Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/25/1984PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 25, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman David Gilfillan at 6:34 p.m., July 25, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Tim Dow, Dennis Georg, David Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, and Alternate Randy Larsen. Absent members were Gary Ross and Ingrid Simpson. Staff members present included Cathy Chianese, Curt Smith, Gail Ault, Bonnie Tripoli, and Jan Shepard. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Curt Smith gave the Agenda Review noting there had been requests for continu- ances to August 27, 1984, for rezoning items 1, 2, and 3, Buckingham West 027-84), Park South (#166-79C), and Willox Heights (#64-75A). The applicant requested Item 4, The Vistas at Orchard Place (#30-84), also be continued to August 27, 1984. Member Crews moved Board officially table the rezonings to the August 27th meeting, Member Georg seconded. Motion carried unanimously. COURTNEY PARK (#31-84) Cathy Chianese gave staff report recommending approval. Frank Vaught, repre- senting JLB Construction, the applicant, gave brief history of previous plans. He stated initially 280 units were proposed with two Lemay curbcuts. This was revised to one Lemay curbcut. The third plan called for 264 units with 125 feet of open space buffer along Wheaton Drive. The fourth revision changed three buildings on the north end of the site plan to 1� stories with the remaining nine being the originally planned 2J stories for a total of twelve residential buildings and one recreation building. Two conceptual plans were also presented at a neighborhood meeting; Plan A reduced the height of six rather than three buildings on the north of the site, and Plan B scattered the six reduced -height buildings throughout the site. He stated the advantages of the latest revision included the discontinued parking loop, the Wheaton curbcut moved opposite Kingsbury, the buffer zone along Wheaton was integrated with the total site plan, three 112-story buildings along Wheaton help provide neighborhood compatibility, the buildings screen the parking lot, and the variety of building height and setbacks along Wheaton improve the streetscape. He concluded by saying the density was appropriate because of adherence to the Land Use Policies Plan and the LOGS. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the site elevations from Harmony and the rooftop levels adjacent to Harmony. Mr. Vaught indicated they were 212 story with an 80 foot setback. There were four different elevations because of the building types and placements. Chairman Gilfillan questioned their height and Mr. Vaught responded they were 32-38 feet from grade to peak of roof with no berming provided around the 2� story buildings. Page 2 . • 25 Jul 84 P&Z Member Georg asked about the treatment along Harmony. Mr. Vaught explained that berms around the perimeter could be incorporated if desired. It is a landscape easement with an irrigation ditch at the corner of Harmony and Lemay. The project has in excess of 60 percent open space. Member Larsen questioned the alternate plans. Mr. Vaught indicated they had been presented to some neighbors but neither was acceptable to them so they had not pursued them any further. Kristen Jensen, 1119 Monticello Court, representing neighborhood residents, requested tabling of the Courtney Park item until City Council hears the Golden Meadows Master Plan appeal. Density, neighborhood compatibility, and Lemay traffic remain the major problem areas. This would be the first of three apartment complexes to be built in the area and there will be substan- tial impact on the neighborhood that the size of streets and buffering can't mitigate. They recommend 14 du/acre and 196 units. The neighborhood is not opposed to the development, just the density; therefore, the compatibility issue was not yet resolved. These would be non -owner (versus owner) occupied residences. While they aren't asking for single-family residences they are asking the density be reduced and the inadequate transition between the site and the existing neighborhood be resolved. The unfinished Lemay affects street capacity and emergency access. The road is presently a hazard and issuance of building permits should be restricted until it is finished. Chairman Gilfillan indicated under due process the Board would hear the item even though they are aware the Golden Meadows Master Plan has been appealed. Tabling the item would be inappropriate until the item has been discussed in total. Frank Vaught indicated he had no response to the neighborhood comments. Member Georg asked about the timing of Lemay Avenue construction and City's feeling about restricting issuance of building permits. Planning Director, Curt Smith, indicated the City Council supported the borrowing of money for the construction of Lemay and that process would lead to having Lemay start next year. Restriction of building permits could be looked at when the final plan is submitted and after a traffic impact study had been done. It is clear Lemay is not an adequate or safe street but we do not have a specific recommendation or answer at this time. Member Georg stated a traffic study would be required at final and based on that information a recommendation would be made to the Board. Mr. Smith concurred. Member Dow moved to approve the Courtney Park PUD - Preliminary. The PUD was within our guidelines. This area was zoned, Master Planned, and set up for this type of development and is appropriate. If it's not appropriate here I question where it would be appropriate. We should evaluate the project as proposed and whether the neighborhood desire for a 68 unit reduction should be pursued should be evaluated at a later stage in relation to the site design. A less dense project could have less quality in terms of site design and while less dense not nearly as good as this project from the overall design standpoints. Member Larsen seconded provided the motion be amended to show the 1� story buildings be included in the development to reduce the mass, especially along Harmony Road as an entrance to the City. Member Crews indicated his agreement with Member Larsen. Crews felt the Alternate B plan with buildings of varying height mixed throughout the development the best plan. Member Dow felt there was no problem with the modification but felt the reduced mass should be adjacent to the residential areas. Perhaps it would be Page 3 , • 25 Jul 84 P&Z better dealt with by coming in at final with an alternate plan for location of buildings. He would also like to see additional elevation drawings and the landscaping, buffering, berming plan along Harmony at final. Member Larsen pointed out he would like to see six instead of three li story buildings on the plan. If it came back like it was he would not vote for it on the final. Mr. Vaught pointed out the six reduced buildings on the alternate plan and stated they had no problem with this plan and would be happy to bring it back at final. Chairman Gilfillan added he would like to see Lemay improved and that will be an issue at time of final review. Member Brown agreed the area was appropriate for higher density but she was looking at the impact and the issue of social compatibility, the project is intrusive into the existing neighborhood, and visual integrity of the neighborhood had not been mitigated according to the LDGS although this plan is far superior to past plans. She also felt strongly the issue of Lemay needed to be resolved first and would vote against the project. In response to Member Brown, Member Georg said it was a matter of height, density and bulk and the LDGS, on page 6, was very clear on these matters. Member Georg felt the plan was compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural design, scale, building height, identity, and historical character, disposition and orientation of buildings on the lot, visual integrity. This plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The developer has more than taken the initiative to orient the buildings, look at the bulk and scale, and look at the building height. This plan does meet the need. The real question was how the project would impact the streets they have or don't have, their ride to work. I have looked at many projects within the City and feel the appearance, impact on the neighborhood, scale and design of buildings, have all improved dramatically and I can support this project. Member Dow felt perhaps social compatibility had not been fully discussed; i.e, that the type of people that live in the project would not be compatible with the neighborhood. In terms of the overall project, something with a lower density might be a lot less socially compatible than this project. I don't think this is a basic criteria on which we should turn down a project. I do not agree with the comment that this was an exceptional case that could never be mitigated and, therefore, the were wrong. Member Brown pointed out the LDGS and she was willing to turn Included within that is to include the them to delineate neighborhood goals, been completed yet. assumptions of the Development system ocial compatibility was an appendix in a project down solely on that basis. neighborhood in development and allow values and objectives and that hasn't Motion to approve carried 5-1 with Member Brown voting no. Chairman Gilfillan brought up the amendment in reference to attendance at Board meetings and the option to be briefed prior to the meeting. Ken Frazier indicated action on an amendment requires ten days prior notice or reading at a prior meeting. Board agreed this discussion would constitute adequate notice. Board was given the opportunity to respond by August 10 with any additional changes. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the August meeting would be split. It was deter- mined not to be necessary. Member Georg moved to adjourn, Chairman Gilfillan seconded, and meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.