Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/05/1989PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • JANUARY 5, 1989 The continued meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for December 19, 1988, was called to order at approximately 6:35 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, Jan Shepard, Dave Edwards, Jim Klataske, and Alternate Rex Burns. Members Frank Groznik and Lloyd Walker were absent. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Linda Ripley, Sherry Albcrtson-Clark, Rick Ensdorff, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the remainder of the Discussion Agenda which included 403 South Whitcomb, Harmony Road Access Plan, and The Timan Master Plan. #96-88 403 SOUTH WHITCOMB Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the project. The applicant requested a 528 square foot addition for the sale of antiques. Steve McGinnis, applicant, stated his business involved the purchase and sale of antiques. He needed a variance for the sales. There would be no exterior storage and he would have no more than one employee. The parking problem • was resolved by the addition of two parking spaces in the backyard for personal use. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the item was reviewed as a PUD not a home occupation due to the retail sales element and because the RH Zoning District did not permit retail uses. The project met the required 50 percent on the point charts and the issue of parking had been resolved. The project met all requirements except compliance with the comprehensive plan; therefore, staff recommended denial. Member Edwards asked if this was a hardship case. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated we were looking at a PUD review, not a variance, and this was not reviewed on the basis of hardship. Member Kern wondered what the Westside Neighborhood Plan recommended. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the Plan had not been adopted but this particular area was a "conservation area" and the Plan's intent was to retain single family use in the area. Member Shepard asked if the retail use was limited to the addition and if the approval ran with the land or the owner. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted it ran with the land and it was difficult to regulate the size of retail sales. Mr. Eckman noted that the approval would run with the land. There was no public input. • Member Kern moved to deny the project based on the staff recommendation. Member Klataske seconded. Member Kern added that he voted against the project because it was hard to regulate and maintain on a small scale. The retail use was not compatible with the neighborhood. Member Burns asked if the applicant could pursue this as a variance under the Board of Adjustment. Paul Eckman stated no, because it was a use not a property improvement. Member Burns could not support the denial but would support an alternative motion that limited the project. Member Edwards indicated he supported staff because the area needed to stop commercial development at some point. Member Shepard stated she was against denial because she felt the project should be approved with limitations. The other side of the street was commercial. A limited business would not impact the neighborhood adversely, in her opinion. Chairperson O'Dell supported denial to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Motion to deny passed 4-2 with Members Shepard and Burns voting against. 097-88 HARMONY ROAD ACCESS PLAN Rick Ensdorff introduced Ruth Clear and Eric Brakke who will be handling his workload until his position was filled. He described the project as an effort between the City, State, and County which utilized a broad view of transportation planning. The area in question had much vacant ground so the project identified signal locations to provide efficient traffic flow. If approved the next step would be approval if an Intergovernmental Agreement. Neighborhood meetings were held. Member Kern asked if either side of I-25 was identified for future signals and whether backup of traffic on the interstate would be corrected. Mr. Ensdorff noted signals allowed easier access and would alleviate the backup problem. Member Shepard asked about U turns on Harmony at stop lights. Mr. Ensdorff indicated the option was available. Mr. DeMathes, the State Highway Department representative, addressed the deeded access questions. He indicated the State began buying land in 1941 to protect major highways/parkways/expressways. There was no public input. Member Edwards moved to approve the Plan. Member Kern seconded. The motion carried 6-0. -2- . #26-88 TIMAN MASTER PLAN Linda Ripley gave the staff description of the 53 acre project. Tony Hughes, Vaught/Frye Architects, represented the applicant, Front Range Partners. He explained the surrounding property, natural features, and developer's intent to retain the wetlands. It will include a 600,000 square foot retail/office/warehouse development with planned retail on 10 acres. The intent was to be compatible with the area. They will provide a buffer on the west and a unified landscape and architectural style throughout the project. The College frontage would be higher use retail, with the office, warehouse development to the west. The applicant had agreed to move the acccssways and was sympathetic to topography and the trees on the site. The project was expected to generate 17,500 trips a day. Ms. Ripley stated the March Neighborhood meeting had resulted in no feedback. The land uses were supported by the Land Use Policies Plan. Staff recommended approval. Member Shepard questioned the lack of a preliminary. Ms. Ripley indicated there was no particular user at this time and a preliminary was not required. Ben Veldon, Skyview Addition, asked about notification. Ms. Ripley explained the process. Member Kern questioned the traffic flow. Mr. Ensdorff stated the South • College Access Plan intent was to keep traffic from impacting on existing residential neighborhoods. Member Shepard asked if another access on College would be allowed. Mr. Ensdorff said it was possible. Mr. Peterson noted 370 notices were send out on December 7, 1988. Mr. Veldon's name appeared on the list. Member Klataske recommended approval of the project. Member Shepard seconded. Chairperson O'Dell was pleased the developer was concerned about wetlands and trees. She asked Mr. Hughes how the trees would receive water when the ditch was realigned. Mr. Hughes indicated trees would be sprinkled at the time the overall grade changes occurred. Member Kern was also pleased with the developer's sensitivity to the residential area to the west. Member Edwards added the master plan should not create too many expectations. Intensity would be reviewed when the Board reviewed a preliminary project on the site. The motion to approve passed 6-0. • -3- OTHER BUSINESS #60-79E WOODLANDS PUD, Fourth Filing - Preliminary Scott L. Carlson, 11990 Grant, Denver, property owner, requested reconsideration of his project. He indicated he had also filed an appeal due to time frame requirements. He felt he had not received a full and fair meeting because: 1) the applicant was not allowed to address the concern of operating hours of the gas station; 2) Concerns over traffic impact were not properly explained; 3) Much neighborhood opposition resulted from inaccurate information being disseminated; and 4) Because of the lateness of the hour he had limited his presentation. He asked that, prior to a rescheduled rehearing, he be allowed to meet with the homeowners, there be time for public comment and residents receive notification. Cliff Senair, 1001 Bitterbrush, a neighborhood representative, stated: 1) The motion for reconsideration was inappropriate because the planning process had an appeals procedure; 2) When the planning process was described to the neighborhood reconsideration, a reconsideration was not discussed; and 3) the Neighborhood Association found reconsideration grounds for their appeal. Paul Eckman indicated grounds for reconsideration were not necessary. Reconsideration occurred when a Board members on the prevailing side (in this case O'Dell, Kern, or Burns) believed concern or remorse over a decision and made a motion. Any Board member may second the motion and needed to be passed by a simple majority. Chairperson O'Dell asked if an item was reconsidered and the result the same, could the applicant still appeal. Mr. Eckman responded affirmatively and added reconsideration could be done by the Board again. Member Kern asked about the time frame for reconsideration. Mr. Eckman stated the motion was made only at the time the project voted on. Mr. Peterson stated a reconsideration would be heard at the January Planning and Zoning Board. If an item had been submitted today it would be heard at the February meeting; therefore, there was a time difference which depended on reconsideration or submittal. An applicant may submit as often as desired. Member Kern objected to reconsideration on the basis the item had already been heard; however, he added it was not a bad proposal. No motion for reconsideration occurred. Member Edwards noted he was on the prevailing side in the 403 S. Whitcomb vote and stated he was concerned the applicant did not have full opportunity to negotiate on the finer points of the system. He moved to reconsider the Item by tabling until a subsequent meeting. Member Shepard seconded. Member Burns noted he would support reconsideration since this appeared the only avenue open to the applicant. -4- Member Kern would not support reconsideration since he felt the development was not appropriate. Chairperson O'Dell concurred with Member Kern. The motion to reconsider failed 3-3 with Members Kern, Klataske, and Chairperson O'Dell not voting for it. Mr. Peterson noted there would be a January 11, 4 p.m. special worksession at Harrison Resources. Mr. Frank indicated the Downtown Plan would be to the Board by January 17 and tentatively would be considered at the May meeting. The Plan sets the stage for what will happen in Downtown for the next tcn years. The Planning and Zoning Board would play an extensive leadership role. Mr. Peterson brought up the Noel Annexation, previously denied by the Board and passed by City Council. He noted that the Board may want to clarify its recommendation to Council as it pertained to annexation. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the Woodlands appeal was scheduled for the February 7 City Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. • 0 -5-