Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/28/19850 E MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JANUARY 28, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Mempresent were im ow Ingrid Simpson s,wasrnotoDennis present at this session of the January meeting. Members Ross and Brown did not attend the worksession. Staff present included Sam Mutch, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Cathy Chianese, Elaine Kleckner, Steve Ryder, Jan Shepard, and Renee Oldham. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Sam Mutch reviewed the Agenda, stating that due to the length of the agenda,, it was suggested the last three items, #137-80B, ARBOR COMMERCIAL PLAZA - Preliminary; #72-84 „ NORTH COLLEGE PLAZA - Preliminary; and #25-BIE, BELAIR PUD - Revised Preliminary, be continued to Thursday, January 31, 1985, at 6:30 p.m., in Council Chambers. Member Gilfillan asked if item 15, C.S.U. Bull Farm Rezoning, could be put on the Consent Agenda. Mutch responded there is too much controversy and too many misconceptions about this item to be placed on the Consent Agenda. He stated item 15, C.S.U. Bull Farm Rezoning, would be recommendation to City Council, but would be heard along with the C.S.U. Master Plan and Preliminary. Staff also requested item 6, #189-78, 19th Green Extension, be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Norbert Graese, a resident near Centretech, asked what type business would be built in Provincetown. Mutch responded that this is a preliminary plan and that no specific businesses have signed leases to commit to locating in Centretech at Provincetown. At the final hearing, comments would be taken to look at the plan in much more detail. At that time, Mr. Graese could make his comments to the Board on what businesses were going to locate in Centretech. Jon Aronson asked the type of off -site street improvements would be made in connection with the Rossborough Subdivision. Mutch stated both Horsetooth and Shields will be brought to arterial standards. Roger Treet asked what the Hull Place Annexation will do the Hull Street extension. Mutch stated this question would be answered at the time of PUD submittal, this is only a request to be annexed into the City. Chairman Dow stated the items an the Consent Agenda are passed with any recommendations from staff attached to the approval. running & Zoning Board Minutes January 28, 1985 Page 2 •Member Georg made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of #6, 19th Green Extension. Member Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Member Crews not voting on item #10, C.S.U. Research Foundation Exemption, because of a conflict, making #10's vote 6-0. Member Gilfilian moved to continue items #19, #137-808, ARBOR COMMERCIAL PLAZA; #20, #72-84, NORTH COLLEGE PLAZA; and #21,m #25-81E, BELAIR PUD, to Thursday, January 31, 1985, at 6:30 p.m. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 7-0. #189-78 19th GREEN EXTENSION Ken Waido gave a summary of the requested extension. Parmer Gillexpie, the applicant, stated the request is for only 58 building sites. They are waiting for Anheuser-Busch to begin construction before they look for financing, this is the logical step. Member Brown stated she was not on the Board when previously reviewed and is at a loss as to what she would be approving. Waido presented plan to Brown' and other members of the Board. Member- Georg read a letter from Jerry White, Larimer County Planning Department, requiring the applicant to comply with City standards. At the time the letter was written, the County had different standards. The County now has the same standards as the City. Gillespie stated he is committed to bringing the streets to City standards and asked what they would be looking for. Waido responded it would be curb, gutter, lights, and further improvements as necessary. Chairman Dow asked if they approved this extension with PUD condition. Waido replied they would have to approve with a PUD condition, if it was not approved, the applicant would have to re -submit. Member Brown stated she is a real dunderhead concerning the off -site street improvement waiver. Waido stated the applicant negotiated for a settlement of $500 per building permit. If the extension is not approved, the applicant will have to re -submit to improve the streets. Member Brown asked if this project will have an adverse effect on the road system. Waido replied that 58 units will not adversely affect the street. Member Georg is glad Gillespie is willing to meet road requirements, but does not like the idea of a two year extension Member Georg made a motion to approve an extension to December 31, 1985, with a stipulation the project conform to City subdivision regulations as they exist at this time. Member Crews seconded. He is concerned about the two year extension also. Planning & Zoning *d Minutes • January 28, 1985 Page 3 Waido stated all standards are to be met. If they are not, they will have to replat. Member Georg stated whatever City standards require. Gillespie stated for 58 buildings, he does not want to have to improve all roads to City standards. Waido stated Gillespie is committed to on -site improvements plus $500 per unit. Member Georg stated if he asks for a variance to these improvements, the Planning and Zoning Board will hear that request also. Gillespie stated he will commit to the on -site plus $500 per unit, but not beyond that. Chairman Dow stated Gillespie should sit down with staff to discuss what he will need to do. The question was called. Chairman Dow stated he would be voting no because Gillespie would probably be better off with a PUD, does not feel it is fair to Gillespie. Member Ross abstained because of the proximity of the project to his property. The motion carried 4-2 with Dow and Brown voting no. #74-84 W.R.E.N. GRAVEL SPECIAL REVIEW Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the request for a temporary asphalt batch plant. Kleckner stated the staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Street phasing criteria should be implemented. 2. Additional ROW to bring Prospect to arterial standards. 3. Enter agreement for trail system easements. Member Ross was concerned about the impact this would have on the bridge on Prospect. Kleckner shared this concern but did not know the impact. Chairman Dow asked about improvements. Kleckner was not sure. Member Ross stated that East Prospect has three large gravel pits, and the only bridge in town that has fallen apart is the one on Prospect. He cannot support the request. Member Georg stated the Board is concerned about the operation and land use, not the effect it will have on the bridge. Member Brown felt they are looking at a potential problem and agrees with Member Ross. Planning & Zoning Board nutes January 28, 1985 Page 4 Member Larsen stated the ratio is one truck equals 100 cars, the plant has been in operation since 7much more ill this request create? Klecknerstatedwehadnotreceived thatinformation. Chairman Dow asked what emission controls can be placed on this request, could they ask for a waiver? Kleckner stated they have to apply to the state for permits and it seems unlikely a waiver would be granted. This was brought to the Board's attention because of emission problems. Member Ross asked how temporary this is going to be. site has to be reclaimed by 1990. responded that state and Member Brown asked about waste disposal. Sam Mutch federal regulations will control waste disposal. Member Georg is concerned with the unknowns relate Kleckner stated the d Member Larsen se he does not feel he ha enough informationed Chairman Dow stated he wellhe will be voting no uvote no for the same reasons The motion carried 5-2 with Larsen and Dow voting no. #73-84 MORSE SPECIAL REVIEW Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the Morse Special Review. Dennis Morse, the applicant, stated the request is temporary to get the aggregate out. They will probably only be using the area until the early 1990's. The plan is to put landscaping and a fence on Taft Hill Road, one sign for two companies, and an office with parking. Chairmn statedait Dw uldsbe atsplit pra 1 fence with plantings about 300pfeet dMorse from the road. Member Brown asked if Morse was the owner/operator and does the silo have to be orange. Morse replied he and a man from Wyoming are the owners. The silo comes painted orange. Member Brown asked if the silo would be temporary and moved from place to place. Morse replied it is a temporary silo, but once they have established a place to put it, it will be permanent, not moved around. Kleckner stated staff recommends denial for lack of information. County staff has also recommended denial. The original approval of the gravel pit by the County said no batch plant. Chairman Down asked for detail on street impacts. Kleckner stated Taft Hill Road would ultimately be 4 lanes. Planning & Zoning dod Minutes • January 28, 1985 Page 5 Member Gilfillan said the lack of detail made it hard to support. Member Gilfillan moved to deny the project for lack of detail. Member Larsen seconded. Member Brown stated she cannot support the item for reason stated in the motion. The motion to deny carried 7-0. q6-85 SPRINGFIELD SUBDIVISION, 3RD OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS WAIVER Chairman Dow stated he has a potential conflict of interest and excused himself. Vice Chairman Crews assumed the chair. Ken Waido gave a summary of the project. Member Brown asks what abuts the property at this time. Waido stated a commercial shopping area and a mobile home park. Member Larsen asked if the waiver fee still applies. Waido replied the fee still applies. Member Brown asked how a future SID works with single family residences. Frazier stated it would be in the Development Agreement. Waido stated this is the third filing and not eligible for annexation, therefore certain phasing criteria are applied. Member Georg made a motion to approve the waiver with staff conditions. Member Ross seconded. The motion carried 6-0. #69-84 C.S.U. BULL FARM - Rezoning A69-84A C.S.U. BULL FARM - Master Plan p69-84B C.S.U. BULL FARM - PHASES 1, 2, & 3 - Preliminary Member Crews excused himself because of a conflict. The applicant is his employer. Member Larsen excused himself because of a conflict. The applicant is his client. Chairman Dow stated the three items pertaining to the Bull Farm will be heard at the same time, then separate motions will be made. Ken Waido gave a summary of the zoning request. The request is for 8.7 acres to be zoned B-P, Planned Business, and 35 acres to be zoned R-P, Planned Residential. The R-P district does not permit multi -family without the submission of a PUD. Cathy Chainese gave a summary of the Master Plan and Preliminary Plan. There are four areas for development: Three for residential (1 for single family and two for multi -family); and one for commercial. There are a total of 650 dwelling units proposed for the site (17 du/ac). Ron Baker, a representative from C.S.U., stated that comments made at the worksession about a long term lease were not threats. C.S.U. has tried to Planning & Zoning Board nutes January 28, 1985 Page 6 cooperate. C.S.U. has decided to fund two major projects from the proceeds of the sale of the Bull Farm, an equine center and animal reproduction lab. Bob Mooney, architect representing the applicant, gave a summary of the Bull Farm proposal. Larsen and Associates referred many areas to special consultants. This is an important in -fill project and requires special design. He gave a review of the existing use of the property and a summary of specific areas they tried to incorporate into the plan to use natural buffering between areas. The ditches were seen as an amenity as well as a buffer between single family, multi -family and commercial uses. The ditch company will maintain the ditches. Clustering of buildings was designed to have individual intimate spaces. Another objective was to have 3-dimensional outdoor spaces. The key is variety and the size should be such to attract people. The final design objective is the streetscape. Member Georg asked what design techniques were used to justify the higher density in Area C than Area B. Member Georg asked the setback from Plum and Constitution. Mooney replied it is 15 feet from the edge of the ROW. Member Georg asked how the setback compares to Scotch Pines and Stover. Mooney did not know. Waido said the zoning request is in compliance with the Land Use Policies Plan and the Goals and Objectives. Staff is supporting the B-P zone for the east 8.69 acres. The remaining 35 acres is suitable for higher density and therefore staff is supporting the R-P zone. The condition to be done as a PUD is attached to both areas. Chianese stated staff is recommending approval of the Master Plan. A Master Plan is a concept only of the type of construction and/or use of an area. Staff is recommending approval of Phase 1 because of the similarity to single family homes in the area. Phase 2 gained 107 percentage points taking advantage of bonus points. The property is qualified for higher density. The traffic impact study prepared by applicant and reviewed by staff recommended re -striping of Elizabeth; need to improve the Plum bikeway; and signalize one of the intersections. Staff did not feel this was a unified development. It is bisected by long parking aisles, buildings not clustered, small areas of open space, inadequate space between buildings, street and ditch. There has been no communication from the company for adequacy of easement at the ditch. There are only two types of buildings: 10-plex and 20-plex. More attempt should be made to vary building types. Need views and space between buildings. Additional parking for the project should be provided. The safety of pedestrians is a concern because of the long distance before getting to a parking space. Pedestrian convenience and safety needs to be better defined in the parking lots. The landscaping has been neglected. Foundation plantings around buildings should be included. There needs to be a plan for berming and streetscape along Elizabeth. Planning & Zoning Fod Minutes January 28, 1985 Page 7 In Area 3 the density and Elizabeth Street setback is not adequate for the size, scale, and height of buildings. If the 24-plex buildings are to be retained, they should be moved to the interior of the project. The parking areas are too large and should be redesigned. Area 1 meets the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. In Areas 2 and 3, some absolute criteria were not addressed. These must be addressed before it can be approved. A number of neighborhood residents are opposed to the project. Staff has received petitions both for and against the project. Member Gilfillan asked about signalizing Shields and Plum. Will they do anything different with that intersection? Chianese stated that problem will be addressed, however, there will be no physical changes. Barbara Allison, a resident of the neighborhood, stated she feels this is a detriment to the community because of the traffic problems. She likes the bulls and horses on the site. The schools in the area, Dunn, Washington; Laurel, Moore and Bennett, are overcrowded now and more multi -family and low income houses are not needed. The existing commercial area has more vacant spaces than occupied spaces. Marilyn Arnold, a resident, asked about the 3 acre detention pond. How are they going to build houses with standing water? feels it would be foolish to build there. The pictures were pretty, but that's probably not what will be built. Chianese stated the 3 acres will be turned into a softball, football, recreation area. Member Ross stated they have to start somewhere, they could change the plans, then they would have to come back before the Board. We are trying to work with C.S.U. Arnold stated C. S. U. is trying to sell this, they are not going to stand by it. Chianese stated if the plan is approved, documents will be filed with the City and only the approved plan can be constructed. Any new plan would have to obtain another Planning and Zoning Board approval. Polly Walters, a resident of the neighborhood, thought it was curious that C.S.U. hired an architect that sits on the Planning and Zoning Board. Another thing about C.S.U. is that when they want money, they do it at the expense of the neighbors. Many good things could go in the area, a senior center or child care center. The traffic will also be a problem. Member Ross responded that the implication of impropriety was out of line and that the fact that Randy Larsen sits on the Board should not preclude him from obtaining business. Walters also stated the bulls and horses are not dangerous, opening the ditches would be dangerous. Bill Jacoby stated he strongly urges the Board to deny the project. The area does not need more business development. Rezoning for residential is okay. However, the preliminary plan, will harm the surrounding neighborhood. The single family dwellings are nice, but there is a parking problem already. Planning & Zoning Board nutes January 28, 1985 Page 8 Traffic will cause problems because they are not arterial streets. There will also be an adverse impact on the surrounding schools. Would like to see the project denied. Maida Christner would like to see the zoning be to a lower density, specifi- cally the single family area. Member Georg and Sam Mutch attempted to explain the LDGS to Ms. Christner. Sandra Wolf, a former retailer, stated the vacancies are due to one personal- ity. Campus West would have more businesses if it were not for this one person. C.S.U. is very sensitive to the odor problems caused by the Bull Farm. They are concerned with the uses and the impact on the neighborhood. The buffers are good. Scott Hudson spoke in favor of the rezoning. He is sure the staff and C.S.U. can work out differences. He likes the buffering. His only concern is parking. He manages a restaurant across the street and hears only how bad the odor is from the Bull Farm, now all of a sudden, everyone loves the Bull Farm. Nancy Cary stated she is in favor of the project. Campus West is the only neighborhood shopping area on the west side of town. The increase in housing and retail would aid Campus West. She is pleased with gradual progression from single family to multi -family to commercial. Karen Bridges stated her back yard is on this project. She likes the gradual progression of density. She does not feel students want high density and may want quiet instead of party life. Asked about the easement on the ditches. The single lots are mobile home lot size with full size homes, making for very crowded conditions. Concerned about the detention area, how can they play softball? Chianese stated it will be a detention site to detain water, it will not have standing water for very long. The water will drain off gradually. The easement on the ditches will be 130 feet on either side. They have not heard from the ditch company and it is hard to evaluate with no input from the ditch company. Member Ross stated Constitution has been convenient to cut from Prospect Road to Elizabeth Street. Is this a local street? Chianese stated it is a collector. There will be no signal so will not encourage through traffic. Member Brown asked the City requirement for building size compared to lot size. Chianese stated there is no defined requirement, the setbacks will dictate the size of the buildings. Chairman Dow stated the Board is not expected to evaluate if there is a need for a specific use, i.e., commercial. The developer is responsible for that decision. Mooney stated they have had two meeting with Larimer County Canal #2, but none with New Mercer Ditch Company. In Park South PUD the required easement was 60 feet. Planning & Zoning BMinutes January 28, 1985 Page 9 Mooney stated that in regard to Member Georg's earlier question concerning density, they are not asking for greater density. They feel the proposed density is warranted by diversity, access to bikeways, not having to cross the parking lot. They are looking for downplay of density. Member Georg stated the question was whether you can justify the densities. Mooney responded that the units take up less area, less parking. Chairman Dow asked about the detention area. Mooney stated the detention area holds water for a short period of time and disburses it at a controlled rate. Member Gilfillan asked where the pedestrian crosswalks are located. Where on West Plum is there an extension of the bike lanes? Mooney responded yes and pointed out pedestrian ways. Member Gilfillan asked what the square footage of surrounding lots are if the proposed lots are 5000 square feet. Mooney stated they were a little larger. Member Gilfillan stated they should internalize the pool and straighten out the New Mercer Ditch. Mooney stated the pool was located on Elizabeth Street, because staff felt it undesirable to have units next to Elizabeth. Member .Brown asked about the route to the play field. Mooney described various routes people can take. Member Brown asked about public access. Mooney responded it is not open to all. Member Brown asked about the distance from certain buildings. Mooney answered. Member Brown asked about traffic impacts. Mooney responded they submitted a traffic report and agree with staff comments. Member Brown asked about re -striping. John Merritt answered questions about traffic and re -striping. Member Ross asked if the study addressed problems on Plum. Merritt stated the parking should be removed from Plum, but no other suggestions were made. Member Georg made a motion to approve the rezoning with a PUD condition. Member Gilfillan seconded. The motion carried 5-0. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the Bull Farm Master Plan. Member Ross seconded. Member Brown stated she is voting for approval with the understanding it does not imply any density. The vote was 4-1 with Member Georg voting no because the way the Master Plan dumps traffic on Plum is inappropriate. Member Georg made a motion to deny the Bull Farm Phases 1, 2, & 3 - Prelimin- ary for the following reasons: 1. The site is too tight, i.e., building to building; building to street; 2. There is little variety in the buildings; Planning & Zoning Board nutes January 28, 1985 Page 10 3. There is not enough safety in parking lots given the distances to amenities and parking; 4. There is a need for better pedestrian pathways; and 5. The overall landscape site plan is missing. Member Gilfillan seconded stating he does not believe this is the best plan. Chairman Dow stated he agrees with the previous reasons and the reasons outlined in the.staff memo. The motion to deny carried 5-0. p30-84A THE VISTAS AT ORCHARD PLACE PUD - Preliminary Members Crews and Larsen returned to the Board for discussion of this item. Joe Frank gave a summary of the project. Dick Beardmore, representing the applicant, showed slides of the project and surrounding vicinity. He stated the applicant is in agreement with all conditions set be staff. Frank states the applicant has made several changes from the August hearing. They have done a good job addressing changes requested. The only condition staff is recommending is an increase in landscaping of 20-50% to be worked out with staff. Peggy Gordon, speaking for the West Area Neighborhood, stated the current plan is much more acceptable than what was originally submitted. The neighborhood feels they should be owner/occupied townhomes or condominiums. They are opposed to high density projects. Member Crews asked the minimum distance between one of the single family units and the multi -family units. Beardmore stated from building to building is 150-190 feet. Member Ross stated Sunray is going to condominiumize and should have a positive impact. Member Gilfillan moved to approve the project with the six conditions outlined by staff and the landscaping to be worked out with staff. Member Ross seconded. Chairman Dow added that a temporary fence along the school path should be provided. The motion carried 6-1 with Member Larsen voting no. The meeting adjourned at 11:21 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, January 31, 1985, at 6:30 p.m.