Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/25/1985s 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 25, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Members present were Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Don Crews, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg and Sharon Brown. Ingrid Simpson was not present but had requested to be excused. Members Georg, Brown and Simpson did not attend the worksession on February 22, 1985. Staff present included Sam Mutch, Joe Frank, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Steve Ryder, Jan Shepard and Kayla Ballard. Legal staff was represented by John Huisjen. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Mutch to review the agenda. Mr. Mutch stated the only change in the agenda was that Item No. 8, #146-79E, Raintree PUD, Phase 1 - Final, had been pulled by the Planning Director due to insufficient information submitted by the applicant. Chairman Dow then asked Mr. Mutch to review the Consent Agenda. Mr. Mutch stated that staff had a few minor changes on the January 28, 1985 minutes concerning the CSU Bull Farm application. Mr. Mutch stated the minutes should be changed to reflect that staff had recommended denial of the planned unit development. The slides were then reviewed for the three items on the Consent Agenda which included: Item No. 2, #43-84F, The Sheridan Subdivision - Final; Item No. 3, #1-85, Fossil Creek Third Annexation, and; Item No. 4, #1-85A, Fossil Creek Third Zoning. Chairman Dow asked if there were any items which the Board wished to pull from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gilfillan stated he had a problem with the minutes of January 31, 1985. Mrs. Charlene Nimmo was recognized. She stated she wished to have a further explanation of Fossil Creek Third Zoning. Chairman Dow stated he would pull Item No. 4, #1-85A, Fossil Creek Third Zoning, from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Ross motioned to approve the Consent Agenda which included the minutes of January 28, 1985 and Items No. 2 and 3 of the Consent Agenda. Mr. Crews seconded. Mr. Gilfillan stated he wished it understood that his vote on the Consent Agenda did not apply to Item No. 3 where he had a conflict of interest. Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Dow then asked the Board to discuss the minutes of January 31, 1985. Mr. Gilfillan stated he had a problem with the detail of the minutes. He believed the minutes should be in a more abbreviated form. PLANNING AND ZONING BO MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 2 Mrs. Brown asked why the minutes had been done in so much detail. Mr. Mutch stated the detailed minutes had been done in order to allow the City Council to have a full understanding of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting where the Arbor Commercial PUD had been discussed. Mr. Georg stated he liked the abbreviated form of the minutes and feels they are more appropriate. Chairman Dow stated he agreed with the abbreviated form but he would like to see a better section on the motions. He stated it is up to the City Council to determine whether or not they want to maintain the appeal on the record and whether or not the minutes should appear more detailed. Mr. Gilfillan motioned to table the minutes of January 31, 1985 and change the format. Mr. Ross seconded. Motion failed 3-3 (Mrs. Brown, Mr. Ross and Chairman Dow voted no). Mr. Ross stated he thought it was important to change the form of the minutes back to the abbreviated format. He stated he had voted against the motion because he does not believe it should be tabled but should be changed to a more abbreviated format. Chairman Dow stated he agreed with Mr. Ross. Mr. Gilfillan motioned to allow the Chair to approve the minutes of January 31, 1985 with a more abbreviated format after a telephone vote of the members of the Board. Mr. Ross seconded. Motion carried 5-1 (Mrs. Brown voted no). /1-85A - Fossil Creek Third Zoning Mr. Gilfillan stated he had a conflict of interest and wished to be excused from consideration of this item. Miss Elaine Kleckner gave a brief presentation to familiarize the Board with the location of this proposal. Mr. Jim Gefroh was recognized and stated he represented the petitioner. He stated he would answer any questions that the Board might have. Mr. Ross asked a question concerning a small outparcel on the property. Mr. Gefroh stated the outparcel is included in the project. PLANNING AND ZONI *OARD MINUTES • February 25, 1985 Page 3 i- Miss Kleckner gave the staff recommendation. She stated this was a zoning to B-P, Planned Business, zoning. The applicant had originally requested H-B, Highway Business, zoning but agreed to B-P when staff indicated that they would not recommend H-B zoning. She further stated the recommendation was to include a PUD condition on the zoning. Mrs. Charlene Nimmo was recognized. She questioned why the B-P zoning instead of the B-L zoning which had been attached to property immediately to the north. Miss Kleckner explained the B-P zoning is much more strict than the B-L zoning. She stated the B-L zoning is fairly liberal in its uses. She again stressed that the condition for zoning would include a PUD condition. Mrs. Nimmo asked if the roads in the project would access onto Fossil Creek Boulevard. Miss Kleckner replied that there is a plan under consideration by staff at the present time which has access from Fossil Creek Boulevard. Mr. Jim Mokler stated that he was a land owner in the area and that he was opposed to the H-B zoning. He stated the property owners in the area are pleased to see the PUD condition placed on this property. He added there was an issue of concern as to whether or not a traffic light would be placed at the intersection of Fossil Creek Boulevard and South College Avenue. Miss Kleckner stated the traffic light would be addressed at the time of the PUD review. Mrs. Brown motioned to approve Fossil Creek Third Zoning with B-P, Planned Business, Zoning with a PUD condition. Mr. Georg seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 03 -85 - Ice Arena and Pool PUD - Preliminary Mr. Joe Frank gave a brief presentation on the location of the pool and ice rink He st4,L44,, the applicant was the City of Fort Collins and representatives of the Parks and Recreation Department were at the meeting to discuss the project. Mr. Eldon Ward, agent for the applicant, reviewed the plans with the Board. Mrs. Brown questioned the areas designated for future construction. This question led to a short discussion between Mrs. Brown and Mr. Ward concerning future construction. Mr. Ward stated that at some time in the future the City may wish to expand the facility and the designation for future construction had been delineated. PLANNING AND ZONING BOA MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 4 Mrs. Brown asked if there was any overflow parking problem at the ball field and tennis area at the present time. Mr. Ward stated there was a parking problem sometimes but the parking lot for the pool and ice rink had a pedestrian connection between the existing lot and the new uses in order to have a joint use of the parking facilities. Mr. Frank explained the project in more detail than Mr. Ward. Mr. Frank stated the staff was recommending approval with certain conditions which include: 1)that the final landscape plan was to include the amount of plantings adjacent to the building foundation and around the exterior boundary of the parking lot be generally increased, provide increased landscape screening between the street and loading zone at the rear of the facility, and that berming and additional landscape screening be provided between the facility and the future multiple family project to the south, and: 2) at the final review detailed elevations should be submitted for staff and the Board's review and approval which should indicate final design, exterior materials and colors. Mr. Ross asked if Stuart Street was ever intended to cross the railroad to Timberline. Mr. Frank stated there was discussion of this but it would not be possible if Stuart Street were to be maintained as a collector street. Chairman Dow asked if the Master Street Plan needed to be amended by City Council. Mr. Frank stated it did not need to be changed by City Council. Chairman Dow asked for an explanation of the traffic study. Mr. Ward went through a brief explanation of the traffic study for the Board. Chairman Dow asked for an explanation of the parking versus the seating capacity. _ Mr. Frank explained that the seating capacity was for 2,000 people, however, the Park,�wand Recreation Department had stated that as part of the agreement for the planned unit development they would not hold two functions at once and thus, the site would be limited to 1,000 spectators at any one time for either the pool or ice rink. Mr. Crews asked if there were any problems with closing off Stuart Street. Mr. Frank replied that Everitt Companies had been brought into the discussion early in the process. He stated that Everitt Companies agreed to the closing of Stuart Street. Mrs. Brown asked if the major events would be held by high schools. PLANNING AND ZONI1*OARD MINUTES • February 25, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Ward replied that high schools would hold major events at this facility. Mrs. Brown asked where the buses for the schools would be parked at the site. Mr. Ward stated the buses would be parked at the service area. Mr. Ross asked where campers would be parked. Mr. Ward replied that this would be answered at final. Mr. Gilfillan stated he would like to see Transfort provide a shuttle service for major events. Mr. Frank stated that during the review and the neighborhood meetings the idea of Transfort providing service had been discussed. Mr. Frank then reviewed the neighborhood meeting report. He said the design of the professional had met the concerns of the staff. The criteria of the Land Development Guidance System had been met and reiterated that the staff was recommending approval. Mr. Ward stated the applicant would meet the conditions of the staff approval. Chairman Dow asked where the Point Chart was for the review of this project. Mr. Frank stated a Point Chart was not required for this type of development. Mr. Ross asked what type of review process the City would go through if development were to take place on the railroad property. Mr. Huisjen stated there was no review of any project on the railroad property to speak of unless it was annexed into the City. Chairman Dow asked if there was any public input from the audience. There was no response. Mr. Georg motioned to approve with staff conditions the preliminary plan for the Ice Arena and Pool PUD. Mrs. Brown seconded. Motion carried 6-0. 63 6-84A - West Elizabeth Plaza, First Filing - Final Mr. Joe Frank gave a brief presentation to familiarize the Board with the project. PLANNING AND ZONING BO, MINUTES J February 25, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Dick Beardmore explained the project in more detail to the Board. Chairman Dow asked for an explanation of the traffic flow on the site. Mr. Beardmore explained the circulation system and how compromises had been made between the original request by the applicant and the requirements of the Traffic Engineering Department. Mr. Frank stated that staff had reviewed the plan in comparison with the preliminary plan which had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and that the final plan was in general conformance with the approved preliminary plan. The conditions for approval of the preliminary plan had been met. He stated there are no outstanding issues with this project and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the final PUD and Subdivision Plat of West Elizabeth Plaza PUD. Chairman Dow asked if there was any citizen input. There was no response. Mrs. Brown stated that one of the concerns of the Board was that larger landscape material would be used on the project. She asked the applicant if they intended to use larger landscape material. Mr. Beardmore stated that City standards require a caliber of one and one-half inches for trees and that the applicant intends to place two to two and one-half inch trees on the site. Mr. Georg motioned to approve West Elizabeth Plaza PUD - Final. Mr. Ross seconded. Motion carried 6-0. 8146-79F - Raintree PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary Mr. Joe Frank gave a brief presentation to familiarize the Board with the aspects of this PUD. Mr. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects, was recognized. He stated he represented Pacific Realty, the applicant. He explained the project to the Board. Mr. Georg asked for an explanation of the differences in elevations between Shields Street/Drake and the parking lots on the site. Mr. Vaught explained the aspects of the project. Mr. Georg asked what the distances were from pads 1 and 2 to Shields Street. Mr.'Vaught gave the distances to Mr. Georg. Mr. Georg stated he did not feel these distances were adequate. • PLANNING AND ZONINSOARD MINUTES • February 25, 1985 Page 7 Mrs. Brown stated she was concerned, along with the Board, about the distances between the pads and the entranceways. Mr. Vaught stated the applicant expects to come back before the Board for final approval of each one of these pads. Mr. Frank stated the staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan of Raintree PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary subject to the following conditions: 1)that the right turn -in only curb cut to Shields Street be eliminated; 2)that the setback of the building pads in Tract C from the internal drive be increased to be more consistent with the setbacks of other buildings on the site but the setback of the building from Drake Street should not be decreased; 3)the applicant should work with staff to improve the landscape plan in terms of foundation plantings; shrub, evergreen, and berming along street frontages, and; the use of larger than standard sized trees and evergreens at strategic locations; 4)that the applicant work with the City's planning staff and arborist to assure that existing significant trees be preserved to the extent practical, and; 5) that the applicant commit to common use of architectural style, materials and colors for all buildings on the site. Chairman Dow asked if the Board should make it a condition that each pad be shown as a separate phase. Mr. Frank stated he did not think this was necessary. He stated if any changes were made to the plan they would have to come in for final review by the Board. Mrs. Brown asked if the City was requiring street improvements on this site. Mr. Frank replied there were some improvements that would have to be made by the applicant. Chairman Dow asked for citizen input. There was no response. Mr. Gilfillan stated the record should show that the Board is in receipt of a letter from the Carpenter family that resides on South Shields Street. Chairman Dow requested this letter be made a part of the record. Mr. Georg stated he was disappointed in the berming of the project. He was aware that the applicant had tried to berm in order to screen the site from the adjacent streets but he felt it had not been done satisfactorily. He stated he was also disappointed with placement of the buildings on the pads removed from the major portion of the shopping center. He added the City does not require pads in shopping centers. He stated these pads must be set back more than they are when the final plan comes before the Board. PLANNING AND ZONING BOA,_ MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Georg motioned to approve the preliminary plan for Raintree PUD, Phase 2 with the staff conditions and with the stipulation that the Board pay particular attention to the setbacks at final review. Mrs. Brown seconded. Mr. Vaught asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Frank explained the motion to the applicant. Then there was a general discussion on what constituted Phase 2 on this plan. After a great deal of discussion, this was answered to the satisfaction of the Board and applicant. Motion carried 6-0. Mrs. Brown stated she had voted no on the prior submittal but she felt the applicant had addressed her concerns and she was able to vote for this project. p15-84 - Park Oil and Gas Special Review - County Referral Miss Elaine Kleckner gave a brief overview of this county referral. Mr. Arthur Vermillion explained the reasons for the request to the Board. He stated it was clear the project was north of the Urban Growth Area but within the area of interest in which the City comments upon. He stated this project is for an oil program. He explained the program which is to inject water into a certain geological formation to remove the remaining oil. Mr. Ross requested information concerning where the water for the injection would be coming from. Mr. Zack VonVoost, Production Engineer for the company, explained the water would be coming from the Muddy and Dakota formations of the project. He explained the water will go through the formation and force oil from it. Miss Kleckner stated the staff had _recommended tabling of this request in order to receive further information. Chairman Dow asked for public input. There was no response. Mr. Vermillion stated the company had no objections to the tabling of this project. Mr. Gilfillan motioned to table Park Oil and Gas Special Review until the March 25, 1985 meeting. Mr. Ross seconded. Motion to table passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONIN&ARD MINUTES • February 25, 1985 Page 9 Chairman Dow requested that the reason for the tabling be included in the communication to the County Planning Board. #56-84 - Larimer County Rezoning and Special Review - County Referral Miss Elaine Kleckner explained that this was the request for the shooting range at the County Landfill in the southwestern portion of the community. Mr. John McFarlane, County Parks Department, explained the proposed shooting range to the Board. He stated that this is a comprehensive review of the design of the range. He stated the safety aspects of this project. Chairman Dow asked what was the nearest residential development from this proposal. Mr. McFarlane replied that the closest existing residential development was more than 3/4 of a mile away. Mr. Georg asked what would be the highest point on the berm that a bullet would hit if fired from the firing area. Mr. McFarlane answered that it would be approximately 10 feet below the top of the berm. Miss Kleckner stated the staff had recommended approval. She stated the County had gone to great lengths to ensure the safety of the community in the firing range. She added the rezoning is for over 180 acres which is adjacent to other property zoned FA. Mr. Georg stated that this is a great plan and he could support the idea. He added the County had gone to great lengths to improve the plan over what the Board had originally seen. Mr. Georg motioned to recommend approval to the County of the Larimer County Rezoning and Special Review. Mr. Ross seconded. Motion passed 6-0. #69-93A - Centro Business Park Second PUD - Master Plan, Preliminary Phase and Rezoning - County Referral Members Ross and Gilfillan excused themselves due to a conflict of interest. Miss Elaine Kleckner explained the item to the Board. Mr. John Danielson, applicant, gave a brief description as to the intent of the application. PLANNING AND ZONING BO MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 10 Miss Kleckner explained the City had a number of objections to this proposal. She stated the staff recommends denial of Centro Business Park Second Master Plan, Preliminary and Zone Change based upon unresolved traffic circulation issues. Chairman Dow asked if the Board could approve their Master Plan only. Miss Kleckner stated she did not think that was a good idea. Mr. Georg asked if the engineering standards for this project were up to City standards. Miss Kleckner replied she did not believe they were. Chairman Dow asked for any comments from the public. There was no response. Mr. Danielson asked that the item be approved by the Board. Mr. Georg stated Mr. Danielson did not convince him. Mr. Georg motioned to recommend denial of Centro Business Park Second Master Plan, Preliminary Phase and Rezoning. Mr. Crews seconded. Motion for denial carried 4-0. Mr. Georg stated his motion had been made based upon traffic issues, drainage, landscaping and adherence to City standards. Chairman Dow stated he supported Mr. Georg's motion because the area does not have good planning. He stated it was encumbent upon the City and County to work together to improve the appearance this area. p16-84 - Waldo Exemption - County Referral Miss Elaine Kleckner explained the proposal to the Board. .Mrs. Lucia Liles,agent for the applicant, explained what the petitioner wished to do with the property. She then asked for approval of this exemption based upon existing hardships for the property owner. Miss Kleckner explained the recommendation of the staff. She stated the Larimer County Subdivision Regulations do not allow exemptions if one exemption has already been granted as is the case of this property. She stated that staff recommends denial of the Waldo Exemption request based upon the noncompliance with the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution. Mr. Ross asked for some clarification and history of this project. PLANNING AND ZONI *OARD MINUTES . February 25, 1985 Page 11 Mrs. Liley stated that at one time the property was 10 acres. She stated it had been subdivided into two 5-acre lots, one for a veterinarian clinic and one which is still the applicant's property. Mr. Ross asked if a septic field could be put on the property. Mrs. Liley stated that they had met the requirements for a septic field. Mr. Huisjen stated a requirement for a septic field is a minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet or 2.29 acres. Mrs. Brown asked if there was any change in the circumstances based upon the first exemption. Mr. Huisjen stated no property may be subdivided for parcels under 35 acres unless the County exempts certain parcels under the minor subdivision regulations. He stated that under the stated rules it does not appear that the County Commissioners can grant the exemption as requested. Mr. Gilfillan stated that the Board should be consistent and that he supported the staff. Mrs. Brown stated the Board must go along with the State and County requirements. Mr. Ross stated he agreed with Mrs. Brown and Mr. Gilfillan but did not find the requested use inappropriate for this property. Mr. Georg stated the Board should stick to the rules. Mr. Georg motioned to recommend denial to the County of the Waldo Exemption based upon nonconformance with the County Subdivision Regulations. Mrs. Brown seconded. Motion to recommend denial passed 4-2 (Mr. Ross and Chairman Dow voted no). Mr. Ross requested that his remarks be made known to the County on this item. #23-84 - Cherry Heights PUD - Master Plan - County Referral Miss Elaine Kleckner gave a brief explanation of the request by the applicant. Mrs. Lucia Liley gave a long explanation of the history of this request beginning in 1979. She brought to the attention of the Board what had happened in each year to this request. She made a number of statements concerning the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan and various court cases which she believed led to a basis in fact for the Board to approve this application. PLANNING AND ZONING BO. MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Carr Bieker, ZVFK Architects, designers for the applicant, gave a brief presentation concerning the design of the project. Mr. Gilfillan asked if Mrs. Liley had seen the letter from Hill and Hill attorneys which had been distributed to the Board. Mrs. Liley stated that she knew of and concurred with this letter. Miss Kleckner gave the staff recommendation. She stated the staff recommended denial based upon nonconformity with the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and nonconformance with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ross motioned to recommend approval to the County of Cherry Heights PUD Master Plan. Mr. Georg stated that he felt the Board was missing the real issue. He stated this was a land use issue and not a legal issue. He stated he does not want the taxpayers to pay for urban services outside the Urban Growth Area. He stated areas of the County had been appropriately designated for urban development and this was not one of those areas. He stated he could not support the motion. He stated the applicants do have a good mechanism through which they could request a change in the Urban Growth Area boundary. Mrs. Brown stated she does not think this type of development encourages urban development but rather encourages urban sprawl. Mr. Gilfillan stated the final decision will be made by the County Commission and that the Planning and Zoning Board would only be making a recommendation. Mr. Ross stated he does not understand how 100,000 square foot lots foster urban sprawl. He felt that the Board should approve the application. Chairman Dow stated he had mixed feelings about this application. He stated this is a policy issue and should be reviewed in accordance with the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Crews stated he agreed that this was a land use issue and that the Urban Growth Area Agreement should not be modified by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Gilfillan seconded. Motion to approve recommendation failed 2-4 (Mr. Crews, Chairman Dow, Mrs. Brown and Mr. Georg voted no). p91-81A - Country Ridge PUD and Rezoning - County Referral Mrs. Lucia Liley was recognized and stated the issues on this item are the same as the previous item. PLANNING AND ZONI *OARD MINUTES • February 25, 1985 Page 13 Miss Elaine Kleckner explained the project to the Board. Mr. Randy Larsen stated this was a request for rezoning for 48 units at a density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre. He then reviewed the project in detail for the Board. Chairman Dow quoted that the same arguments applied with this application as they did to the last application. Mr. Larsen gave a further presentation of the project. He talked of the zoning and the master planning for the area. He stated the lot sizes are only 112 acre in size yet, because of the open space, the density was 1 dwelling unit per 2.33 acres. The requested rezoning to FA would allow one unit per 2.29 acre. Mr. Ross questioned what would be the decision of the Board and of the staff if this development were in the Urban Growth Area. Mr. Larsen replied that the staff would probably state that the density was too low. Mr. Ross stated he thought Mr. Larsen was correct. Miss Kleckner gave the staff recommendation. She stated staff recommends denial based on nonconformity with Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and for nonconformity with the Larimer County Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Dow asked if this project differed from the project which was heard immediately preceding this project. Miss Kleckner stated the issues were the same. Mr. Gilfillan asked why the applicants had 48 units and the staff said 50 units. Miss Kleckner explained that the density had been decreased by the petitioner after submission of information to the staff. Chairman Dow asked for citizen input. There was no response. Mr. Georg stated this was a two part request. He questioned whether or not the rezoning would be in accord with the Urban Growth Area Agreement. He then asked if they could be separated. Miss Kleckner stated it was the practice of the Board to hear the requests together. PLANNING AND ZONING BOr MINUTES February 25, 1985 Page 14 Mr. Georg stated he hoped that the County would have made a plan for this area. He stated the request lacked conformance with the Urban Growth Area Agreement. He then stated the City and County must work together to ensure better planning in this area. Mr. Georg motioned to recommend denial to the County of Country Ridge PUD and Rezoning. Mrs. Brown seconded. Motion for denial passed 4-2 (Mr. Ross and Mr. Gilfillan voted no). Chairman Dow requested that the comments that applied to the history and the legal aspects of the previous application be applied to this application. Chairman Dow asked if there were any additional business to come before the Board. Mr. Mutch stated that staff wished to know if the Planning and Zoning Board wished to change the date of the April meeting from April 22nd to April 29th in order to allow Chair and certain staff members to attend the American Planning Association conference in Montreal, Canada. The Board concurred with the change of date. Mr. Mutch explained that the cut-off date for the May Planning and Zoning Board meeting had been changed to March 29th in order to allow sufficient time for review of the items on the May agenda. He then explained that this had been necessitated because the Planning and Zoning Board meeting would regularly have been scheduled for May 27th (Memorial Day) and had to be moved forward to May 20th. The Board concurred in this decision. Chairman Dow adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.