Building Height Review Criteria on October 2, 1979 after review of several different approaches. Accompanying the adoption of the Height Ordinance was the PUD Building Height Benchmark District Map as an administrative guideline outlining the areas of the three benchmark districts. Since the tine of adoption, there have been numerous annexations to the City which are not reflected on the PUD Building Height Benchmark Map, but are covered by the Height Ordinance. In March 1981, the City Council adopted the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) as the City's new PUD ordinance. At the September 27, 1982 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to amend the PUD Building Height Benchmark District Map by eliminating Height District No. 2. At their October 19, 1982 meeting, the City Council heard and denied this request. The City Council decided to abolish the Benchmark District Map but to retain the administrative building height review criteria. On November 9, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council held a joint worksession to discuss the height issue among other subjects. The concensus of the joint worksession was to abolish the Benchmark District Map and to expand the administrative review criteria. Using this worksession as a basis, the Planning and Development staff have revised the review criteria. At the December 29, 1982 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board tabled the review for additional information. EXT. 652 CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUILDING HEIGHT REVIEW CRITERIA A. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Section 118-82(C) of the City of Fort Collins Zoning Ordinance precludes buildings of a height greater than 40-feet unless they are located in a unit development plan as defined, processed and approved according to Section 118-83 of the Zoning Ordiance (i.e., the PUD Ordinance). The purpose of these criteria is to establish a framework for the discretionary review of building heights in excess of 40-feet in a PUD proposal. The intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architectural and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design. These objectives and review criteria are themselves discretionary. Depending upon the proposal being reviewed, the criteria may have different importance. In other words, some of the criteria may be weighted heavier over the other criteria. For instance, the review of a high-rise proposal in the Central Business District may regard certain of the review criteria as more important than those criteria used in the reivew of a high-rise proposal in an activity center. Each situation is different, so discretion is applied to which of the criteria is more important. However, one must keep in mind that the various criteria and Point Charts of the Land Development Guidance System must also be observed. The primary objectives o t e City or Fort Co1 lins in regulating building heights are the following: Objectives 1. To preserve the character and stability of existing residential neighbor- hoods by precluding the development of buildings which by their height are intrusive to the established character of the neighborhood. Some of the external costs imposed by intrusive height include visual incompatibility due to differences in building scale, loss of views, loss of sunlight on adjacent property, and loss of privacy in adjacent yards; 2. To define and reinforce the downtown area as the high intensity focal point in the community while preserving the historic character of the Old Town area; To allow for maximum utilization of activity centers planned for high density residential, commercial and industrial use, but without substan- tially altering the urban form of the City through building heights which conflict with the general scale of development in the district or community as a whole; 4. To generally protect access to air and sunlight for active and passive utilization of solar energy; - 2 - 5. To provide conscious direction to the development of the urban for;, of the City through placement of high-rise buildings. This direction would generally allow high-rise development in the downtown area as per Objective 2, discourage high-rise developnent in or adjacent to low- and medium -density neighborhoods as per Objective 1, and expect mid -rise to high-rise development elsewhere as per Objective 3; and 6. To allow for variation of these general expectations where justified through the discretionary review of planned unit development proposals. B. INFOUATION TO BE SUBMITTED Section G(3)[n] of the Land Development Guidance System requires a PUD preliminary plan submittal to include "Impact studies and other studies as the Planning and Zoning Board may require for the full and complete consideration of the planned unit development." PUD proposals which include building heights in excess of 40-feet will include the following: 1. A shadow analysis which indicates on the preliminary site plan the location of all shadows cast by the building (with associated dates of the year); 2. A visual analysis which identifies existing views to be blocked, from where, of what, and to whom; and which depicts in graphic form views before and after the project utilizing photographs of the area or neutral drawings derived from them with proposed buildings drawn in. Depictions should be made from at least two points from which the proposal will be commonly viewed, one of which should be a vista towards the foothills. These points of observation should be indicated on an inset nap or plan of the area; and 3. The PUD statement of planning objectives should evaluate the shadow and visual analysis, and specifically address the review criteria below. C. REVIE';; CRITERIA I. Connunity Scale A building greater than 40-ft should be located in either of two areas. The building should be either located in or adjacent to the Central Business District. Or, secondarily, a building greater than 40-feet should be located in or adjacent to one of the established or developing activity centers. An activity center is defined as a. neighborhood, community, or regional shopping center, or an employment center which has over 300 employees. The intent is to ccncentrate the intensity of uses in these planned centers through the use of mid- to high-rise structures. However, the intent is also to follow the established urban design and form of Fort Collins. This form, as stated in Objective 5, is a low-rise city with the exception of high-rises in the Central Business District and the mid- to high-rise development within planned activity centers. The use of - 3 - buildings over 40-ft in these cente and contribute to making Fort Coll of larger, taller buildings at thes the functional importance of these 40-ft in height should also be a review criteria and compatible with Views rs will maximize land use opportunities ins a visually diverse city. Clustering e activity centers can visually express centers. The location of buildings over discretionary balance with the other the six objectives. A building, whether less than or greater than 40-ft, should not substan- tially alter the opportunity and quality of desirable views within the community. Desirable views are widely perceived views by the community of foothills, mountains, significant local landmarks (i.e., Longs Peak, Horsetooth Mountain) or features of the Fort Collins skvline. Particular emphasis will be attached to preserving views of the foothills from public spaces including City parks, the Poudre River, public streets and similar public spaces. View corridors dorm streets and avenues are important to be maintained. Building siting and massing with respect to street pattern influence the quality of views from the street space. In assessing the quality of views, the depth and width of a view may be attributes to be considered. Also, the level of interest, what the view reveals about the City or the surrounding landscape, is an important factor to be considered. Thus, emphasis may be given to the preservation of views from residential neighborhoods and places where people concentrate such as shopping centers, etc. Another consideration of view blockage is the reduction of the City's self-image. Fort Collins prides itself as a city being particularly attuned to its natural foothill setting. The intent of the Height Criteria is to prevent the erosion of this image from occurring. Beneficial effects may derive from screening existing objec- tionable vistas and creation of new views, particularly from public spaces. Views may be preserved (and other criteria may be enhanced) by increasing building height while reducing building mass, changing the orientation of long tall buildings, and increasing open space setbacks. Light and Shadow Any building of greater than 40-ft should not have a substantial negative impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Negative impacts include casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, or creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or lighting at night. Cast shadows also contribute to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, particularly on public right-of-ways. Beneficial effects include the provision of desirable shade with landscaping or arcades and artificial lighting which improves the nightscape, i.e., along streets. The shadow cast by a building can be reduced by the re -positioning of a structure on the lot, increase in the setbacks, reduction in building mass, or redesign of a structure's shape. - 4 - 4. Privacy A building of greater than 40-ft should be desioned so as not to intrude on the privacy of adjacent public and private property. Particular enpha- sis will be given to preservation of the privacy of adjacent residential and public parks. Primarily negative impacts occur when windows and bal- conies directly overlook adjacent residential outdoor living spaces --back- yards, patios, and balconies. Secondarily, impact occurs when windows and balconies indirectly overlook adjacent outdoor living spaces givino an intrusive feeling to these areas. Level of privacy in the neighborhood can be improved by providing landscaping, fencing and open space, and changing building orientation away from adjacent residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Scale A building of greater than 40-ft should be compatible with the scale of its neighborhood. Scale implies various relationships such as relative height, height to mass, length to mass, building scale to human scale. Neighborhood scale relates new buildings with scale of buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The change in scale may be the most dramatic impact of buildings over 40-feet. The following items can be used as a basis to evaluate scale: Relative Height. The relationship of building height to the height of its neIg bor ood. The height should not be intrusive to the established or emerging scale of its surroundings. The neighborhood height may be either built height or the height of natural vegetation or both. The relationship between areas of low height and areas of hich-rise can be made more pleasing if the transition height and other considerations between such areas are gradual. Relative Length and Mass. The relationship between the horizon dimensions o ui aings relative to their vertical dimensions. The intent is to achieve a balance between the height and mass to produce buildings in harmony with the scale of the neighborhood and to avoid overwhelming or dominating the appearance of buildings over 40-feet in height. C. Human Scale. Too many high-rise buildings have no detail at grown— a-Tev—eT to which human beings can relate. People are dwarfed and excluded from teem. The intent is to provide human scale to all structures over 40-ft in height through appropriate design elements such as plazas, seating areas, and normal -size Y,indows. d. Scale of Character. Buildings over 40-feet in height should be made sympathetic to the character or the emerging character of the neighborhood. This is a particularly important consideration when the proposed building is located in or adjacent to an historic area such as Historic Old Town or the Laurel School neighborhood. The intent is to provide the unity in scale through the appropriate character with - 5 - the surrounding area by consistant design elements. Relative Location. The relative location of buildinqs over 40-feet in height within or adjacent to consideration of Neighborhood Sc structures in an activity center 40-feet in height located on different impact than a structc center which is buffered by of additional setback distance. Th over 40-feet in height and the abrupt. an activity center is another :ale. The relative location between can be important. A structure over the edoe of a center can have a re located within the middle of a her structures plus the benefit of transition, between any structure abutting neighborhood should not be Adverse effects are derived from buildings which depart from established scale in an area with respect not only to height, but to mass of building, intensity of use with respect to building coverage, density, open space configuration, building setbacks, distance between buildings, proportions of openings (doors and windows), and facade variety among other elements. These elements should be compatible with the comparable elements in the neighborhood. Beneficial effects can be derived from buildings which help to visually and functionally integrate a building with its surrounding natural and built environment. Such buildings provide variety and diversity of design to an area in a manner which is sympathetic to or reinforces established neighborhood patterns. - 6 - Page 6 1/24/83 P & Z • • Ron Young: Applicant. Stated he would be available to answer questions. Addressed concerns about parking problems, signage, and light- ing. Stated also that the expansion as planned was the most natural and economical way to go. Mike Conley: Area business owner. Stated that the expansion would have an impact on the business owners in the area, especially concerning parking. Stated that none of the tenants of the convenience center had been notified. Herb Spencer: Area resident. Stated that they have problems now, without the expansion. Stated that cars park on his lawn, that there are cars in the fire lane, that noise is a problem, and that light reflection from cars is a problem. Olin Ruff: Area resident. Stated that there is a parking problem on Swal- low now when the theatre is filled to capacity. Felt that people would not use the parking area across the street. Maggie McClintock: Area business owner. Stated that the existing parking problem was well known and well known to Everitt. Stated that they also had not been notified. Noted that there had been nights that she could not leave the store because her car was blocked in. Kirk Flory: Area resident. Stated that he did not think people would use the parking in the mall. Stated that he did not see the need for another movie theatre. William Burger: Area business owner. Felt that if the parking problem was resolved that it might be OK to increase the size of the theatre. However, parking was a definite problem in the area. Gilfillan: Commented that this plan may not be acceptable traffic -wise or parking -wise. Georg: Felt that the problem may not be parking, but intensity of use. Stated that given the separation between the parking areas that it really did not constitute shared parking. Moved to deny the Amendment to the Foothills Convenience Center PUD. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Ross: Felt that we were stretching it calling this parking a joint use. Page 7 1/24/83 P & Z • Purvis: Stated that as a policy matter we should discourage the concept of shared parking as the City was trying to apply it in this case. Crews: Stated 'hat if you have a problem and then increase it by 30%, it doesn't solve the problem. Dow: Felt that on -site traffic flow should be addressed whether this project was approved or not. Simpson: Felt that Mathews Street ingress and egress should be addressed. 10. #180-78H Fountainhead PUD - Preliminary Plan A preliminary plan request for an office/commerical PUD on 9.37-ac, located on Boardwalk Drive and College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Frank Vaught: Applicant. ZVFK Architects. Stated he would be available to answer questions. George Holter: Adjacent propertyowner. Discussed the construction of JFK Parkway and access agreements. Dow: Moved to approve Fountainhead PUD - Preliminary Plan. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 11. #180-78I Fountainhead PUD, Phase One and Two - Final Request for final PUD approval of a 5-ac PUD for commercial/ office use, located at Boardwalk Drive and College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank Vaught: Applicant, ZVFK. Stated he would be available to answer quest- ions. Ross: Moved to approve Fountainhead PUD, Phase One and Two - Final. Page 8 1/ 24/83 P & Z F7 0 Purvis: Vote: OTHER BUSINESS: Second. Motion carried 7-0. Gilfillan: Announced that at this time the Board needed to act on Ms. Purvis' letter of resignation. Dow: Moved to accept Ms. Purvis' letter of resignation. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m.