Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/27/198911 • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 27, 1999 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at approximately 6:34 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Frank Groznik, Lloyd Walker, Jan Shepard and Alternate Rex Burns. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Mike Herzig, Eric Bracke, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 27, 1989 and March 6, 1989 meetings; Item 2 - West Elizabeth Properties PUD, Final -#51-88A; Item 3 - OakRidge Village PUD, 8(h Filing, Preliminary-#13-82AP; Item 4 - Southridge Greens PUD, Fairway Seven, Final - #9-82Y; and Item 6 -Resolution PZ89-1, Vacation of a Utility Easement - #5-84CV. Item 5 -Warren Farms 3rd Filing, Final Subdivision - #53-84G, was continued until the April 24, 1989, meeting; Item 7 - Milne Annexation and Zoning-#I1-89, A; Item 8 -Harmony Number Six Annexation and Zoning - #12-89, A; Item 9 - Fort Col- lins Substation Annexation and Zoning - #15-89, A; Item 10 -McClanahan First Annexation and Zoning - #76-88, C & D; and Item 11 -Amendment to the City Zoning Code-#18-89. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were other items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. There were none. Member Kern moved for approval of Items 1 - 11 except the continued Item 5 which was continued one month. Member Groznik seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-0. #94-88A - FOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD - Final (Formerly The Carnet Exchanee PUD) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. Ken Goff of Hunter Architectural Group, represented Mr. Odette, the owner. He described the project and noted he had met two times with the Board and four times with the neighborhood in an attempt to resolve issues and concerns. The December 19 Board meeting approved the preliminary with two conditions; 1) that there would be a second neighborhood meeting; and 2) that storm drainage problems be resolved. The Board had also expressed concern on building height although did not condition the issue. All three concerns had been addressed with additional neighborhood meetings. The building was lowered in height; and, while the storm drainage concept is not significantly different, the revised project added a diversion structure to help alleviate any erosion problems. Snead Drive would not be completed with this project; however, the developer will provide funds for building the extension of Snead Drive when it does occur. The temporary right-in/right-out to College Avenue would be eliminated when Snead Drive was completed. P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989 Page 2 He stated all the neighborhood concerns have not been solved but they attempted to resolve those they could following the guidelines outlined in the drainage study and the South College Access Plan. Ms. Clark gave the staff recommendation of approval. She noted staff believed the project was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. The energy dissipater and separator proposed for stormwater control were not required but offered by the developer. Board Member Walker asked questions in regard to the dissipater and separator and whether they would be defined in the development agreement. Member Groznik and Chairwoman O'Dell questioned the timing of Snead Drive and how it would be developed. Ms. Clark responded the ROW was owned by the City. She believed there was more than one owner involved on the property to the south. Development of Snead Drive would occur with development of the adjacent property to the south. Michael Griffith, an attorney for the Fossil Creek Homeowners' Association, acknowledged that part of the process had worked successfully and they were grateful for the architect's willingness to listen and make changes. The second step in the process was goal -directed development and the association felt the plan had deficiencies which called for denial. He went on to state both the point chart and the activity chart must be addressed. There were potential traffic safety problems with this project and there was a commitment to Phase 2. He felt it was important to know how access off a non -arterial street was to be handled and the right-in/right-out access off College needed to be defined and limited. There was no other reasonable access to the street system and it would cause undue problems not to allow a College Avenue access. This would mean answering Point Chart C, Criteria 1, regarding access from a major arterial different from staff's interpretation and the project would not gain a sufficient percentage for approval. Mr. Rod VanVelson, 316 Parkway Circle North, President of the Fossil Creek Homeowners' Association, noted that after four neighborhood meetings there was a turnout for the project because of concerns. He stated the 25 foot transition zone between commercial and residential was a concern as was the redesign of the subdivision entrance to a four -lane arterial to accommodate larger commercial development. He questioned how temporary the temporary entrance would be. Dr. Mike Harvey, 5323 Fossil Ridge Drive, stated that, in his opinion, the architect had exceeded City standards but noted City standards were not acceptable to address drainage concerns. He discussed flooding of Fossil Creek, the runoff problem, detention storage, and water quality. The new EPA soon -to -be -law standards were more stringent than City requirements and should be enforced. Rather than deal with site specific problems there was a need to look at basin -wide problems. He had two major concerns: pollution and the second increased to total run-off, which the applicant tried to address through the energy dissipater. P & Z Meeting arch 27, 1989 • Page 3 Del Nimmo, 5220 Greenview Drive, a 10 year resident of Fossil Creek, was anxious to see the area enhanced and felt the neighborhood was concerned with its amenities. The project was on a slope and created concerns with urban runoff. lie noted the detention structure was a positive approach but other ideas in regard to wetlands and the detention system had not been addressed. Lynne Block, 5328 Fossil Ridge Drive, a 10 year resident, stated her concerns were traffic/safety/access issues. She was opposed to the realignment of Fossil Creek Parkway and felt it would shift commercial traffic burdens to a residen- tial area. There were many flaws in the project and it was not conducive or compatible with neighborhood policies. She pointed out there was a commercial area to the north of their subdivision with businesses and a frontage road for circulation. She stated the homeowners looked at more than just one site. They were concerned about what future development might bring. Debra Moyer, 5201 Greenview Drive, was concerned with the location of the temporary access for Snead Drive and the many changes that have occurred in the plan. The median was being eliminated as well as the trees (in the median) and the appealing entranceway. Dave Haase, 5430 Fossil Creek Drive, residential property owner to the west, indicated he was the lone voice with no objection. Overall he felt it was an attractive project. Paul Heffron, the general partner of the property to the south, indicated he was available to answer any questions. He noted there was a contractual obligation to build Snead Drive and it would provide an attractive entrance. He stated he would provide some funds for landscaping to be used as buffer- ing and supported the neighborhood effort to see this develop as a quality area. tie felt this building would enhance the area. Mike Clinger, a neighborhood resident, asked if the stakes on the project site showed utility easements and indicated some stakes were very close to his property line. Mr. Clinger wondered if a four foot berm could be placed in the buffering area to keep the runoff out of the residential area. Dick Rutherford, engineer, indicated the stakes in question were the property line stakes. Member Shepard pointed out that if they were given points for the proposed energy considerations lose points for College as a primary access, it would not effect the point chart percentage. Member Groznik pointed out land use question was evaluated at preliminary. The final review was to look for substantial conformance. Member Burns asked if there were entrance alterna- tives that would enable the median to be retained. Member Klataske concurred with Member Burns. Member Groznik moved to approve Fossil Creek Design Center PUD - Final. Member Kern seconded the motion and amended the motion to include the statement that the developer add necessary asphalt to the south section of the present entrance on Fossil Creek Parkway, adequate to maintain the median in 0 that parkway. The motion was approved 6-0. P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989 Page 4 Chairwoman O'Dell indicated with the resignation of Dave Edwards a motion for a new Vice Chairperson was needed. Member Klataske moved to approve Sanford Kern for Vice Chairperson. Member Shepard seconded. Motion was approved 6-0. ITEM 13 - #60-79F WOODLANDS. 4th Filing PUD - Preliminary Member Frank Groznik indicated that, although the attorney's office had advised him that there was no conflict of interest, because of neighborhood perceptions, he was withdrawing from the item. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed property. Mr. Scott Carlson, 11990 Grant, #200, Denver, 80233, property owner, indicated although the plan had been redone it was very similar to the initial proposal. He also questioned the reasonable expectation of use of this area and offered Collindale, the Landings, Toddys, Drake Crossing as examples of similar projects. He noted Ben Herman, EDAW, Dave Stewart, Environmental Consul- tant, Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, and Bill Blackwell, Civil Engineer for the project were available to answer questions. Dave Stewart indicated there were three areas of concern: air quality, ground water pollution, and noise pollution. The poor air quality showing was due to the fact the monitoring was done only on College Avenue. Effective December 2, new regulations on underground storage were in effect and this project would meet those standards. Noise increases would be buffered by buildings and no problems were anticipated. Mr. Herman felt the project addressed all planning aspects. The project included orientation of buildings to Harmony Road with three primary accesses; 1) Wakerobin (anticipated to receive 27% of the traffic), 2) Starflower (48%), and 3) Harmony Road (25% due to limited access). He explained buffering, building architecture, lighting, and other site considerations. Scott Carlson noted he disagreed with staff on the condition which limited the hours of operation and asked the Board to reconsider that issue. If hours must be limited he asked the store be open from 5:30 am to 12:30 p.m.. Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the plan and explained the neighborhood concerns. Bill Blackwell explained the detention pond. Member Walker requested information regarding convenience center guidelines relating to this project. Chairwoman O'Dell wondered what size ranges were delineated in the guidelines. Ms. Clark responded with examples. Joan Seeman, 613 Larkbunting Drive, President of the Woodlands Neighborhood Association, reiterated the environmental concerns. Other neighborhood concerns dealt with neighborhood compatibility, traffic, and density of the project. P & Z Meeting •March 27, 1989 • Page 5 • Cliff Seigneur, 1001 Bitterbrush, presented the neighborhood response to EDAW's letter. He indicated disappointment that the City passed the letter and concerns to the landowner. A concern was that EDAW presented no research, no data, on environmental impacts such as air quality, emissions of benzine, carbon monoxide, possible water quality changes, effects to their health in general. Rene Clements Cooney, 4454 Hollyhock, a member of the Woodlands Neighbor- hood Association, felt the project was inconsistent and incompatible with the neighborhood. Her concerns were with traffic and safety and she felt the neighborhood would be the loser. Jeff Deeney, 4472 Hollyhock, felt there was no significant change from the last proposal. The project would set a precedent and he requested a vote against the project because of neighborhood incompatibility. Linda Murphy, 967 Bitterbrush, talked about social concerns. She felt the area was adequately serviced by shopping areas and was concerned with the influen- ces this type project would bring to the neighborhood. The increased traffic presented a concern regarding the safety of the numerous young children in the area. Also drainage problems had not been sufficiently addressed, in her opinion. Rex Aden, 4473 Hollyhock, felt the buffering was a great concern. He also questioned the phasing and timing and asked why it was critical to have a gas • station in the interior of the site, rather than at the southeast corner of Harm ony/Shields. John Guiliano spoke in favor of the project and indicated his firm looked carefully at the proposal before buying the residential portion to the east. They felt this facility was better than the potential for a 120 unit rental apartment complex. Lloyd Clark, 4418 RoseCrown Court, indicated his home was one-half block from the project and he was in favor of the project. He preferred it to the apartments. lie noted those people here tonight represented only one segment of the neighborhood. Larry Rudeen, 4413 Starflower, felt the impact on Starflower was much greater from the convenience store versus apartments. He circulated a petition earlier and found only 2 out of 38 people who refused to sign. Roger Erickson, 4437 RoseCrown Court, was concerned with the filling station. As a former Poudre Fire Authority employee he had dealt with hazardous spills and was exercising his rights by indicating he did not want to see this project in his neighborhood. Wylie Smith, 4430 Hollyhock, was concerned with carbon monoxide. He sug- gested the building of a park with a community pool. C� P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989 Page 6 Member Walker felt this was essentially the same project. It was a difficult site and integrating it in the neighborhood required careful design and buffering. He would like to see the relatively large buildings smaller as in the Spring Creek Professional Park project. Unless there were radical changes to the project he could not see how it would work. Member Kern indicated his initial inclination was to favor the project since he believed 120 apartment units along with commercial would create a greater impact than this project. The large 260 foot long building with the northwest end elevated was not acceptable. The presence of the buildings should help mitigate Harmony traffic noise and most homes on Wakerobin have fences. The entrance on Starflower was a concern. Member Shepard had several questions about design guidelines and project phasing. Ms. Clark indicated the guidelines addressed the entire site and each phase would stand on its own. Member Shepard felt design statements could be stronger and preferred the roof style be specified. Member Burns was not convinced the convenience store couldn't be moved to the southwest corner. He also felt residents had residential expectations for the area and felt he could not support the project. Member Kern asked about phasing and landscape phasing. Ms. Clark responded landscape phasing was addressed at final. Member Klataske suggested HVAC units be ground mounted and preferred the service station on the southwest corner. He also had drainage questions. Bill Blackwell indicated it was a preliminary drainage plan. Member Walker felt the site design would be enhanced if their were smaller commercial buildings along Wakerobin. Member Walker moved to deny the project. Member Burns seconded the motion. Member Shepard felt there was time for the project to come back at final and the developer could do significant environmental enhancement to the project. It was a reasonable use for the site which would not be single-family residen- tial. Member Kern agreed with Member Shepard except would vote against the pro- posal because of the magnitude of the buildings on Wakerobin. He indicated he was for the project but it needed less bulk and intensity in the neighbor- hood. Chairwoman O'Dell was in favor of the motion for denial and felt the exten- sive buildings facing Wakerobin did not provide a gradual change for the neighborhood and cited Criteria 3 of the All Development Chart. The project was denied by a 5-1 vote, Member Shepard in the negative. At 12:15 p.m., the meeting was continued until 6:30 p.m., April 3, 1989.