HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/26/1989PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1989
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
approximately 6:40 p.m. in the Mini -Theatre of the Lincoln Center, 417 West
Magnolia, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairwoman
Laurie O'Dell, Jim Klataske, Jan Shepard and Rex Burns. Board members absent
included Frank Groznik, and Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Tom
Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Joe Frank, Mike Herzig, Rick Richter, Deputy
City Attorney Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard.
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda.
The Consent Agenda included: Item #1, Stromberger Zoning, #16-89A; Item #2,
Stromberger Master Plan, #16-89.
Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were any items to be pulled from the Consent
Agenda. There was no response from the Board, staff or audience.
Member Klataske moved to approve Items 1 and 2. Member Burns seconded the
motion. Motion to approve passed 4-0.
WEBERG PUD - PRELIMINARY - #76-88E
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed property. She stated
that staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: ()That the
applicant provide mitigation for the loss of existing trees on the final plans; 2)
That a unified signage design be provided with the final plans; 3) That final
building elevations provide greater visual interest and relief for the north, south
and east elevations of the Weberg facility, through the use of greater variety in
building materials, building openings, color and/or texture and that a consistent
architectural theme for the entire site be established, and; 4) That prior to final
review, the applicant secure approval from the owners of the adjacent ponds to
permit stormwater flows into the ponds.
Frank Vaught represented Weberg Enterprises. He introduced John Berguson and
Stan Meyers of R BD Engineering, Bob Stafford of Murray -Stafford, the general
contractor for Weberg Enterprises and Mr. and Mrs. John Weberg, owners of
Weberg Enterprises.
Mr. John Weberg spoke briefly of the history of Weberg Furniture, the size and
exterior of the building, and the landscaping around the proposed building.
Mr. Vaught discussed the overall access of the proposed site, the extension of
Fairway Lane and Fossil Creek Boulevard, the site plan as an overall 9.1 acres
with 4.1 acres dedicated for streets, the slope and grade of the site, the
right-of-way, existing trees, flowline, parking and loading areas, setbacks,
detention area, maximum building height in comparison to Wal-Mart, open space,
increase in landscaping, reduction of building height, redesign of the entry
feature, signage, elevations, and the architecture. He presented slides showing
existing exposed aggregate buildings throughout the City such as H-P, Innovative
Company, Fountainhead, Drake Terrace, Diamond Lumber and the old Osborne
Hardware building. He asked the Board to give consideration to only the Weberg
site since pad users have not been identified.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that it would be pertinent to clarify at this point, to
tie down the square footage of the pad. Staff had no objections to splitting off
the Weberg pad from the remainder of the site.
Paul Heffron, partner of the property to the north and south of the proposed
project, stated that he generally supported the project but had concerns regarding
the strip of land located northwest of the site. He stated that he would like to
see a greater interest in making the area more aesthetically pleasing in
landscaping.
Kevin Mill, of Mill Brothers Landscaping, asked if there would be a signal
installed at Fairway Lane and if the speed limit would be reduced because of
the signalization.
Mike Herzig, City Development Coordinator, replied that the South College Access
Plan was in the process of being developed and that a signal would be installed
when warranted, however, this project does not warrant a signal. He added that
the speed zone would be reduced to 45 MPH if a signal was installed. He added
that the speed zone would be handled by the state if a signal was installed.
Mr. Mill commented that this area could have natural amenities. He commented
about concerns with the additions to the landscaping, water quality from the
runoff, security, and the effect of this security on their nursery.
Mr. Vaught responded with a brief discussion on natural grade and berming,
access off of College Avenue, recirculation on Fairway Lane, fencing, and
security.
Member Kiataske asked for clarification of the runoff from this site and the
volume of runoff.
Stan Meyers, RBD Engineering, stated that a 100 year historic storm would limit
the runoff. He presented slide charts of water quality inlet, water quality
berming, and water quality filtration methods.
Member Klataskc asked how often the filters would be cleaned and how they
would be disposed of.
Mr. Meyers replied that they would be replaced every two years, or as needed,
and would be disposed of at the landfill.
Del Nimmo, resident of Fossil Creek Meadows, asked if there had been any
consideration whether this project would fall under the guidance of a
nation-wide permit during construction.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there have not been any comments received from
any of our reviewing agencies to that affect.
Mr. Nimmo commented that the filtration system should be reviewed and possibly
redesigned at a minimum cost.
Craig Mulford, Fossil Creek Meadows resident, supported the staff conditions but
had concerns about the accessway.
-2-
0
Rod VanVelson, Fossil Creek Meadows resident and President of Fossil Creek
Homeowners Association, commented that there were too many pads for the site,
that the building design lacked imagination, and the drainage impact on Fossil
Creek area would be great. He requested a detailed comprehensive drainage
review. He felt that the number of buildings should be reduced, the design of
the building should be improved, and the drainage of the site should be
evaluated.
Lynn Block, Fossil Creek Meadows resident, commented that volume was being
added to Fossil Creek and invited the Board to walk Fossil Creek with her to see
the damage that had occurred. She commented that Fossil Creek was being
surrounded by commercial development.
Rick Richter, City Civil Engineer, stated that at the time of final, a preliminary
design for Fossil Boulevard would be required.
Rene Clements Cooney, 4454 Hollyhock, stated she had concerns with the building
elevations and the landscaping.
Gwen Bell, Fossil Creek Meadows resident, stated that she agreed with most of
the comments, especially Mr. Heffron and Mr. Mill. She added that she had
concerns about traffic, low berming along College Avenue, lack of landscaping,
parking, and recirculation.
Mr. Vaught stated that the traffic impact study indicated that this site would
generate a total of 2400 trips per day, of which Weberg would represent 305 of
those trips. He added that a recirculation road was incorporated into this plan.
Member Shepard asked that if the Weberg site was considered alone as a
preliminary, how would the Board evaluate the joint parking.
Mr. Vaught replied that joint parking points were taken because of potential
access to adjoining sites to the north and south. He added that the Board would
evaluate it as if it were a master plan.
Chairwoman O'Dell stated that she had concerns that approving this site would
limit the improvement of Fossil Boulevard. She felt that there was a need to
define the location of Fossil Boulevard first.
At this point, the Board took a brief recess.
Paul Eckman stated that procedurally, it would be incorrect to consider the
separation of Weberg's from the overall project. This would leave the Board with
two options: to vote on the preliminary plan as submitted or to table this matter
to the May meeting on the condition that at that time, the master plan is
submitted.
Member Shepard moved to table the Weberg PUD Preliminary until the May 22
meeting. Member Burns seconded the motion.
Member
Shepard stated that she concurred with
the four staff conditions and
would also
like to see specific
design guidelines
for the remaining pads on the
site. She
commented that this was a very intensive
use for such a small site. She
felt that
Fairway Lane should
go straight west
connecting to Fossil Boulevard.
She also
had concerns with the
limited buffering
on the north side of the site.
-3-
Member Burns commented that he concurred with the four staff conditions. He
had concerns with the drainage issue and requested clarification. He felt that the
drainage should be designed to remove some of the chemical constituents from
the runoff. He had concerns regarding the landscaping along College Avenue
frontage and requested an evaluation of the alignment of Fossil Boulevard.
Member Klataske commented that staff recommendations were appropriate. He
felt that there was too much coverage and not enough landscaping. He also had
concerns with the alignment of Fossil Boulevard.
Chairwoman O'Dell stated that she agreed with the previous comments of the
Board and wanted a more defined alignment of Fossil Boulevard. She felt they
may need to decrease the number of pads and/or the square footage of the pads.
Motion to table this Item was passed 4-0.
At this time, Member Kern joined the Board
WOODLANDS 5TH FILING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - #60-7
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project.
John Guiliano, Guiliano and Father Construction, briefly discussed the proposed
single family site, detention ponds in the area, Harmony Road improvements
along the proposed site, landscaping along Harmony Road and the clean-up of
Mail Creek Ditch. He added that fencing along Harmony would be one uniform
fence and would be set back away from Harmony because of the detention area.
Rene Clements Cooney, 4454 Hollyhock, asked if there was a neighborhood
meeting on this proposed project and, if Harmony is improved to six lanes in the
future, how will that affect this property. She asked if the type of housing
proposed would be comparable to the existing housing in the area.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there was a neighborhood meeting held in
September 1988, at which time this project was part of the Woodlands 4th Filing
project. This portion of the project was later split out. When this project was
submitted, staff chose not to have an additional neighborhood meeting because
this was a proposal for single family lots and compatible with existing single
family lots.
Rick Richter stated that the right-of-way as dedicated for this project was
sufficient for a six lane road. The curb lines would be constructed to allow for
the six lane design.
Mr. Guiliano stated that the actual prices of the homes have not been determined
however, they are compatible in construction, appearance, and quality.
Chairwoman O'Dell stated that this was not a PUD so the LOGS would not apply
and that there has been a request that there be a lot depth variance.
1E.2
0
Member Klataske moved to approve Woodlands 5th Filing, Preliminary Subdivision
with the recommendation that this be in compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations and that the lot depth variance be approved. He added the condition
that ai uniform fence be placed along the back of the lots backing up to
Harmo4y Road. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Member Kern added the
condition that a 4 foot fence be placed along the detention pond If It Is not in
conflict with the FHA.
Motion,'to approve passed 4-0.
Joe Frank gave a description of the proposed site plan.
George, Galida, Poudre R-1 Construction Manager, briefly discussed the design of
the building, the student capacity, square footage, parking, masonry construction,
and height of the building.
Mr. Frank gave the staff report recommending that the Planning and Zoning
Board ,convey to the School District disapproval of the site development plan
because of the lack of street improvements and sidewalks to the school site. He
added that staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board request a
hearing with the members of the Board of Education to express a concern
regarding missing street improvements. The action of disapproval would require
an overruling of the School Board by a vote of not less than 2/3 of their
members.
Member Kern asked what discussion have taken place between the City and the
School District and what has been proposed.
Mr. Frank replied that the City approached the School District and the property
owners to the east of the proposed site to discuss street improvements as part of
the City Capital Improvement project at the Taft Hill/Horsctooth intersection. He
added that some issues have arisen with the School District regarding oversizing
and whether the City would recapture the cost for the School District if they
install. off -site streets. He added that the settlement was that the City could
recapture the local portion of the improvements as adjacent property develops.
The City agreed to recapture costs to the extent that the City Code would allow.
The City was unwilling to pay oversizing as long as the School District was
unwilling to pay oversizing fees.
Mr. Frank stated that under State statutes, the City had a limited ability to
require the School District to improve streets.
Member Shepard asked if the City's position was that Horsetooth Road had to be
improved four lanes from the intersection of Taft Hill west to the school site.
Mr. Herzig stated that it was planned to be four lanes westbound to Overland
Trail. He stated that the City's project would build four lanes plus left turn lane
then toper into what is existing. The School District is only obligated to build a
36 foot street. He stated that the School District was only being asked to build a
36 foot local street with a base arterial standard.
-5-
Member Shepard asked if the School District was ineligible for any oversizing
repayments because they did not pay any development fees.
Mr. Herzig replied that what they are not eligible for repayment for oversizing
since they were unwilling to pay into the fund. They are eligible for repayment
for the local street portions that a developer is obligated to construct.
Mr. Galicia stated that the project that the Board had authorized the School
District to receive bids on did not include any street construction including the
local street that would be in front of the school site.
Member Burns asked if there would be sidewalks constructed in front of the
school.
Mr. Galida replied that the plan they presently have only included construction
on the property. The sidewalk in front of the school on the east property line
would be included in the project that is being bid now but the construction
would end at the sidewalk. He added that there is no street construction planned
in this project.
Chairwoman O'Dell asked where the construction vehicles would drive with only
a field existing.
Mr. Galida stated that the construction vehicles would be driving across the
existing field.
Member Klataske asked what would happen with overflow parking when
extra -curricular activities would be going on at the school.
Mr. Galida replied that the parking lot that would be constructed would not be
large enough for that kind of circumstance.
Chairwoman O'Dell asked if parking would be allowed on the street south of the
site.
Mr. Frank replied that there would be on -street parking.
Roger Popp, adjacent resident, had concerns with how this property fits in with
a master plan and how this collector street connected to the north.
Mr. Frank responded that there was a master plan of about 40 acres, bounded on
the south by Horsetooth and Taft Hill on the east, that was approved
approximately one year ago called the Harmony West Master Plan. This plan was
mixed use and showed the collector street extending north.
Mr. Popp asked if any of the streets in the mixed use area connected with the
adjacent properties outside of the master plan.
Mr. Frank replied that the plan did include street extensions to the north.
Member Klataske asked if the collector street would eventually connect with
Moffett Street to the north.
Mr. Frank stated that it was not planned to align with Moffett Drive.
Sm
Member Kern moved to disapprove the site development plan for Elementary
School 1990 citing the traffic issues identified by staff and requested a hearing
with the School District. Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Member Kern commented that it was discouraging to see this response so soon
after the School Board agreed to try and foster communication and participation
between the district and the city.
Member Shepard commented that the School District should not bid this project
without plans for construction of a collector street and that it was irresponsible
of the School District to drive construction vehicles across the existing field.
Chairwoman O'Dell commented that she concurred with Member Kern and that
she wished the School District would consider the safety of the children that
would attend this school.
Motion to disapprove the site development plan passed 5-0.
With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m
-7-