Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/22/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES January 22, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice -Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Rex Burns, and Alternate Joseph Carroll. Members absent included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, and Jan Shepard. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Sherry Albertson -Clark, and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the November' 20, 1999 and December 18, 1989 meetings; Item 2 - #58-89, Paperback Heaven PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3 - 060-89, Altair PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 4 - #53-85Z, Centre for Advanced Technology, Congregate Living PUD - Final; Item 5 - 054-99, Street Naming - Stone Street; Item 6 - #21-83D, Brittany Knolls PUD - One Year Extension of Final Approval; Item 7 - #53-89A, Shamrock Manor PUD - Final; Item 8 - #62-89, Silverplume Estates PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final; Item 9 - #50-89, Seneca PUD Master Plan; Item 10 - #50-89A, The Meadows PUD - Preliminary; Other Business - Resolution 90-1 of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins Regarding the Proposed Bill Concerning Land Development Charges. Vice -Chairman Klataske reviewed the conditions of approval for Item 2, Paperback Heaven PUD, Preliminary and Final, and Item 3, Altair PUD, Preliminary and Final, which was based on the Board's discussion at the January 19, 1990 worksession. These conditions were as follows: Paperback Heaven PUD: "Because of the residential character of the surrounding property, the operating hours of the bookstore shall not exceed 9:00 P.M. on any given day. Should the applicant desire to remain open for business past 9:00 P.M., then the PUD must be amended by formal action of the Planning and Zoning Board as an amendment to the PUD." Altair Resources PUD: "Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and because of the potential for future residential development in the area, the Altair Resources PUD shall expire should the business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. If, after a discoutinuation period of 12 consecutive months, any retail use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be re -reviewed and subject to the PUD process." Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if anyone from the Board, Staff or audience wished to have an item pulled from the Consent Agenda. There was no response. • Member Strom moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 5-0. SHAMROCK MANOR PUD - FINAL - N53-89A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that staff recommended approval. Ric Hattman, of Gefroh-Hattman, Inc. spoke. He represented Chris Huber, the developer of the project. He briefly discussed the exterior materials, landscaping, building elevations, building colors, fencing, occupancy of units, and site drainage. Norman Nash, attorney, represented Scotch Highlands Condominiums Association. He asked the Board to consider the covenants contained in the condominium declaration. The declaration allowed only one use of units built on the property subject to the declaration, of which use would be only for residential purposes. The association felt that a board and care facility would not be allowed by the declaration. He stated that there were leasing restrictions in the declaration and leases could not be any shorter than 30 days. He added that there were building restrictions where buildings built on the property must be substantially similar in design and material and architecture to the buildings that now exist in that area. He stated that the association was opposed to the Shamrock Manor project. Paul Eckman stated that covenants would not bind the Board. It has been the city's position that the Board was not a body established to enforce protective covenants, declarations, etc. He recommended that the Board not use the declarations for their deliberations. Member Walker asked if the covenants were still active with regard to this proposed property. Mr. Nash replied that they were still in force. He reiterated that the association was asking the Board to consider what they felt was appropriate for their neighborhood, not to enforce the covenants. Member Walker asked if the proposed buyer was aware of the covenants. Mr. Nash replied that they had communicated with the buyer and they were aware of the covenants. Mr. Eckman asked Mr. Nash if an injunction against this development had been commenced based upon those covenants. Mr. Nash replied that nothing had been commenced. He believed that if the project was approved, there would probably be a court action commenced. Chris Huber, owner of the proposed site, stated that this issue was strictly between the bank who was the seller. She stated that because of the fact that the project was never completed, there could not be a carry-over to this property because they had defaulted without completing a planned project. The Bank of Greeley and the association would have to resolve the issue, not herself as the buyer. Member Walker asked Ms. Albertson -Clark to characterize the bordering land uses and structures immediately around the site in question. -2- • • Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that to the north was the Whispering Pines Apartments, to • the south attached units, to the east were the townhouse units in the Pinewood PUD, and to the west were apartments. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if the property had gone into foreclosure and if so, would the covenants go with the purchase of the property. Mr. Eckman stated that he could not answer this question without a review of the foreclosure documents. Member Carroll moved to approve Shamrock Manor PUD Final. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that he was hesitant to involved the Board in the legalities of the covenants. Member Walker commented that, given the mixed nature of the land use around this site, this was being proposed by a land use standard. It worked well for this site. The covenant issues were private matters between the parties. Member Strom concurred with Members Carroll and Walker and felt that the use was appropriate for the site. Vice -Chairman Klataske commented that the developer has made the buildings compatible with the surrounding areas and that there wasn't a significant difference. The motion to approve passed 5-0. . SILVERPLUME ESTATES PUD, 2ND FILING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #62-89 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that staff recommended approval of the request. Ric Hattman of Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., briefly discussed the phases of the project, density, landscaping, lot sizes, and fencing. Member Walker asked if the final build -out would occupy the B-P zone. Mr. Hattman replied that a portion of the property would be B-P and a portion would be R-P. Member Walker asked what was the city's justification to eliminate the B-P from the master plan. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that B-P zoning goes back to the city's previous PUD ordinance called a "commercial allocation" There were no commercial uses proposed on the Silverplume PUD Master Plan. Staff was asked the applicant to initiate a rezoning as part of the 3rd Filing. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if a traffic light would be installed at the intersection of Dunbar and Drake. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the city has received a federal grant that would provide traffic lights throughout the city. The Dunbar/Drake intersection was a top priority for a signal installation. -3- Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if the storm drainage issue had been resolved. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there were still a couple minor issues that have yet to be resolved but staff felt comfortable with the preliminary and final. Staff has made it clear to the applicant that no building permits would be issued on the property until such time as final utility plans were signed. Member Strom moved to approve Silverplume Estates PUD, Preliminary and Final with the condition that the storm drainage Issues be resolved as indicated by staff. Member Walker seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 5-0. SENECA PUD MASTER PLAN - #50-89 THE MEADOWS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 050-89A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that staff recommended approval of the proposal. Dick Rutherford, of Stewart & Associates, represented the developers, Dr. Roger Northen and Russ Wells. He stated that the master plan included a detention pond, a church site and other residential areas. He stated that there might be access problems as this section develops, especially when the junior high school opens in the fall. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if the church site would be developed with city sewer or with septic systems. Mr. Rutherford stated that the entire development would have to wait until the sewer was installed. The key was to get the sanitary sewer to this section from Shields Street south of the quarter corner. The street can be developed once the sewer was installed. Member Burns asked if the sewer would come from the east. Mr. Rutherford stated that it would come from the east. He stated that there was sewer that serves the property on the north side of Horsetooth Road that flows north, but due to grade, cannot serve south of Horsetooth Road. Member Strom asked who was responsible for the main sewer line that would come to this development. Mr. Rutherford stated that each property would take it from their low side and build a sewer to their high side, which was Arapahoe Mountain Ridge PUD. If the master plan were developed the land from Shields Street west to Seneca, these developers would carry it on to the northeast and then the two lots in the first phase would have to hook on to the sewer. Each developer was responsible for building that portion that is in their property. Member Strom asked since Seneca could not be built until the sewer line was installed, what happens if the sewer line has not been brought from Shields to Seneca before the street needed to be installed. -4- Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the sewer line would be extended west to Shields. . The conditions placed on the next item stipulate that only two septic systems would be permitted. No other development could occur on this site beyond the initial two septic systems. Any requests to build additional development would trigger extension of the public sewer line. If the requested development does not occur and other development in the area occurs that would trigger the need to have Seneca Street constructed, the sewer line would have to be connected over to Seneca, a water line would be constructed in Seneca, and these would have to occur before the street was installed. Member Walker asked what the timeframe was for installing Seneca Street through this project. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that it would be either the initiation of further development of the site, which would trigger the need for sewer and the need for Seneca Street, or the need to extend the street, as an example, to access the Westfield Park site as that develops. There could also be the need to extend Seneca and connect it to the existing portion of Seneca to Johnson Elementary, depending on how traffic patterns develop. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked how, if there was a temporary access until Seneca was built, would someone get to the site without crossing the detention pond area. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the access easement would be provided through what was proposed as a storm water detention pond. The development of the pond would not take place until we see future development of the site. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a description of The Meadows PUD Preliminary. She stated that staff was recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) Prior to final approval of phase plans, a development agreement specifying all conditions relating to the timing and construction of Seneca Street and Clear Meadow Court be signed by the applicants; 2) Automatic fire extinguishing systems be provided for homes that are located more than 660 feet from a single point of access, and; 3) a maximum of two septic systems be allowed on the site, and that prior to the construction of any additional dwelling units, public sewer be extended to serve all dwelling units on the site. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked that if the 12 lots are approved, what would the developer provide for amenities since the lots are larger than what the city would normally accept. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that if a project, such as a phase plan combined with other phases on a master plan, met the minimum 3 units per acre, then the city would support the density variance. Where there are larger lot sizes, staff would require one street tree per lot. However, on this project, the applicant chose to have 2 street trees per lot, as a minimum. Member Strom asked if Condition 3 on The Meadows PUD included additional development on the property to the west of Seneca. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this condition was a condition that the Water and Wastewater Department passed on to staff. With this preliminary plan alone, the water utility would permit 2 septic systems to be utilized. When the sewer line is • extended, both the existing two dwelling units as well as anything that develops on -5- the phase plan would have to then make certain that provision of public sewer to the site was met. At that time, public sewer would provide service to the rest of the master plan. Once sewer was available, the existing two units would have to convert. Member Burns asked if the property was eligible for a building permit, as it exists today. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that it would not be eligible for a permit because it was unplatted. Guy Haggard, 3636 Crescent Drive, stated that he had concerns about the entire 30 acre project, the size of the detention pond, and the density per acre of the residential area. He felt that adjustments should be made regarding the property line. Member Carroll asked if, by approving the master plan, does the Board approved 40 residential lots on that property. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated no. On the master plan there was a note that states "the proposed land uses and density shown on this plan are estimates of development potential. Approval of this master plan by the city does not constitute final approval of these land uses, designs, or densities, rather, any future land uses must be approved according to the procedures, processing and criteria of the Planned Unit Development regulations and other relevant city policies and standards." Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if the city owned the detention pond. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the city did not own the area. Member Walker moved to approve Seneca PUD Master Plan. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Strom felt that Condition 03 of The Meadows should be placed on the master plan. Member Walker amended the motion by adding the following condition: A maximum of two septic systems be allowed on the master plan site and that prior to the construction of any additional dwelling units, public sewer be extended to serve all dwelling units or other structures on the site. Member Carroll seconded the amendment. Motion to approve passed 5-0. Member Carroll asked if the temporary access road would be just a construction dirt road and could there be a situation where the detention pond would be required to be placed before Seneca to where there would not be access for Seneca. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that there had been discussions with the Stormwater Utility regarding the placement of a temporary access easement and road through the detention area. The response was that it would be acceptable on an interim basis and that the detention pond would not be constructed until such a time as development of larger areas of the development, which would trigger Seneca. The construction of the road would be of road base. -6- . Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if there needed to be an agreement stating that this was a temporary easement. Mr. Eckman stated that he believed the easement would be by agreement of some of the parties so there would be no adverse situation. Mike Herzig, City Development Coordinator, replied that during the final, there would be complex agreement that would address the temporary nature of that access and that this access would have to be removed when Seneca is put in. Member Burns asked if the access easement could expire at the time that there is an alternative right-of-way into the property that is Seneca Street. Mr. Herzig stated that the city would be requiring this so that it would not stay. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked if there would be sufficient land area and that the soil conditions would support a septic system on these lot sizes. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that in terms of soil conditions, she was not aware of any work done. In terms of knowing if there was adequate area, the health department would require a minimum of 100,000 square feet per each lot to be set aside so that the density would be retained fairly low during the interim. The review that the city would have in any development occurring on the 100,000 square foot areas would be triggered by the fact that the initial final plat would only have platting approval for two lots. Any subsequent building permits for the remainder of the Phase 1 area would have to be reviewed as individual final PUD site plans . and final plats. Mr. Rutherford added that the 100,000 square feet also precludes that there can only be two septic systems in the preliminary PUD because there is only a total of approximately 5 acres. Vice -Chairman Klataske asked what would happen if one of these septic systems failed. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that a replacement would be allowed. The city has a requirement that if the septic system fails and public sewer is within a determined amount of distance from that site, then that property would be required to hook on. In this case, however, public sewer exceeds the distance required, so the property owner would be allowed to reconstruct or replace the septic systems. Member Carroll moved to approve The Meadows PUD Preliminary with the three conditions attached by staff with the exception that the third condition word "site" be stricken and the word "Seneca PUD" inserted in its place. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS . Resolution 90-1 of the Planning and Zonina Board Regarding the Proposed Bill Concerning Land Development Charges -7- Tom Peterson stated that there has been legislation introduced affecting land development charges. The legislative committee of Council has asked the Water Board and the Planning and Zoning Board to make a recommendation. Mr. Peterson stated that the intent of the bill was to place stipulations and restrictions on the home rule power of municipalities in Colorado. The Colorado Municipal League was in considerable opposition to this bill, as were a number of homeowners' associations. An example of an impact would be that the city would no longer be allowed to charge parkland fees. This bill has been through eight drafts since November 1989 but in its present form, in our purview, was still unacceptable. Therefore, staff recommended to the Planning and Zoning Board to urge City Council oppose the bill. Member Walker commented that he was in agreement with the resolution presented to the Board but suggested that the intent of the bill was an infringement on the ability of municipalities to conduct business in a way that they feel was in the best interest of our city. Those decisions are better made by us rather than by some sort of mandate coming down from the state telling us how we are to run things. He added that he was in support of the resolution to oppose the bill. Member Strom commented that the bill was extremely broad and that there were not very well defined provisions in the bill. He felt that it was more dangerous to the city by what it doesn't say than what it does say. He did feel that the requirement for a capital facilities plan was positive. He added that he was in support of the resolution to oppose the bill. Vice -Chairman Klataske commented that there were a lot of loopholes in the bill. He added that he was in support of the resolution to oppose the bill. Motion to approve the resolution passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. -8- • • 11 I.C.BLUE SPRUir CE ;::.`• Lr..:I!ELM STREET DAY CARE' -41 ......... ....... :. COLUN ..... ............ ........... ............ 9NNEXATION GIANT VIDEO' SILVERPLUME ESTATES, 3n J a g........ ................:::::...:.:.::::ffi;:...... ......... ............... of 14 l� y N4 O ORy Limits' 7.1.89 POUDRE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK