Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/24/19840 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES September 24, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman Gilfillan at 6:33 p.m., September 24, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members attending the September 21, 1984, Planning and Zoning Board Worksession were: David Gilfillan, Gary Ross, Tim Dow, Dennis Georg, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, and Alternate Randy Larsen. Member Sharon Brown was absent from the worksession and was briefed by staff prior to the meeting. Board members present at the meeting included: Gary Ross, Tim Dow, Dennis Georg, David Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, and Alternate Randy Larsen. Staff members present included: Curt Smith, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, and Gail Ault. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. The election of new officers was the first item of business. Member Ross nominated Tim Dow for Chairman and Member Georg seconded. Member Georg nominated Don Crews for Vice -Chairman and Member Ross seconded. The motion to elect these two as new officers passed 7-0. Member Simpson acknowledged the fine job Dave Gilfillan had done as Chairman. Chairman Dow voiced thanks to Member Gilfillan from all the Board. Curt Smith gave the Agenda Review noting that Item #2 Jon -El PUD (51-81A) and Item #7 Larimer County Rezoning & Special Review (56-84) had been "pulled" by staff from the Consent Agenda. Item #16, Centro Business Park Second PUD - Master Plan & Preliminary Phase Plan - County Referral (#69-83) is continued until the November meeting and Item #13 Tempel PUD - Tract A Phase 1 - Final (17-84E) is continued to the October meeting. Smith proceeded with the Consent Agenda which included: West Mountain Plaza PUD Extension, #44-84A Lots 3 & 4 of Prospect Park East PUD - Final, #96-81B Williamsburg PUD Extension, #52-84 Milan/Hiegert Exemption - County Referral, #57-84 KCOL Radio Special Review - County Referral, and #93-83A Stanton Meadows PUD - Preliminary Phase - County Referral. Member Ross indicated his vote on the Consent Agenda would not include Item #4, Lots 3 & 4 of Prospect Park East PUD, because he had a conflict of inter- est. Chairman Dow indicated a conflict on this item also. Member Gilfillan indicated he had a conflict of interest on Item #9, Stanton Meadows PUD, and his vote would not count for that item. Chairman Dow asked that Item #8, KCOL Radio Special Review - County Referral (57-84) also be "pulled" from the Consent Agenda. Member Georg moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1, 3-6, and 9. Member Crews seconded and the motion carried 7-0. 1t 24 Sep 84 P&Z Page 2 JON-EL PUD - One Yer Extension (51-81A) Joe Frank gave staff report indicating this project was first approved Septem- ber 28, 1981. Staff recommended approval. Bob Mooney, applicant's representative, indicated there were 28 dwelling units on 2.5 acres or 11.2 dwelling units per acre. There is active open space to the south. The southwest most building of the project is approximately 100 feet from any other building. The buildings are two-story, four-plexes in groups of two and three. There are no recretional facilities included. Member Crews asked why the three unit building was closest to the residences and Mr. Mooney stated he believed it related to parking and driveway access. Robert Boissy, 1324 Sioux Boulevard, speaking for several residents, indicated a petition had been forwarded to the Board voicing the neighborhood concerns. Some of these concerns had been addressed by staff, some by the architect, but some remained. The primary concern was with future development (Phase 2) to the west of this project. Residents feel they are adversely affected because the density is too great next to single family residences and not compatible with them. Joe Frank explained the West Swallow PUD-Phase 2. Member Ross explained neighbors can provide input even though the plan has prior approval- and that the item could be reevaluated by the Board if design changes, etc., had occurred. Member Brown questioned the 11.2 dwelling units per acre on the Jon -El. Boissy indicated the density is still a concern of some neighbors and they wonder how Jon -El will affect the future development. Member Georg moved to approve the one year extension and Member Crews second- ed. Motion carried 7-0. LARIMER COUNTY REZONING & SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL (56-84) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report for this proposed rifle range, shoot- ing site with 20 firing lanes for rifles and four for pistols. It will be bermed on three sides and designed to NRA standards. Hours will coincide with the landfill hours. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Dow questioned the location. Sherry indicated it was previously a rifle site but unsupervised. Member Crews asked about the closest neighbor. Sherry indicated closest was probably one-half mile away in The Ridge, a County subdivision. Anything to the west would continue to be rural, non -farm property with one unit per 35 acres. Member Ross wondered which direction the firing would occur and Sherry indicated to the west. Member Ross felt there was very little information available and he couldn't make a knowledgable decision. Member Dow agreed on the lack of information and felt the safety provisions had not been addressed. Curt Smith clarified the Board was only providing a recommendation to the County. Member Gilfillan felt the useage and design was the County's responsibility not the Board's. Member Simpson stated she would like to see more information provided on future county referrals. Member Ross moved to deny recommendation for the Larimer County Special Review and Member Crews seconded. Motion passed 5-2 with Members pilfillan and Simpson voting no. 24 Sep 84 P&Z Page 3 KCOL RADIO SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL (57-84) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report indicating the zoning permitted radio towers. FAA was also reviewing the project and staff recommended approval. Chairman Dow questioned the extent of the review and the impact the 200 foot towers might create. He wondered what other uses would occur on the remaining 40 acres. Sherry indicated this special review limits the use to towers and the transmitter building. Another special review would be required for any additional uses. Centerpoint Park, including the County Jail, is to the west, the area to the north is vacant but some residences are north of Prospect road. The flood plain constraints limit the development. Chairman Dow asked if the 12X14 building was one story and Sherry indicated it was. John Barnett, M & I Engineering, consultants for KCOL, indicated the FAA, FCC and County would all also review the project. Radio towers required low sites (preferably river valley) or high ridges and this site worked well and could not be used economically for anything else. Member Gilfillan indicated the Board should be careful with policies and procedures. There was the same lack of information on this item as the pre- vious one. Member Georg stated the fundamental difference, public safety, was not a factor here. Member Crews moved to recommend approval of this item and Member Simpson seconded. The motion passed 7-0. SHERIDAN FIRST ANNEXATION. SHERIDAN FIRST ZONING, REPLAT OF LOT 10 BLOCK 4 OF LYNN ACRES SUBDIVISION (43-84C, D, E) Ken Waido covered all three items simultaneously because the requested replat must first be annexed. The zone requested is R-E, Estate Residential, which allows the keeping of farm animals and is consistent with Lynn Acres Subdi- vision. The replat requests two lots (1.6 acres and 1.3 acres) and is compat- ible with neighboring lots. Staff recommended approval. Donald and Rosemary Sheridan indicated they were available to answer any questions. Member Gilfillan moved and Member George seconded to approve the annexation. Motion carried 7-0. Member Gilfillan moved and Member Crews seconded the zoning. Motion carried 7-0. Member Gilfillan moved and Member Crews seconded the Replat of Lynn Acres. Motion carried 7-0. DRAKE LANDING PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL (51-84) Cathy Chianese gave staff report for this 144 apartment unit project with recreational facility. Staff recommended approval. Bill Neal, Wheeler Realty, indicated this was the third in a trio of projects with the shopping center, Delaware Bay condominiums, and now this project. All have used the same design team. This multi -family project is designed to compete well with other projects. 24 Sep 84 P&Z Page 4 Carr Bieker, ZVFK, indicated the site plan showed 144 units, 18 buildings, one and two bedroom rentals. The required dentention area would be turned into a landscape asset. The buildings were two story not 22' as many projects to downsize the scale with the end elevations being one story. The facade would be brick and wood and all attempts were being made to be a good neighbor to the single family residences to the north with a landscape buffer and coordinated fence. The neighbor to the south is the First Free Methodist Church. Member Gilfillan asked for clarification on garages and their setback from the road. Carr indicated there was a 24 foot circulation lane with garages setback to 28 feet to aid maneuvering. Member Gilfillan thought it looked like seven garages on the north and Carr indicated there were 10 total. Member Gilfillan questioned the future seven garages on the north part as well as the traffic flow. He felt there were significant safety hazards and questioned the distance between buildings. While 58 percent open space was good maybe less open space and better garage access would make the plan more workable. Carr stated that 18-20 feet between buildings was their goal though the Uniform Building Code allows for 10 feet between the buildings. He didn't believe the access was a problem. Member Gilfillan wanted more exact plans for final to show the distance. Member Georg wondered about the buffer treatment to the ditch as well as to the church. Carr stated the concept requires distance plus adequate plant- ings. He didn't know the exact status of the plantings by the church. Member Georg suggested more substantial landscaping to the north. Member Brown questioned the setback of Building A. Carr responded it was 30 feet from the north, approximately 10 feet to the building envelope, and 20 feet from the east property line. Member Brown wondered about the height of the garages which Carr said were a standard height of 142'-15 feet. Member Simpson felt the ditch treatment should reflect safety concerns. Carr said there would not be a fence along the ditch or the west property line. Donna Liess, 2512 Wyandotte Drive, resident, indicated that cosmetically the architecture was appropriate, and felt that the neighbors to the west had not been adequately notified. She thought the impact to the neighborhood with the increased density and the view the apartments would present was adverse and suggested the need for a greater setback from the ditch and lower density. Member Gilfillan stressed he could support only a preliminary. Member Georg felt the project was not ready for final and that his concerns involved the garages, buffering, and setbacks and he questioned the density. Member Gilfillan said since he couldn't vote on only half the project he would vote against the item. Member Gilfillan moved to deny, Member Georg seconded. Carr Bieker asked if it would be possible to address tabling the item to allow them to work on the issues expressed by the Board. Carr expressed concern about the time delay involved if a denial of the preliminary and final was voted by the Board now. Chairman Dow appreciated the architect's needs. There were significant Board concerns and it would be misleading to approve this on a preliminary basis. 24 Sep 84 P&Z • Page 5 Member Ross indicated he was still struggling on the garage problem. Carr stated they could eliminate the garages. Member Ross wondered about moving them back against the property line. Carr stated the buildings were not as massive as the Board viewed, 3400 s.f. instead of 5000 s.f., and perhaps they should tighten the building envelope. Curt Smith indicated tabling the item until a workable plan revision could be arrived at might be the best solution. Member Gilfillan stated it would shorten the waiting period and would rescind his motion to deny if Member Georg agreed. Member Gilfillan withdrew his motion and Member Georg concurred. Carr Bieker requested the item be tabled to the October meeting. Member Simpson requested he look at the fence/buffering concerns with the ditch. Member Georg felt there were significant problems and suggested the preliminary and final should come in separately. Member Ross moved to table the item and Member Crews seconded. Motion to table approved 7-0. OVERLAND ACRES PUD - COUNTY REFERRAL Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report on the 130 single family lots on 240 acres. The density exceeds the County's recommendation but the applicant will donate 140 acres above the 5200 foot level to the City or County. Staff recommended approval. Member Georg questioned what we were approving. Sherry responded the 130 unit master plan, and the 47 unit preliminary Phase 1, and rezoning from FA-1 farm to E-1, Estate. The Phase 1-final would be reviewed again later. Member Georg wondered if we were telling developers we would trade density figures for land donations. Sherry indicated it was a good trade and that public benefit is our concern. Member Georg asked about the uses the applicant would have for the 140 acres if he didn't trade and Sherry responded one unit per 35 acres and the County considers the land undevelopable because of the slope. Member Larsen asked about recommendations in the Foothills Study. Sherry said the study was an update to the Land Use Plan and allowed one unit for five acres; however, under the PUD process one unit per 2.29 acres was allowed. The study also recommended development below 5200 feet and density can't be varied unless rezoned. The County calculates which land is developable and that land cannot exceed a 30 percent slope. Member Gilfillan wondered what public entity would be receiving the land and what it would develop as. Sherry believed the land not deeded to the government would be maintained as a green belt if it was above 5200 feet. Sherry stated the timing for a written commitment of donation would be prior to the County review of the items. It would be easiest to donate the land to the County who in turn would probably ultimately turn it over to the City. Chairman Dow questioned the City's position. Sherry indicated this would tie in with the City's open space system and link to the Foothills Trail, and she assumed the City would hope to have ownership of the land. 24 Sep 84 P&Z Page 6 Wally Noel, owner, indicated he didn't care who got the land and felt he could develop it but it would be better deeded to the City or County and used as open space. Member Gilfillan questioned the utility service. Wally said both City and County had committed to him. Member Brown questioned the neighboring density and Sherry indicated the propery was contiguous to the City limits on the east and south but outside the Urban Growth Area. The land to the north is vacant and to the south is higher density property. Rick Hattman emphasized the amount of open space (75 percent of the overall property) provided in this plan. Member Georg felt the density was incon- sistent with the County land use plan and trading land for units was not a good practice. Member Simpson concurred. Chairman Dow felt the donation of public open space land was a positive factor for this project. Member Gilfillan moved to recommend approval of the item and Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 5-2 with Georg and Simpson voting no. OTHER BUSINESS It was decided the Planning Department would make the decision on whether to schedule one or two meetings for October. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.