Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/27/1983Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 27, 1983 Board Present: Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Randy Larsen, Ingrid Simpson. Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Curt Smith, Kayla Ballard, Renee Oldham. Legal Representative: Paul Eckman Meeting called to order 6:30 p.m. Gilfillan: Briefly explained procedures and consent agenda. Asked _ audience if thiere was anything on the consent agenda that they would like to have "pulled". Roll was taken. AGENDA REVIEW 3. #14-83A Lot 2 Mason Street PUD-Preliminary & Final -CONTINUED CONSENT AGENDA 4. #93-81C South Collins Tech Center PUD-2nd Phase -Preliminary 5. #93-81D South Collins Tech Center PUD-2nd Phase -Final 7. #27-83 Woodridge Eastview - R-H Site Plan Review 8. #11-80C Platte River Power Authority -Phase III -Final Gillfillan: "Pulled" Items 2 and 3, Rocky Mountain Health Club PUD, Preliminary and Phase I Final. Georg: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Larsen: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. Dow: Has conflict with Items 2 and 3. Will not take part in discussion or vote. 2. #34-83 Rocky Mountain Health Club PUD - Preliminary Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. 3. #34-83A Rocky Mountain Health Club PUD-Phase I -Final Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. P & Z Board Meeting 6/27/83 - Page 2 Gilfillan: Concerned about ownership and the color and style of the roof. Bob Sutter: Architect/Planner. Showed picture to reduce apprehen- sion about color of orange roof. Magic markers make colors different. Eckman: Received phone call from Michael Smith, president of L & M Health Club Inc. Advised that L & M owns a trade name for Rocky fountain Health Club. Has filed a trade name afidavit with Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. Smith believes naming of club would be unfair competition. Does not apply with land use we are dealing with now. Not a city matter. Rupel: Presented Union Pacific letter concerning Rocky Mountain Health Club, Timberline Apartments, Woodridge Eastview and Stanton Creek PUD protection of railroad right of way. Recommend that developer provide some sort of security fencing along the railroad right of way. Other concerns are with drainage. Gilfillan: No further comment from audience. Open to the board. Stoner: Motioned for preliminary approval of Rocky Mountain Health Club and give final approval of Rocky Mountain Health Club PUD Final. Larsen: Second. Gilfillan: Will take two separate roll calls on these items. Vote: Motion for preliminary approval carried 6-0. Vote: Motion for final approval carried 6-0. 9. #20-83 Schneider First Annexation Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval. Ross: Concerned about whether street is within city limits. Thought it was all county. Eckman: See no jurisdictional problem. Georg: Motion to recommend approval Schneider First Annex- ation. Stoner: Second. P & Z Board Meetinq_ 6/2#/83 = Page 3 • Vote: Motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. 10. #20-83A Schneider First Zoning Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report. recommending I-G zoning subject to the zoning being conditioning on a PUD. Ross: Concerned about property adjoining bike trail and if easements were granted. Rupel: The right to use the area was purchased from the Schneiders. Gilfillan:- Explained to applicant the condition of the zoning of I-G with PUD condition. Albertson -Clark: Talked with applicant and members of the family and thought they understood the PUD condition. Schneider: Felt his brother should be here to take care of this. Gilfillan: Suggested to applicant to let item be heard tonight. If any further questions, bring up prior to City Council hearing or at same time. Schneider: Agreed. Dow: Any limitations on developing along floodplain other than existing floodplain limits? Albertson -Clark: That is determined at the time of site plan review. Some areas might be impacted by existing floodplain. Stoner: Motion to recommend to City Council to zone I-G with PUD condition. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. 11. #16-83A Pineridge Subdivision - County Referral Gilfillan: The issue on this item is a land issue, not the trade of the properties. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval with the conditions of landscape easement, replace vegetation and natural materials are to be used (wood; stone). Dow: Thought it was fine to go ahead and develop as long as the ridgeline is protected. P & Z Board Meeting 6/27/83 - Page 4 Albertson -Clark: Evaluation of setback was done based on maximum build- ing height which is 40 feet in the County. Unsure of seeing that height of structure in that area. Jim Martell: Representing applicant, Joe Roesser. wave background on Joe Roesser. One of the goals in this project is to preserve and protect the scenic vista. When exemption plat approved, numerous conditions attached. Geologi- cal reports be submitted on all the houses, and solve the problem with the ridgeline were a couple of the conditions. What County did with exemption plat was develop formula with a 30 foot easement from the landscape easement back from the ridgeline. When house plan is submitted, also submit to the city a diagram showing all the trees within 20 feet of either side of the proposed house. Then the developer will determine the height of the trees above the ridgeline and the five tallest trees will be determined above the ridgeline and the house can not come within 5 feet in height of those five tallest trees. Other conditions mentioned on staff report. Gilfillan: Questioned 50 foot setback and replacement of vegeta- tion on site. Martell: Not sure 50 foot setback accomplishes what city pro- poses. Not in agreement with the 50 foot setback. Agree with replacing vegetation. Stoner: One or two lots buildable on west side? Martell: No. That's to the north, the property being exchanged with the city. Georg: Paul, will the city have the rights on the covenants to enforce them? Eckman: Reviewed proposed agreement. The 50 foot setback is foreign to that agreement. The agreement says the developer shall not erect any structure upon that parcel that projects above the tree line as visible from Overland Trail nor shall any structure be constructed of materials other than natural or natural -blend materials. Also provides the conveyance to the developer shall be subject to a landscape easement of 30 feet in width along the westerly side of the established property line (ridgeline) wherein the natural presently existing landscaped shall be preserved. This is in connection with the land ex- change. As planning matter, other impositions can be considered. Dow: Questioned results if Board approved something with specific conditions which were in conflict with con- ditions of contract between city and developer. P & Z Boprd Meeting 61n183 - Page 5 • Eckman: Board could make recommendation to County as planning type of approval which would impose conditions on the development of property. Gilfillan: Agreement has not been consumated by the developer or the city at this point and this is just a recom- mendation to the County. Eckman: No, the agreement has not yet been executed. Ted Gatteau: Resident, 3425 S. Centennial Drive. Lives directly across street from proposed development. Is opposed to the development. Showed slides of the area. Does not _ like the ruts caused by the trucks in the open space area. Key argument is along the lines of ecological standpoint. Deer live and graze on this ground. People frequent the area for picnicking, jogging, enjoying the little lake, etc. Are there other solutions? Stan Gordon: Resident, 4406 Rosecrown Ct. Also opposed to sub- division. He uses the land. Is a private place, unlike city park. Upset about ruts left by trucks. Michael Hadwick: Resident, 3505 S. Centennial Drive. Also against subdivision. Feels it is a disservice to the public to use that land. Has petition of over 400 signatures of persons who don't live there but use the area and are opposed to the subdivision. Ben Magsamen: Resident, 3805 S. Cetennial Drive. In favor of main- taining of what is already a proven accessible useful area as a park rather than exchanging it for a steep, rugged, inaccessible hill that can only be looked at. Ridgeline should be height of building. Easier to enforce. Trees can be cut down if blocking view of occupant. Jay Boyd Best: Resident, 3521 S. Centennial Drive. Feels there will be requests for variances once land is opened for development. If variances aren't granted, why build the houses? Feels if trade goes through and develop- ment occurs, the city will have a prominent view of houses proposed to be built, no meadow and only person to profit is developer. JoAnn T. Drehota: Resident of S. Centennial Drive. Regional sociologist for U.S Forest Service. Has worked in area of social impact analysis. Has prepared paper that discusses social impacts that would be felt by residents of Fort Collins as well as residents on Centennial Drive. Op- posed to subdivision. Has residents of Fort Collins been asked whether they would like to preserve the recreation, visual quality and open space on Centen- nial Drive? Do they want to trade off an area where they can get away from the city for an area the devel- oper who will make it a part of the city? P & Z Board Meeting 6/27/33 - Page 6 John Gascoyne: 519 N. Grant. Attorney retained by landowners. Per- sonally enjoys open space. Has not heard discussion of traffic with the development of proposed buildings.Is opposed to development. Velda Bier: Is opposed to subdivision. Felt it should be left as it is. Ethel Smyth: 1824 Yorktown. Bought property before buildings were constructed. Feels the present builders have obstruct- ed the view and changed the environment. When a dry year, the lake is a lagoon. The deer have been there all this time. When people built their homes, they didn't leave. tan't understand why these people need more than 2 acres. Feels new homeowners will profit. They have a right to live in private, secluded areas just as much as those who live there now. Present homeowners should consider the impact their homes have had on environment and think of the wildlife homes they have misplaced or displaced. Landscaping has been changed for their residents. Doesn't feel new resi- dents, done with 'care & following guidelines by the city, should be detrimental. Feels the present homeowners are being selfish. Martell: Supports what Mrs. Smith said concerning present houses not driving deer away and any additional houses won't drive them away. Understands that the pond does dry up. The development is appropriate and consistant with that. Gatteau: No one here to discuss trade when it took place. Told by Curt Smith the city doesn't have to let anybody know what they are doing. More tackfully than that, of course. Could Board recommend how to represent and rehash the contract with the City. Gilfillan: Decision looking at tonight is recommendation to another decision -making body. Eckman: Council has citizen participation session every Tues- day. May be a good time to bring this matter to Coun- cil. Also may be appropriate to contact your council member to discuss this matter for feeling of council. Once agreement is signed by parties, is binding by Roesser and the City. Gilfillan: Clarification of the applicant. Who owns the property now and who is the applicant? What are the guidelines for County referral to us on application? P & Z Board Sleeting • 6/27/83 - Page 7 Eckman: City owns legal interest in property. Joseph Roesser owns equitable interest in property, or will own, once contract is signed. Land use questions County is referring are in the nature of this development and the impacts on surrounding neighborhood. Ross: Items that come to the Board are subject to approval. Is very common. Only thing different is the City of Fort Collins is one of the two parties. Dow: Any studies concerning traffic, wildlife, drainage for suitability to this development? Albertson -Clark: County relies on state and local agencies to evaluate those concerns and give them response. Dow: Can recommendation be made without some basic infor- mation along those lines? Rupel: Parks and Recreation Department represented. Randy Balok: No information about wildlife and drainage in the area. No studies of that nature. Stoner: Any intention of city developing this into park? Balok: Only to maintain it in present natural condition. Stoner: Would access be obtained from the south of projected exchange? Balok: Access to both partials would be by foot or horseback. Would reserve for City an easement for access. Very rocky. Dow: Explain recommended conditions from staff on 50 foot setback from ridgeline in form of landscape easement. Regarding replacement of vegetation on propertyowners, might consider developer responsible for that. Albertson -Clark: First condition is same as Board's condition recom- mended on the exemption with exception of setback. Staff had requested 50 feet but knocked it down after analysis to 30 feet. Further clarified that structures not be visible above tree line as viewed from Overland Trail. In regard to replacement of vegetation respon- siblity, was a condition put on the exemption. Stoner: Any city properties that would be better to trade that we do not use in our parks sytem that could be used for developing? P & Z Board Meeting 6/27/83 - Page 8 Balok: Larsen: Roesser: Simpson: Roesser: Nothing that comes to mind. What is average elevation difference between the top of the ridge and toe of ridge? Varies 20-45%. In feet, 40-50 feet. Some places 75 feet. Continued to talk about the treeline and building houses and still retaining some view. Trees would still have to be replaced. It is in the covenants to replace trees. If building site has bedroom that views into city and something happens to the existing trees, does that citizen replace that tree in what time span? It must be replaced within six months of like, kind and quality. That is by covenants and is enforced. Georg: Motioned to recommend approval subject to the con- ditions that no building or outside light be higher than the ridge line, property owners and/or developer be responsible for the replacement of vegetation from the ridgeline, and buildings constructed be of natural materials and non -reflective materials. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion for approval carried 5-2. 12. #46-83 VanBebber Special Review - County Referral Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval with condition of noise buffering being provided at the site as would be required by Larimer County. Bill VanBebber: Applicant. Is familiar with condition on recommenda- tion. Has obtained a number of permits in Larimer County but has not appeared before the city in this area before. County has specific conditions as to location, no gasoline- powered engines on pumps, tank height, colors, etc. that is familiar to him. Stoner: How is noise buffered? VanBebber: All you can do is to have the rig downwind so the exhaust is away from the prevailing wind. P & Z Board Meeting 6/2a/33 - Page 9 • • Dow: Are they ever enclosed with some type of shed to minimize the noise problem? VanBebber: In a couple of instances. Drilling is a minimum of 2 weeks and a maximum of 4 weeks. Simpson: What sort of visual buffering do you plan? VanBebber: What the county usually requires and that is the muted tones on the tanks, maximum height of 15 feet and visually over 6D0 feet of the Collins Center subdivi- sion. We have all the adjacent lands under lease in Collins Center, except one lot, that directly abuts our drill site. Simpson: Any kind of protective fencing around them? VanBebber: Yes. They will be fenced. Gilfillan: How will waste water be treated? VanBebber: Either line pits or disposed of in a deep formation. Ross: Motion to recommend approval subject to staff re- commendations. Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion for approval carried 7-0. 13. #32-83 Timberline Apartments PUD - Preliminary Dow: Has conflict with Item 13. Will not take part in discussion or vote. Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. Gilfillan: What is distance between west property line and actual railroad tracks and also what is the setbacks from the buildings at that point? Frank: Approximately 100 feet minimum and 155 feet typical building setback from railroad tracks. Eldon Ward: ZVFK Architects. Tracks are 75 feet from west property line. Closest building is setback 25 feet off the property line. Georg: What is the maximum density allowed based on its performance? Frank: No set maximum at this point. It's a good location. P & Z Board Meeting 6/27/83 - Page 10 Georg: Concerned about landscaping plan. Ward: Applicants feel on final landscape plan, some intense grouping of landscaping in strategic places but we do not feel we should completely eliminate a solid wall of landscaping between our property and the seldom used Union Pacific tracks. Continued to discuss land- scaping plans. Gilfillan: Feels density of single family is too intense and the potential increase of density. Ward: On final plan,:we have been able to gain separation between buildings beyond what we have on this prelim- inary. Ross: Concerned about crowding of schools with such a large development with so many three bedroom units. Ward: There are no three bedroom units. Conclusion was as it is programmed, we do not want three bedroom units and do not anticipate any large number of school children coming out of this. Earl Stafford: Everitt Enterprises. Discussed pipes buried to carry water for detention pond. Railroad does not hinder apartment development. Concerned about crosswalk for children and a place to play. Feels its a great place to have a health club. Frank: This is a PUD and part of a PUD you approve a density on a site and a design of the project. Any additional units will have to come in through the same process, same studies, etc. Stoner: Motion to give preliminary approval to the PUD with stipulation that it comes back on the Discussion Agenda to review the setbacks on the north portion of the property and review the landscaping. Georg: Second. Rupel: No way the full 88 width of Timberline is going to be needed for the next ten years. No reason to require going that width now. Wait til actually needed. City will have ROW for full width but won't be built. Might have to tear out curb and gutter but not sidewalks. Vote: Motion for approval with stipulations carried 6-0. 14. #9-82E Southridge Greens PUD - Phase III - Preliminary Larsen: Has conflict with Items 14 and 15. Will not take part in discussion or vote. P & Z Board Meeting • • 6/27/33 - Page 11 Chianese: Gave staff report recommending approval. 15. #9-82F Southridge Greens PUD - Phase IV - Preliminary Chianese: Gave staff report recommending approval. Bernie Cain: On Tract IV, higher density was looked at but demands find single family units are needed. 28 foot street was well within reasonable variation. Les White: Representing Rocky Mountain Energy. Not here to oppose but to bring to the Board's attention that the mineral owner is Union, Pacific Corporation. Southern end of Phase IV falls into Union Pacific mineral reservation. Would like to see stipulation some type of mutual agreement with the mineral owner before this is approved. Gilfillan: Are you wanting to disclose the position of your agent or are you recommending to the Board to enter into some kind of condition upon acceptance of this zoning? White: Would like to see Board that would preclude us from developing our minerals. No reason why mineral owner and surface owner can't reach an agreement. If it comes to a stipulation, we would request that. Eckman: Don't recall examining minerals rights in the past. Thinks this is a private matter that the city should not get involved in. The city should approve a development that is proposed by a developer. This stipulation should not be in the motion. Georg: Motion to approve Southridge Greens PUD Tract D and F Preliminary. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion to approve Southridge Greens PUD Phase III carried 6-0. Dow: Move for approval of Southridge Greens PUD Phase IV, Preliminary, Tract H, with approval of variance to street standards as set forth by staff. Stoner: Second Vote: Motion to approve Southridge Greens Phase IV, Pre- liminary carried 6-0. Meeting broke at 10:05 p.m. to continue Wednesday, June 29, 1983.