Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/27/1984PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES August 27, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman Gilfillan at 6:31 p.m., August 27, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present 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 Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Curt Smith gave the Agenda Review noting that Item #12 on the Discussion Agenda, REMINGTON CENTER PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #46-84, is continued until the September meeting. Smith proceeded with the Consent Agenda which included: #112-79F - The Village at Four Seasons - Master Plan; #112-79G The Village at Four Seasons, First Filing, PUD - Preliminary; #3-84B - Upland's Prospect Business Park - Master Plan; #3-84C - Upland's Prospect Business Park, Phase 1 - Preliminary; #3-84D - Upland's Prospect Business Park Subdivision - Final, and; #32-84A - U-Haul PUD - Final. Chairman Gilfillan requested to pull Item #6, #44-84 - Prospect Park East - Master Plan, Item #7, #44-84A - Lots 3 & 4 of Prospect Park East PUD - Preliminary and Final, and; Item #8, #44-84B - Prospect Park East PUD Subdivision Plat - Preliminary and Final. Member Georg moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 6, 7, and 8. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. PROSPECT PARK EAST - MASTER PLAN - #44-84 LOTS 3 & 4 OF PROSPECT PARK EAST PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #44-84A PROSPECT PARK EAST PUD SUBDIVISION PLAT - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #44-84B Member Dow abstained from participation on Items 6, 7, and 8 due to a conflict. Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the three projects with recommendation of approval. Chairman Gilfillan stated the reason for pulling these items was due to the staff's recommendation that 8 landscaping conditions be addressed in a final landscape plan and that this approach is different from the normal way a final plan is approved. P & Z MINUTES 8/27/84 - PAge 2 Frank replied that it is a little different because time ran out for negotiations to approve the landscape plan. An understanding was agreed upon and conditions would be placed just on the landscape plans. Member Larsen was concerned about approving the landscape plan with conditions. He felt that on a final plan there should be no conditions. Member Georg was concerned about the closeness of the buildings to the street and about the berming. He also questioned what fraction of landscaping would be done as part of the first phase. He felt that it was not quite ready for final consideration. Chairman Gilfillan suggested that Lots 3 & 4 of Prospect Park East PUD Preliminary and Final be voted on as just a preliminary. Chuck Bowling, representing Reynolds and Company, the developer, spoke in respect to Advanced Energy and the timing involved with this project. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the occupancy and the construction schedule. Bowling replied that if there were any more delays, they would be in trouble. Chairman Gilfillan asked Curt Smith about bringing the site plan and land- scape plan back to the Board next month. Curt Smith stated that there shouldn't be any problems since the landscap- ing would probably not be put in until the spring. Roger Thorp, Thorp & Associates, spoke regarding the building design, the occupancy of tenants in November and the parking for these tenants. Chairman Gilfillan again suggested that the Board treat Items 6 and 8 as submitted and Item 7 as preliminary. The Board concurred. Member Ross moved to approve Prospect Park East - Master Plan as submitted. Member Georg seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Georg motioned to approve Lots 3 & 4 Prospect Park East PUD - Pre- liminary. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Crews motioned to approve Prospect Park East PUD Subdivision Plat Preliminary and Final as submitted. l • P & Z MINUTES • 8/27/84 - Page 3 Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 7-0. PARK SOUTH REZONING - #166-79C Ken Waido spoke regarding the Board's concern about continuing this item to the September meeting as was discussed at the worksession. Curt Smith suggested that the Board give staff the direction to take it off the agenda and reanalyze the situation. Ron Strahle, developer, stated he would like some idea as to what the Board's concerns are that require it to be continued. Chairman Gilfillan stated that the Park South Rezoning will be removed from the agenda and can be brought back to the Board at a later date. OUT OF CITY SEWER SERVICE REQUEST - MOORE LANE/FALCON ROAD - a47-84 Ken Waido gave a brief summary of this request recommending approval. Member Georg motioned to recommend to City Council approval of the Out of City Sewer Service Request - Moore Lane/Falcon Road. Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 7-0. RENAISSANCE CENTER PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #45-84 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief summary of the project recommending approval. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the removal of the trees and the maintenance of the ditch. Regarding the outparcel, Albertson -Clark noted that the property owner had been notified and no response was received. No landscaping would be put on the outparcel. Landscaping and berming will be installed on the west, north and east sides and fairly heavy planting will be installed along the south side just north of the ditch. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the construction of railings on the sidewalks crossing the ditch. Albertson -Clark replied that sidewalks would be on three sides of the property, basically along Spring Park Drive and south along both Mathews and Remington Streets. The extension of sidewalks on Remington and Mathews would require the installation of handicapped accessibility ramps for the two ditch crossings. Chairman Gilfillan asked which curb cut would be the major access to the site. P & Z Minutes 8/27/84 - Page 4 Albertson -Clark replied that the Traffic Engineer believed that there would be a fairly equal split in terms of number of vehicles using the Spring Park access as well as the Remington Street access. Member Dow questioned the maximum density that this project could have. Albertson -Clark responded that the minimum required to propose a density of any level is 100'% on the density point chart. The LDGS states 30% on the density chart allows 3 units per acre, 40% allows 4 units per acre, etcetera. Member Brown asked which transit stop is within 650 feet. Albertson -Clark stated it is at the northeast corner of College and Stuart. Member Dow asked how the property in the corner that is not a part of this PUD is zoned, what uses by right, and what access will be available. Albertson -Clark replied that the zoning is B-P, Planned Business. Another use permitted in the B-P zone is R-M, Medium Density Residential. As far as the access to the site, given the grade, location and size, it was felt it is not appropriate to permit an individual access to that site at any time in the future. An internal access easement is provided on this plan. Member Ross was concerned about giving a third street access due to the cars coming off of Spring Park Drive and the fire station's location. Albertson -Clark replied that the site could function without the curb cut on Spring Park Drive, given the number of units and the other two points being fairly centrally located on the site. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects representing Osprey, Inc., spoke giving a brief history of the site. He stated that the property had come before the Board four times and was denied four times. He felt the failure of past proposals was due to the location and not being treated correctly. He said some of the concerns of the neighborhood included the height of the buildings. He felt the response from the neighborhood was basically positive. He then stated the six criteria listed under Policy 80 in the Land Use Policies Plan regarding where higher density residential uses should locate: First, near the core area; Second, near parks and community facilities; Third, where water and sewer facilities can adequately be provided, (which are in place at this time); Fourth, close to employment centers; Fifth, with access to public transportation, and; Sixth, an area with provisions to alternative modes of transportation. Linda Ripley, ZVFK Architects, spoke on density, parking, the courtyard enclosed by the four buildings, access points, berming around the buildings and the edge of the site, and the sidewalks crossing the ditch. She stated originally walks around the entire site were wanted by the applicant. The grade along Dartmouth and the location of the ditch prohibit a sidewalk in that location. P & Z Minutes • • 8/27/84 - Page 5 Jay Ehrle, 1822 Indian Meadows Lane, spoke regarding the reason for opposition, referred to the letter from the neighborhood to the Board, and suggested alternate uses for this site. He stated that air pollution would get worse, that there is no compatibility with surrounding area, and the traffic congestion will be a problem. He added that another area like Indian Meadows or an appointment -type business would be acceptable alternative uses.. Don Eddy, 2201 Stanford, spoke in opposition to the project based on re- marks inade by Jay Ehrle, possible storm drainage problems, and potential parking problems. Ralph Kotich, 212 Dartmouth, spoke in opposition to the project based on the air pollution from the fireplaces. He stated that he concurred with Jay Erhle regarding the alternate proposals and felt the apartments were too small. Raymond Langstaff, 1819 Remington, spoke in opposition to the project based on the Remington Street entrance/exit. Frank Vaught responded to the audience inputs by stating that Land Use Policies Plan, alternative modes of transportation can be used to reduce air pollution. He also discussed the size of the apartments, the fireplaces, which are the minimum size on the market today, the density, and the access along Mathews. Chairman Gilfillan stated he was concerned about the claims that the pri- vate property owner might have against the city if approved. He was also concerned about the entry on Spring Park Drive. Vaught replied that the curb cut on Spring Park Drive could be eliminated. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the units had elevators. Vaught stated no, they do not, but the design allows for future elevators to be installed between the buildings. Chairman Gilfillan questioned Curt about the status of the fireplace emis- sion policy of the City Council. Curt Smith responded by saying that the city has contracted with a consul- tant to prepare an air quality monitoring and control plan. This is expect- ed to be ready for public review in final form in December. Member Dow questioned the berming on the Spring Park side and closing the curb cut on Spring Park Drive. Ripley replied that the width of the buffer limits how high a berm can be taken and that lawn is proposed. She added that the height limit is 3 feet from the street grade. P & Z MINUTES 8/27/84 - Page 6 Member Ross questioned the treatment to be done along the ditch. Ripley stated that it would be maintained by mowing and plant material would not be allowed. Member Ross asked about the height of the buildings. Vaught responded that they are within 40 feet from street grade. Chairman Gilfillan questioned if there would be a sprinkler system or firewall protection. Vaught replied that there are two alternatives, one is having an automatic sprinkler system or dividing the building with area separation walls. Right now they are leaning toward the automatic sprinkler system. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the outparcel land and the use. Vaught replied that this is a leftover piece of land from when the right- of-way of Mathews was to the west and was replatted to the east. He further stated that they have tried to accomodate any future access to it. Chairman Gilfillan questioned if a hold harmless agreement protecting the city from any claims by the owner of the outparcel would be appropriate. Ken Frazier responded that the City would not want to find themselves in a position of having landlocked a property. The City would welcome a hold harmless agreement from the developer or would welcome an appropriate easement granting a right-of-way into that particular area by the develop- er. Vaught indicated the developer would have no problem with such an agreement. Member Brown questioned if a formal traffic study was done. Albertson -Clark responded yes, one was done by an independent traffic engineer. Member Brown stated that the Board did not have the study and wanted to know what the trip generation was, the direction they would be going, and the peak hours. Albertson -Clark stated that she did not have the study with her but it would be available to the Board. Member Ross asked if it was really necessary to look at the ramps across the ditches. Albertson -Clark replied that staff's greatest concern was to provide a safe pedestrian crossing. The existing sidewalk is about 212 feet wide at the bridge and tapers down to a narrow point. There are no sidewalks along the east side of Mathews nor along the west side of Remington. P & Z MINUTES • • 8/27/84 - Page 7 Curt Smith stated that it is particularly important to look at in terms of handicap use rather than the individual person that Someone in a wheelchair would have a difficult time getting ditch. Member Larsen questioned if the ramp would include guardrails. Smith stated yes. the sidewalk is walking. around the Member Dow asked about the drainage of Mathews flowing into the curb cut in the parking lot area. He asked if it is adequate to handle the water. Albertson -Clark replied that the drainage has been reviewed and approved by staff. The proposal is to pipe storm water runoff from the site underneath Spring Park Drive and into Spring Creek. Vaught responded to Member Brown's earlier question regarding the traffic study. He stated that the traffic impact has been deemed acceptable by Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer. He further stated that the trip generation is very conservative. Jay Erhle again spoke regarding the storm runoff going right into the Indian Meadows homes. Member Georg stated he was concerned about the bulk, intensity of use, closeness of the buildings to the streets, and the lack of conformance with the neighborhood. Member Georg motioned to deny Renaissance Center PUD, Preliminary and Final based on the previously mentioned reasons. Member Brown seconded. Member Dow felt that the curb cut on Spring Park Drive should be closed and then approve this project on a preliminary basis. Member Brown felt the site was tight, the density too high, and it is not close enough to transit. Motion for denial passed 4-3 with Members Dow, Ross and Crews voting no. POUDRE VALLEY HOSPITAL EXPANSION - FINAL - #39-84A Chairman Gilfillan pointed out that representatives of this area have presented the Board with their concerns regarding some of the pending development and possibility of future development. He then requested that the audience keep the discussion to the issue of the 90,000 square foot expansion, not the acquisition of houses or changing of streets. Cathy Chianese gave a brief summary recommending approval. Chairman Gilfillan asked what kind of comments had been received from the surrounding area. P & Z Minutes 8/27/84 - Page 8 Chianese replied that the neighborhood understood that the expansion did not entail punching through any streets or using any of the houses in the neighborhood for other uses. She also stated that they understood that before any of those items could be done, they would have the opportunity to review any proposals. Dave Yust, resident of Highland Heights, spoke in favor of the stop light proposed at Robertson, as the main entrance to Poudre Valley Hospital, against the opening of Luke Street from the hospital, the possible problems of the settling ponds, and the potential use of the houses as a greenbelt area. Member Ross stated that Mr. Yust was speaking of items that were not being proposed at this time. Chairman Gilfillan stated that Mr. Yust did bring up a few items that are important such as the street light and the drainage. Chairman Gilfillan then asked Chianese what was the time schedule of the light. Chianese replied that the schedule of the light is tied to the issuance of the C.G. and construction of the facility itself. Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, stated that the two ponds are detention ponds and will be used strictly as that. She also stated these will detain water and will be released slowly so the drainage systems will not be inundated all at once causing local flooding. This will take a matter of a few hours, at the most, for the drainage of the water from the ponds. Jim Stouffer, Luke Street resident, questioned if there is a berm along the proposed greenbelt. Chianese replied that this is proposed as plantings and also fencing be- tween the parking area and the fence. Stouffer stated he would like to see a more direct approach of berming to keep car lights from disturbing the residential area. He then asked how high the fence would be and if it would be cedar. Chianese replied it would be a 6 foot fence. Stouffer stated that he would like to see the fence as well as the berming to prevent the water from running off into the residential areas. Chianese explained the proposed parking and the fencing. Curt Smith stated that putting fencing on top of berming usually does not work since the berm is on one person's property. This creates a maintenance problem as to who takes care of the other side. P & Z Mlnutes ,3/27/84 - Page 9 • Chuck Rhodes, area resident, asked what will happen with the traffic exiting off Robertson wanting to go west from the hospital. Chianese stated that at the neighborhood meetings the issue of Robertson came up. She and the traffic engineer asked the people who lived along Robertson if they would like to have the city look at some way of diverting the traffic. Their response at that time was that it would be inconvenient for them. Wayne Nelson, Highlander Heights resident, questioned the placement of the main hospital entrance and implications with regard to future opening of Luke Street and whether alternative locations for the main entrance were considered. Mr. Bakken, Poudre Valley Hospital spokesman, replied that the process has been going on for some time in terms of block drawings, schematics, and design development. A number of locations were discussed but the primary location would be to the southeast due to better parking accessibility and more protection from the weather; the power plant to the northeast would be in the way of the entrance placed on that side. Nelson then questioned the placement of the helipad. Mr. Bakken replied that the placement of the helipad would be along the eastern boundary, but that placement is flexible at this time. Member Ross motioned to approve Poudre Valley Hospital Expansion, Final, as submitted. Member Brown seconded. Motioned carried 7-0. THE VISTAS AT ORCHARD PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY - #30-84 Joe Frank gave a brief summary recommending approval. Walter Brown, applicant and developer, spoke briefly regarding open space, the buildings and their location, parking, and buffering. Dick Beardmore, spoke discussing the site contraints, drainage, Moore School crossing, and fire access. He also spoke regarding the density and the point charts. He felt that there has been progress since the original Conceptual Review in mitigating negative neighborhood impacts. Peggy Gordon, 2008 Orchard Place and West Area Neighborhood secretary, read a letter from the neighborhood consisting of opposition to height of buildings, the high density, the traffic increase in the school zone, and the property devaluation. David Roder, 2021 Orchard Place, suggested the buildings adjacent to the single family homes on Orchard Place be restricted to two story buildings. P & Z MINUTES 8/27/84 - Page 10 Tony Tanana, 2029 Orchard Place, spoke in opposition to the project based on privacy being affected, the possibility of college students moving in and making excess noise, and congestion of traffic that will create a safety problem. John Gilsdorf, 725 S. Taft Hill Road, stated that he liked the design but was concerned about the traffic and the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Frank then discussed the traffic impact study. Daryl Fontaine, 1808 Orchard, stated that he was concerned about the potential traffic problems. Ann Calahan, 2009 Orchard, stated that she was in favor of two story buildings. Peggy Gordon questioned if the city might purchase the bike path and then maintain it. Curt Smith replied that, to his knowledge, nothing has been discussed on this matter. Walt Brown responded to some previous questions by stating that the buildings are developed to condominium specifications and the bike path would be welcomed by the school district. Member Larsen asked if the credit on the point chart for recreational use is open space. Frank replied the open space is 15% of the site. Walt Macheski, 2717 Orchard, was concerned about the berming and traffic safety and control. He does not want a three story building next to single family homes. John Laswick, 537 S. Taft Hill Road, spoke regarding the traffic problem and the density of the project. Member Larsen felt there would be a compatibility problem with the buildings being too high. Member Crews stated that moving the units back only solved half of the problem. He felt he could not support three story buildings but could support two story buildings. Member Ross motioned to deny The Vistas at Orchard Place PUD, Preliminary, as submitted based on comments that the Board mentioned. Member Brown seconded. Member Georg felt the levels of traffic are not acceptable. P A Z Minutes • • 8/27/84 - Page 11 Chairman Gilfillan concurred with Member Georg. Motion for denial carried 6-1 with Chairman Gilfillan voting no. TEMPEL PUD TRACT A PHASE ONE - PRELIMINARY - #17-84D Joe Frank gave a brief summary recommending approval. Jim Gefroh, applicant, spoke regarding the previous denial by the Board. He discussed changes incorporated into the plan which consist of a density reduction of 2 units, dedication of Kinnison Drive as a public street, reconfiguration of units to allow setback from private drive for a full 18 foot driveway/parking space, looped sidewalk system through the site, preservation of more trees, a more "open space" feeling, parking in front of garage and provision of green space as well as screening of the patios with privacy fencing. Chairman Gilfillan asked how close the decks are to the south property line. Gefroh replied that they are 14 feet from the property line. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the maintenance responsibility for the ditch. Gefroh replied that Tempel would be responsible for the maintenance and to improve the visual quality. Member Dow asked if there is any fence along the south property line other than privacy fencing. Gefroh responded that it would be advantageous not to have a continuous fence since Rossborough homes to the south have existing 6 foot high fencing. Member Brown asked what the setbacks of the buildings are from the private drive. Gefroh replied that from the back of the sidewalk to the outermost projec- tion of the unit is 12 feet, total being 16 feet. The sidewalks are 4 feet. Member Georg motioned to approve Tempel PUD Tract A Phase One, Preliminary, as submitted. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. BYLAWS AMENDMENT REGARDING WORK SESSION ATTENDANCE AND VOTING RIGHTS Member Georg motioned to approve the ByLaw Amendment. P & Z Minutes 8/27/84 - Page 12 Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Member Ross stated that the school situation on the point charts needs to be discussed further. Curt Smith replied that a joint meeting with City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board would be set up to discuss this issue and a comprehensive review of the Land Development Guidance System. Member Ross motioned for adjournment. Chairman Gilfillan seconded. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.