HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/17/19900
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
December 17, 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: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell,
Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -
Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Ken Waido, and Georgiana Taylor.
Board Members present at the December 14, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim
Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Margaret Gorman and Lloyd
Walker.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the November 19, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Prospect Park
East ( Vipont) - Rezoning, 044-84E; Item 3 - Campus West Texaco - Non Conforming Use, #47-
90; Item 4 - South Glen P.U.D., 3rd Filing, Amended, Two -Year Extension, #110-79G; Item 5 -
PZ 90-17 Vacation of Easements, #49-90.
Member Walker asked if the facia was going to be all the way around the building at the
Campus West Texaco. Was it in the plan and did they have to condition the approval on that
also.
Mr. Olt replied that the facade would continue along the south and the north sides of the
buildings and tie into the existing portion and just continue to the back corners of the south
and north sides. He did not believe they were intending to carry the facade along the back or
the west side of the proposed building.
Mr. Peterson stated that they needed to pull the item for further discussion.
Member Walker pulled item 3, Campus West Texaco for conditions of approval.
Member Strom moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 4, 5.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
CAMPUS WEST TEXACO - #47-90
Member Walker moved to approve item 3 with the conditions that the facia trim be extended
the full length of the north and south elevations as shown in the latest sketch and also the
easement conditions as stated in the memo submitted to the Board.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
RICHMOND ASSOCIATES OFFICE - R H ZONE REQUEST, *46 9
Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval.
Don Richmond, Richmond Associates, stated he had lived in the property for 2-1/2 years. He
stated because of the West Side Rezoning he had to go through an R-H zone request. He stated
he had done some improvements on the property and those were discussed in the plan. He
stated most of his neighbors supported the business use in the neighborhood. He had
unanimous support with the type of use he was asking for approval on. He stated the plan
addresses the issues that needed to be addressed and would welcome any questions.
Susan Hooley, 1223 S. Sherwood Street asked for clarification of what an R-H Zone was and
if rezoning would affect just that piece of property on the block or if it would apply to any
other property on the block.
Mr. Shepard replied this property was not being rezoned. The underlying zoning would remain
R-H, there were no properties on the block or in the R-H zone that were changing their zoning.
This was a request for a non-residential use in the R-H zone by special review. That special
review was a site plan review that was brought to the Planning and Zoning Board through the
public hearing process so the impacts of that special use could be reviewed in a public format.
It is merely a review procedure that gets public attention and was not a rezoning.
Dan George, 425 West Mountain, stated that he was aware of Mr. Richmonds's planned use and
some of that would involve an improved alley that borders on their two properties. The alley
had been in use since about 1943 and from what he understands, Mr. Richmond will improve
it, which he was in favor of since it has been an access for all the property owners since 1943.
It has been in good use and maintained well and to have an improvement to allow vehicle
access would be welcomed. He was willing to work with Mr. Richmond as far as upkeep.
Member Walker moved for approval of Richmond and Associates R-H Zone Request
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell noted for the record that even though this did not conform to what had been
set out in the West Side Neighborhood Plan, the staff had done a good job and the applicant
had done a good job in keeping this as a residential looking unit even though it was going to
be a business and she believed that the plan wants to keep this looking like a residential unit
and she thought that had been accomplished at this point.
Motion was approved 7-0.
203 West Mulberry PUD - Amended Final. 041-90E
Sherry Albertson Clark gave the staff report recommending approval subject to a condition
regarding some additional landscaping on the site plan.
Mr. Jerry King, stated that they had recently received approval on the front portion of their
property and they had done the same things to the rear part of the property with respect to
landscaping and irrigation. They had a hedge that was dying and they had revived it and
planted all the way around so you can see into the property, but the hedge was headlight height
to automobiles so you cannot see what is on the property except for the hoods and roofs of the
cars. He stated what they were worried about on the front of the property was when they
planted there they had to remove alot of dirt. It was 21 year old asphalt and they put
sterilization there for the asphalt. They had the soil tested and the sterilant was still very
powerful in the soil and their landscape person who did all the plantings said that he would
not guarantee what would grow there because of that.
Member O'Dell stated Mr. King mentioned there was some landscaping along the west side of
the property going around the south side a certain distance and then he mentioned that there
was not an asphalt area, but an area that had pole peelings. Are there any plantings in that
area.
Mr. King replied that it was just covered with pole peelings and they did not plant anything
there because the landscape person did not feel that it would last. They were planning on
planting there but the area was all sterilized before asphalt was laid.
Chairman Klataske asked what it would take to dig it out and replace it. How much soil were
they talking about and approximate cost.
Ms. Clark replied according to the City Forester's Office, they believe this chemical was
applied as a pre -emergent to prevent weeds from developing in there prior to the actual asphalt
installation. They have a list of plant materials which will grow and was provided by the
manufacturer that will grow in those areas and was an extensive list with plant materials
common to this area. According to the Foresters' Office, if a hole was dug to plant a tree, one
would have to dig down about two feet and remove all the contaminated soil and replace it
with new soil and their philosophy and their belief was that any landscape materials planted
in such a fashion should survive.
Member Carroll asked if the staff recommendation was an island at the entrance and the
northeast corner of the site.
Ms. Clark replied that their feeling was that the area of focus in terms of landscaping for the
site was to provide materials that would be visible from the public right-of-way. Materials
placed in those areas would be very difficult to be viewed from anyone beyond the site.
Therefore they were recommending installation of an island. It would take a minimum of one
parking space to create an island large enough to plant one deciduous or ornamental tree and
several shrubbery.
Member Strom asked how was it that fairly extensive improvements to this site were made
before it came before them for review.
Mr. King replied that they called the City and talked to Peter Barnes and asked if they had to
have a permit to asphalt. He talked to two people in Peter's office and they both said they did
not need any permit to do any asphalting and so they asphalted. A couple of weeks after the
asphalting, Peter Barnes called him up and said he was not supposed to asphalt so he told him
the two people's names he talked to and Pete replied that they must have some mis
communications in his office and Mr. King did this on what they told them.
Mr. King replied that he also was told by the people that did the sterilization that you could
cut a hole and take soil out and put new soil in and it would be fine and when it rains alot and
alot of water goes in there they would get leeching from under the soil and you would always
have that problem and that was why they would not guarantee any plants that were planted
there.
Member Strom asked if the plant list was from the manufacturer of the sterilant.
Ms. Clark replied that was her understanding, it was faxed to us from a landscape contractor
in Loveland who was also involved in working on this site.
Member Strom asked what it contained.
Ms. Clark replied that most types of deciduous and ornamental and shrubbery materials that
we use in Ft. Collins were on the list. It was quite extensive, it was not by any means restricted
by the application of that material.
Chairman Klataske stated he did not see any lighting plans on this and did she have any
knowledge of any on -site lighting for this area.
Ms. Clark replied they had raised this question to the applicant and his response was he would
be utilizing and relying on existing lighting on the south side of the building.
Member Strom stated that additional landscaping would be beneficial to this site not only at
the entrance but also at the southeast corner of the site where it would soften the transition
between this commercial use and what was still residential to the south.
Member Strom moved to approve this project subject to landscaping provided at both the
southeast and northeast corners of this site subject to detail approval by the staff.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion and added that she believed that because lighting was
going to be used from the existing building and probably shining directly across those cars, she
thought it would help the residents to the south to have some landscaping in there to cut down
on some of the lighting.
Member Cottier stated she would support the motion and it was an appropriate use for that
location and was happy to see some use being made of that site which had been abandoned for
a number of years. She thought it was unfortunate that there's been some confusion in the way
this had happened, but the landscaping was something they could do to improve the appearance.
We have to go by the opinion, the technical opinion given by City staff, with respect to the
viability of the landscaping and thought that it would only enhance the site and perhaps help
business too.
Mr. King stated that the property that they were referring to, the southwest part of the
property, there are no homes there. There were businesses adjacent to their property.
Member O'Dell asked if the building south of them was a home.
Mr. King replied that the home on the southwest corner was a rental home and was shielded by
a garage. The others were some sort of gun club and the other was an oriental, kung fu studio
and was not a residence.
Member O'Dell replied that the landscaping was still needed to achieve the kind of look that
was needed in the area.
Mr. King replied that there was a 6 foot fence back there and their lights, which were existing
on the building, were there prior to them purchasing it and did not go to the properties but
were facing down lighting the drive way closest to the building.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. King if he thought there might be a security problem with the cars
parked on the lot when it would be fairly dark.
0 0
Mr. King replied that they were not concerned about a security problem.
Motion was approved 7-0.
BURNS RANCH AT QUAIL RIDGE - RF SUBDIVISION AND RF CLUSTER PLAN REVIEW
PRELIMINARY. 023-90B.
Note: This item was on the agenda for discussion purposes only.
Kirsten Whetstone stated that there are several issues still to be resolved. They were presenting
this item for public hearing and information and discussion only.
This property was not yet in the City and they were asking the Board not to take action on this
proposal at this time.
This proposal was for two separate plans, one was for an RF Cluster Plan of 32 single family
lots on 34.55 acres and the other part was an RF Subdivision Plan for 4 large single family lots
on 10.5 acres, for a total of 36 single family lots on 45.05 acres. The remaining area is to be
dedicated to the City for public open space to be kept in a natural state.
The issues that were still not resolved were the annexation. There was a second reading
scheduled for January 15th that was tabled. Water service to the property, was still being
discussed and that should be resolved prior to the preliminary hearing. They also have some
issues concerning some off -site easements and the final grading, drainage utility plans as well
as the location of a significant population of a rare foothills plant.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design gave a presentation on the process and design of the
project into the RF zone. He stated they wanted a feel from the Board if they had any
concerns they were not aware of before they wrapped up the annexation process.
Chairman Klataske asked what the maximum elevation was on the homes.
Mr. Ward replied the maximum elevation was 5,250 as per the zoning requirement.
Member Cottier asked with respect to the open space that surrounded the single lots on the west
side, was there any intended trail that would go close to those lots or was it just going to be
open.
Mr. Ward replied that it was anticipated it would be open space.
Member O'Dell asked if a barn or an out building would be allowed.
Mr. Ward replied that there would be no building outside of the building envelope.
Chairman Klataske asked how runoff was being handled on these lots.
Mr. Ward replied it was being directed into the street and into a natural drainage way through
the site and then into Quail Hollow and into the rest of the drainage for that section.
SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING POLICY
Ken Waido stated this was an item that they were requesting the Board to make a
recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Waido went over the changes that had been made since the Board last saw this item and
went over the Staff report.
Member Walker asked about the table summarizing the SRO's in Ft. Collins and was this to
imply that these were the SRO's that they were considering here, or were they to assume there
were other SRO's.
Mr. Waido replied that the only two other structures which have operated or fulfilled the need
for SRO housing in the past were not on this list because they were vacant and not being used.
The Northern Hotel and the Linden Hotel.
Member Walker stated according to this policy someplace like the Linden or the Northern, since
they have been vacant for three or more years, the policy would not apply regardless of how
the buildings were rehabed.
Mr. Waido replied yes.
Member Cottier asked what DDA's response was with respect to the potential impact this policy
might have on redevelopment activity downtown.
Mr. Waido replied they were extremely concerned with the financial impact this requirement
might have on redevelopment projects and they made comments that such a replacement on a
one to one basis requirement could create a financial impact to make a project infeasible from
an economic perspective in downtown. They suggested that investigation of some sort of
incentive program be made instead of a requirement for one to one replacement.
Member Cottier asked in one place they state that the City would allow building code tradeoffs.
What type of trade offs would be allowed and the idea was that the trade offs would mean
cheaper construction for the developer.
Mr. Waido replied there may be building code requirements for width of stair wells or rise and
run on a staircase that current staircases in buildings do not meet. That would be one trade
off, instead of requiring a whole stairwell or staircase to be torn out and rebuilt according to
existing code, maybe the existing one could stay because it did not affect health and safety
standards. They needed to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Member Cottier stated she did not understand how the moving and relocation expenses would
be handled.
Mr. Waido replied we would want to insure that the individuals that are having a hardship
thrust upon them, find adequate housing in the community if they are displaced and that the
cost of moving is covered in the process.
Chairman Klataske asked about parking provisions around the buildings.
Mr. Waido replied that they had not considered adding any parking stipulations to the policy
feeling that the City's parking code would cover any parking requirements.
Member O'Dell asked if someone felt it was a good time to leave town, would they be allowed
moving expense.
Mr. Waido replied that was why the cap of $500 was put in there.
Member Strom asked about the incentive program and why they did not go that route
9 •
Mr. Waido replied option 3 was a much broader look at low income housing throughout the
community.
Member O'Dell stated that she had a difficult time with this the first time around and felt like
if there was a problem there was a problem and it was not tied to whether a certain
redevelopment got City funding, so she was not sure where to go especialy since there was the
question of whether this would prohibit redevelopment. She thought that if there was a
determination that there was a serious problem, they should not tie it to City assistance for
redevelopment. We needed to make the policy for any redevelopment that displaces people who
live in SRO's.
Mr. Waido replied that the City Attorney's Office had reviewed this policy and felt
comfortable from a legal perspective that the policy was tied to financial assistance from the
City.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Board did not have to make a recommendation.
Member Cottier stated that she was not in support of the proposed policy because she thought
it would drastically prohibit redevelopment downtown and she did not think that there was an
established need for single room units.
Member Strom stated he was a also a little bit uncomfortable about 7 individuals debating a
policy of this nature and would like to hear some input from some of the agencys that work
with the people that need the housing and would like to hear from the DDA more directly and
would like to in some way or another, foster some more debate about the issue and get some of
the details out on the table.
Member Carroll stated he did not consider it a big problem either way and suspected we have
not had alot of input or dialogue because it really was not a problem. He looked at it in the
way that if it is not broken don't fix it, so with the exception of the Empire Hotel we were
dealing with very small and specific units.
Member Walker stated he believed SRO housing was part of the mix of housing that they would
like to maintain in the City and was equally important as some of the other types of housing
that we are alway trying to encourage. There was always an issue that SRO's serve a certain
small, not well represented need in the community but yet he thought it was an aspect of
housing that they should not allow to just disappear because there is no policy.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification on the position City Council had taken on this and what
was there charge to them and what did they want back from them.
Mr. Waido replied they essentially developed the policy at the direction of City Council. They
said they wanted to see an SRO policy. The Council stated they wanted comments from various
agencies and boards and commissions which the policy may affect. Their intent was to collect
the comments and recommendations, package it together and go back to Council.
Member Gorman stated she needed more input from these other agencies to define the need and
to give her the tools to implement a plan that might be a concrete plan for the Council to adopt.
She was not aware of the problem enough to make an intelligent decision at this point.
Member Strom suggested that if other boards were having the same difficulty, would it be
useful for our board to meet with other boards.
Members Gorman and Cottier volunteered as a sub -committee to meet with the other agencies
and report back to the other board members.
This item was tabled until the January 28, 1991 meeting.
MODIFICATION TO OPTION B OF THE OFF PREMISE SIGN PROPOSAL
Chairman Klataske asked if the Board had time to review this and were there any questions
or comments for staff.
Member Strom commented he still favored option C that they approved last month and there
was nothing new here that would change his mind.
Member Walker agreed and believed that trying to come up with a different option B was not
his intent in terms of what he favored and was still in favor of option C.
Member O'Dell agreed with Members Strom and Walker.
Member Cottier stated she still supported Option C.
Chairman Klataske stated there were not enough changes to warrant consideration of a change.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
0 Eagle
r V .
............
. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
- -
.......:
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
-7L=
...........
...........
.........
...........
........
HIGHVW
14
. ....
...
............
...........
............ .......
FOR . ... . . ..... A
CBP PARKING
LOT PUD
... .......
I
.......
.............
: : .... I
......
wfi��, . ...... ....
:"
... .......
..... ......
....
............
. . . . . .
......
S'.
.... .......
.. ..........
............
'} . .........
Pl..l.Vicdat
i n
'o
o f Eas4
............
.......
............
OVERLAND
LAND
"HILLS S/D 2nd :j::
R
Tr60ThI1.LS AUTO/PORELAND
PAS
....
........
...........
�Z ....
.
. . . . . . . ...
w
.......
....
.....
*Clarendon
Hills
........
4th & 5th Filings
UNTE
UNTE �GREENS
4RD
CQ
City Limitc
.1.1.96
..........
r