Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/23/1983PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MAY 23, 1983 Board Present: Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, Randy Larsen Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Ken Waido, Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Gail Ault, Kayla Ballard Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Meeting called to order 6:30 p.m. Gilfillan: Briefly explained procedures and consent agenda. Asked audience if there was anything on the consent agenda that they would like to have "pulled". AGENDA REVIEW 3. #20-83 Schneider First Annexation - CONTINUED 4. #20-83A Schneider First Zoning - CONTINUED 16. #31-82A Minerva Business Park PUD-Phase One -Final - CONTINUED 25. #90-83 Garth Commercial Plaza - Master Plan - CONTINUED 26. #90-82A Garth Commercial Plaza PUD - Phase One - Preliminary and Final - CONTINUED 27. #15-83 Dry Creek First Annexation - CONTINUED 28. #15-83A Dry Creek First Zoning - CONTINUED 29. #15-83B Dry Creek Second Annexation - CONTINUED 30. #15-83C Dry Creek Second Zoning - CONTINUED Rupel: "Pulled" Items 5 and 6 #40-83 and #40-83A Preston Annexation and Preston Zoning. Also "pulled" Items 7 and 8 #39-83 and #39-83A Harmony Commercial -Indus- trial Ltd., Annexation and Zoning CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of April 25, 1983 meeting minutes. 2. Approval of Special Meeting minutes held May 2, 1983. P&Z Minutes/5/23/83 • • Page 2 9. #23-81B Residential Condominium Tower Concept Location 10. #41-83 Downtown Parking Facility Location 11. #19-83 Replat of Lots 209-224, Parkwood East, Filing II 12. #24-80E Park Central - Phase II - Tract C - Final 14. #13-83 Mountain Court PUD - Preliminary and Final 15. #88-81B Underhill PUD Replat Roll was taken. Gilfillan: "Pulled" Item 13 #22-83 South Groves PUD - Preliminary Georg: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1,2,9,10,11,12, 14 and 15. Dow: Second Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 5. #40-83 Preston Annexation 6. #40-83A Preston Zoning 7. #39-83 Harmony Commercial -Industrial Ltd., Annexation 8. #39-83A Harmony Commercial -Industrial Ltd., Zoning Waido: Requested these items be pulled. Stated the applicant can not bring in the entire Interstate right-of-way because the eastern half of the Interstate is outside the Urban Growth Area. That would necessitate an Urban Growth Area change. Asked that the applicant amend his plat to exclude the Interstate 25 right-of-way. Gilfillan: Was concerned in regards to some of the agreements in reference to the verification of the petition had not been completed. Waido: Stated the petitions from both applicants had' been signed. There were some contractual negotiations that have taken place between the two applicants which may create these items being pulled prior to going to City Council. The City nor Planning and Zoning need be concerned with this. Gilfillan: Any discussion? Rupel: Staff has completed it's discussion on these items. PEZ Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 3 • • Ross: Motion to approve Item 5, Preston Annexation Dow: Second Vote: Motion to approve Preston Annexation carried 7-0. 6. #40-83A Preston Zoning Ross: Motion to approve Item 6, Preston Zoning Dow: Second Waido: Clarify in motion that Board is recommending approval minus Interstate 25 right-of-way. Crews: Motion amended. Gilfillan: Motion as read will be Annexation of Harmony Commercial Industrial Ltd. less the Interstate 25 portion. Vote: Motion to approve Harmony Commercial -Industrial Ltd. Annexation carried 7-0. 8. #39-83A Harmony Commercial -Industrial Ltd. Zoning Georg: Move to recommend approval of Harmony Commercial -Indus- trial Ltd. Zoning subject to property being developed by a PUD. Ross: Second Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 13. #22-83 South Groves PUD - Preliminary Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. Gilfillan: questioned the curb cut on south portion off of College Avenue. Frank: Site will have access to Hereford Way off a curb cut and a curb cut to Mitchell Drive, which is a public street. Gilfillan: When will Mitchell Drive occur? What are ingredients for that to happen? Frank: The applicant will install Mitchell Drive. Dow: What restrictions, if any, will there be on traffic for College Avenue southbound turning left onto the site, people westbound exiting from the site trying to go south? P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 4 . Frank: College Avenue south of Horsetooth and north of Harmony will have a median with right turn -ins permitted and some limited left turn intersections. Some full inter- sections with signals will be provided also. This particular intersection will be a right turn -in and out only with the potential when the median goes in for a left turn -in to the site. There will be no left turns out. There will also be provided a deacceleration lane for the local street. Simpson: Does this particular plan include handicapped parking? Frank: Yes. Stoner: Do you have rendering elevations to show? Frank: Yes. Talked with applicant and some new information is to be presented at this time. John Dengler: Architect representing applicant. This was intended to be a Western Sizzlin' Steakhouse. Was a brick building with wood up above and a shake roof. Since that time, Mr. Diorio has decided not to go with the Western Sizzlin' chain, the building being one of the reasons, the franchise being another reason. His intent is to open his own steak house patterned after "Harrigan's". This building is decorated with a greenhouse on each side and colored aunings in front. I propose the plan be approved with the condition that we are going to bring through the elevations for your review and your approval on the final. Stoner: Is site or building changing? Dengler: Building envelope to remain but character elevation will be affected. Gilfillan: Any discussion from audience? Jim Worland: Owner of Major Motors. No objections to building but had concern with access via his property. With amount of space on'the site it would be difficult to make a turn either from the restaurant property onto his proper- ty or vice versa. Also, the garbage dumpster should be put in a position where it is not directly in front of the neighboring business. One last concern is the light to get out of the property. No left turn onto College Avenue. He feels that a light is deserving at that point. Gilfillan: Point of traffic concern well taken. Asked Joe if the access into Major Motors' site has been reviewed. P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83• Page 5 Frank: The problem with coming into the entrance to the build- ing is not seen, however, we'll make sure there is proper curbing and the like to make the turns. Stoner: What's a setback from a sidewalk or a property line to the front of the building? Do you feel that access into Major Motors' property is necessary with the development of Mitchell Drive? Frank: Setback is 35 feet from back of sidewalk. Yes, we feel that it is desireable to provide for inter -con- necting parking lots. It would provide a convenient way for people to walk and to drive back and forth. Georg: Discuss the dumpster problem. Dengler: After talking to Mr. Worland, there will be no problem moving it. Ross: Asked Pete if there were any problems if the decision to go ahead and approve this condition, in seeing the final elevations. Ruggiero: None at all. Georg: Motioned to approve South Groves PUD Preliminary sub- ject to the condition that the architectural elevations as well as the turning movements between Major Motors and the restaurant at the time of final be reviewed. Stoner: Second Gilfillan: Moved and seconded for the approval of the Preliminary plan of South Groves PUD with the two conditions of the architectural renderings and the traffic. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 17. #29-83 Holiday Twin Drive -In Out -of -City Water Service Re- quest (City Council, not County Referral) Waido: Gave staff report recommending approval. Gilfillan: Is applicant aware of the condition that the property be annexed to the city when it reaches the point of contiguity. Waido: Is not aware that the applicant is aware of the condi- tions. Dow: Move to recommend approval of the out -of -city water service request conditioned upon an annexation into the City of Fort Collins at the appropriate time. P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 6 0 • Crews: Second Gilfillan: Moved and seconded for the recommendation of approval of the out -of -city water service request with the condition of the annexation to the city. Vote: Motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. 18. #24-83 Lindenwood IV - County Referral Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval with the condi- tion that the site be developed with on -site streets of 36 foot wide pavement with curb gutter and side- walks. Recommendation has not been forwarded to the County because applicant would like to pursue the conditions that the Board recommends on the approval. The applicant is proposing 32 foot wide asphalt surface with 1 foot wide concrete edging on either side of asphalt. Staff concerned with setting presidence in the Urban Growth Area of varying the requirements stipulated by the adjacent municipality. Maintenance and storm drainage problems in the future. Gilfillan: Asked forinformation on the applicant's request for us to consider a 32 foot wide street with only a one foot concrete edging. Rupel: No change from engineering standpoint. They would still rather see the curb and gutter. Gilfillan: Applicant has requested 32 foot and staff recommends 36 foot. Correct? Rupel: This sets a presidence that we don't like to see esta- blished in a standard subdivision in the Urban Growth Area outside the city limits. Gilfillan: Who will maintain this road? Albertson -Clark: Being reviewed as public street. Anything in the Urban Growth Area would be reviewed against City street criteria. Dow: Why is engineering staff recommending curb and gutter? Rupel: Any street outside city may eventually have to take over as a maintenance object of our own. Our standards are 36 foot width for standard subdivision street minimum because of storm water to control, maintain the edge of the asphalt to keep it from being washed out or destroyed by the action of storm water. P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 7 0 • Gilfillan: Rupel: Simpson: Define a private street. Private street is something the city would not main- tain. They have no ownership or legal right to be on other than access for emergency vehicles. What kind of traffic do you invision will be generated out of this public street? Rupel: This is a connecting street. More in line of approach- ing a collector street than it does a local access street. Trip generations look to be 750 average daily trips, both to and from. Simpson: Define collector street. Rupel: Collector street is anything handling traffic in excess of 750 or somewhere in that range. Dow: Where does Linden Lake Road connnect on the east, where does it go and what other areas will it be serv- icing? Albertson -Clark: LindenLake Road is paved to a point and does continue through the property. It is drivable. It would connect through the site to Lemay Avenue. Dow: Does it connect with the road that goes to the north that goes to the northeast of this development. Albertson -Clark: The north side of the site is a ditch. There is no vehicular access across it. Dow: The only traffic would be a circular pattern through Lindenwood around the east side of the lake and back out? Albertson -Clark: That's correct. And no other developed areas to the east of this. All of the streets in the existing Lindenwood area are approved by the County. They do not have a consistant pattern of curb and gutter on them. There is virtually no sidewalks in the entire area, with the exception of Tavelli School area. Gilfillan: Is there access through Adriel Hills? Rupel: Bill Wyatt: I believe the access is available from the southeast corner of Lindenmeier Lake through Adriel Hills then on out to the county road to the east. Attorney, representing the applicant. Stated that you cannot drive from Lindenmeier to Adriel Hills. There is no connecting road. 1 P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 8 0 • Concerned about the construction or type of road. Wants consistency throughout filings 1 through 4 in regards to the road. Presented map to the Board showing private roads and presented pictures of the existing curbs, which are wood poles put to find the road bound- ary and a concrete abuttment about 4 inches wide and 4 inches high. Also concerned about the curb and gutter at this site. Thinks Lindenwood should be private throughout. Cannot conceive of Lindenwood 1,2,3 and 4 annexing to Fort Collins other than through a forced annexation. Whenever Lindenwood's development comes into the city, it will come in through forced annex- ation, at which time the city will not wish to go into condemnation proceedings to condemn those roads as a condition for bringing Lindenwood into the city. It appears untenable that you would have a portion of this subdivision as a public road and approximately 3/4 of it private roads. There will be confusion from this to the citizens when they enter, not knowing when they become trespassers. The people of Lindenwood would maintain their own streets (private) while the city is to maintain the public streets. Pattern of subdivision should be maintained throughout the de- velopment. Gilfillan: What are your feelings as to the sidewalks as pre- sented? Wyatt: Sidewalk issue addressed with a 12' ROW on either side. One side could be widened to 36 inches but main- tain the profile of the existing roads. Mike Schmid: Engineering Professionals. Concerned about drainage aspect. 35 of the 40 lots exist on the downstream side of Lindenwood Road. They will not contribute any runoff in the form of storm water or irrigation to Linden Lake Road. Regarding precedence setting, the majority of the area does not have city standard in streets. Crews: Name some areas in town that has one foot buffer or cement. Schmid: Manhattan Drive. From my visual inspection there was no problems with the structural integrity. Crews: When you have weeds growing between the cement and the asphalt, does that mean it is not performing or it's not sealed correctly? Schmid: Chances are an insufficient seal between the curbing line and the asphalt is to blame. The same potential problem can occur with curb and gutter. P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 9 • Georg: Does curb and gutter help avoid some of the dirt runoff onto the street that the normal one foot cement does not prevent? Schmid: No. The curb and gutter does nothing to prevent debris build-up on the streets. It's not a barrier. Crews: Are all the roads as you go around the same width? Schmid: No. Lindenwood 1st and 2nd are about 28 feet wide. Lindenwood 3rd is 30 feet and we are funneling out to 32 feet, an attempt to satisfy the city. Rupel: Contradicted one statement made about Manhattan Drive. There is evidence of structural damage on the one foot curb. There is marked evidence of much cleaner street and less dirt on the street that is a continua- tion of Manhattan ,which has curb and gutter. Georg: How many private roads does Fort Collins have currently in the city limits? ' Rupel: None that I know of. Georg: If the city does force an annexation of Lindenwood, could the city force upgrade of the streets in this area to city standards? Ruggiero: The city would have to condemn them if they chose to. In both cases, with either the city or the county, even if the roads were dedicated to the public, the governmental body still has the option of whether to accept those or not. Georg: If they were condemned, who's financial burden would it be to pay for the cost of their upgrade? Ruggiero: The condemning authority, if they chose to, would have to pay fair market value to the owners. I don't know if it is owned solely by the developer or each individual lot owner has a share of the roadway or not. Dolores Williams: Audience member for another project. Didn't intend to talk on this issue. Stated that Lindenwood is within one mile of Tavelli School. She feels the school bus should not be going there to pick up children. The bridge is too narrow and it is not safe for the kids to walk between school and Lindenwood. Mel Schamberger: Resident of Lindenwood. Would like to express support to the developer in the road issue. Does maintain consistency and contiguity between the subdivision which is one of the requirements of your city planning and county planning ordinances that any new subdivision should be consistant with adjacent subdivisions. P & Z Minutes Page 10 • • Headaches arise when there are public and private roads within the same association. Stated that they would advocate very strongly for greenbelt strip along the lake instead of an easement. Subdivision has main- tained an open area specifically for vehicle and trailer storage. Would suggest that this be taken into consideration. Would like to see that lighting the streets is included in the plat. Concerned about the number of houses packed right down against the lake. Would like to see modification of the road system to pull a few of these homes away from the lake to give better access to the homes along the lake area. Simpson: During heavy rain periods, do you experience any severe flooding in your subdivision? Is the water carried off the streets adequately or does it back up into the yards? Schamberger: In one place there is a slight problem. It's a depress- ion in the road and I think when we put our resurfacing in the road it will elevate the road a couple inches and will no longer be a problem. Rupel: Knows of'one private street within the city limits, which is Leisure Lane. Thornton: Grounds Chairman for Lindenwood. No place other what Mel Schamberger mentioned where there is any collection of debris or water.Would support the recommendation. Developer to combine Lindenwood IV with existing neighborhood. Has supported all plans and intentions. In order to attain this amalgomation, comperible ammen- ities must be insured. The present plans to not provide these ammenities. 1,2, and 3 have these items: a house for the caretaker, barn and stalls for over 12 horses stables for 20 horses outside, a horse arena, a large pasture, v tennis courts, Tuir iengtn oasKetoaii court, picnic area, two jettys for boat launching and fishing, and a storage area for campers, boats and trailers. In Lindenwood IV the plans are: two tennis courts, and that's all. Simpson: Which side of the street would the sidewalk go on? Schmid: Is willing to work with city and/or county staff and do that on whichever side is most appropriate, based on the development. Gilfillan: Pete, what potential problems, if any, would we get into in making a conditional recommendation back to the county, if it becomes a public street annexed for the city tocomform to the city standards at that time, and make the recommendation of the 32 foot with the one foot .as submitted right now? P & Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 11 • • Ruggiero: See difficulty if recommendation the streets be imp- roved at a later date. Possible formation of a special improvement district which would result in assessments against property with frontage on that street. The preferred course is to make a recommendation to the County about the width of the street with the addition of the perimeter cement pieces of one width or the other for sidewalk purposes. Crews: In event this property was presently in the city limits, with the traffic flow they would have, what would be the minimum street size you would recommend? Rupel: If submitted as a standard subdivision, which it is, we would recommend 36 feet. If submitted as PUD with all the PUD aspects, we can go down to 28 feet. Georg: Motion to recommend approval of Lindenwood IV subject to 32 foot or 36 foot wide streets with curb and gutter and sidewalks required on those interior streets. Sidewalks on both sides of the streets for the prelim- inary. Gilfillan: Supports motion but feels consistency with recommenda- tion on either 36 or 32. Would support a 32 foot with curb and gutter and a sidewalk on one side to be re- viewed when the final is brought up. Motion failed for lack of second. Stoner: Questioned public access road versus private access or being designated as a greenbelt. Wyatt: The lake rights are private rights. The ditch company owns the storage. The Association owns the recreational rights except for a reserved right in an old deed, of which since then has vacated. It's a private lake. Easement was negotiated with ditch company and widened from Long Draw to Lindenmeier substantially. Schmid: Directed by the developer that it would be easement rather than right-of-way. Can be pursued. Don't think there is a problem. Wyatt: 30 foot easement put on was a maintenance easement to accommodate Water and Storage. P& Z Minutes - 5/23/8� Page 12 • Stoner: Said he would eventually make a motion to go with a 32 foot wide street with curb and gutter and no sidewalk. Dow: Main reason put forth in support of full requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalk is one of consistency with city standards. Look at individual situation. Not convinced the runoff situation is a problem. Con- si-stency of development, if not a private road, it is the equivalent of a private roadin that no other areas are going to be serviced other than Lindenwood I through IV. Under those circumstances, a narrower road would be appropriate. I support the developer. I feel the sidewalks are not necessary. Supports the 32 foot wide street with the one foot concrete collar around it. Simpson: Supports developer for consistency in filings. Supports a smaller road. Sees no need for curb, gutters or sidewalks. If necessary, would rather see curb and gutter and omit sidewalks or only on one side. Crews: Second Georg: Concerned with financial responsibility. Engineering standards are not minimum performance standards. Need to go with curb and gutter. Personally would prefer to see the sidewalks. Larsen: Getting hung up on engineering standards. Looking at subdivision with a density of 1i units per acre. That's about as low as we ever see in the Urban Growth Area. Justification for that is consistency with the existing subdivision. No problem with matching what has been done in Third Filing, with no curb and gutter and without the concrete. Crews: Agrees with Georg. We are setting a precedence. Dow: Easy to distinguish this subdivision from other re- quests that we see. Do not see this as setting any kind of binding precedence other than where the Board is willing to look at the special needs. Gilfillan: Chair to entertain any motions. Dow: Move that approval be recommended for Lindenwood IV subject to the development of the streets to 32 feet with the one foot of concrete collar on both sides of the street as proposed, with no sidewalk. Simpson: Second P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 • Page 13 • Vote: Motion denied 4-3. Stoner: Motion to approve subdivision with 32 foot street with curb and gutters only. Crews: Second Vote: Motion for approval carried 7-0. 19. ##66-82B Bonneville Acres - Master Plan Sherry Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval of Master Plan. Also explained land use, utilities, circulation and storm drainage relative to this site. Also breifly touched on items discussed at the neighborhood meeting that was held in March. Simpson: Confused about south access. Where do you enter the subdivision if you take the intersection at Lincoln and Lemay and follow it up? Albertson -Clark: The Lemay Avenue alignment is at least a mile to the south. It does skirt Andersonville, the idea being to keep that arterial street as far away as possible from an established single f ynilarea. It enters the Bonneville Acres Master Plan site at the inter- section of Vine Drive then goes north. At this point is the intersection at Parkville Drive hich is the proposed collector. Parkville accesses off of Lemay Avenue. A need to interchange with Lemay alignment and the expressway in that area. Simpson: Is the access into Parkville Drive an ingress/egress or just an ingress? Albertson -Clark: Explained access onto Parkville Drive. John Dengler: Architect/Planner of project, representing Lyle Car- penter, owner. Don Parsons is here to answer questions and to talk a little on the engineering aspect of the project. Annexed under R-L-P zoning, real zoning is up to the Guidance System acceptance. Given re- straints on the site, it designed itself. The owner has intentions of developing a mobile home community, somewhere between 20 and 30 acres. Tract A shows 23 acres. Walked park site with Randy Balok. Thought it was a good location for the park, thought 10 acres. was the right size and saw there was a need in the area for a park. On remaining residential tract all add up so the overall density on the entire project is just about 5 units an acre. P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83• Page 14 E Parsons: Would like to have City water service instead of the district for economic reasons. More expensive for raw water trade in district than it is with the city. The city and the district requested the project be shown utilizing district services. It has been shown that way. Dolores Williams: 1520 Hillside Drive, Country Club Estates. Requesting that standard blending practices be used. Can not see how interchange relates to Anheuser-Busch private interchange on 50 and 52 and every mile thereafter. (Anheuser-Busch proposed arterial street) Can this be zoned without knowing where the expressway will go? Gilfillan: Some of the things will be answered with the next item when it comes up with more specifics on that phase. Albertson -Clark: New alignment of Lemay Avenue will be a four lane arterial street. It would be built in phases as part of this development. Williams: Is standard phase in mobile homes right across from the single family residences? Wants decent blend. Concerned that the expressway will never happen. Simpson: If expressway not to occur and Mr. Carpenter can pro- ceed to develop that area, do we know what sort of development he might add to the existing development? Albertson -Clark: Within that 300 foot area it is shown as a cont; nation of the mobile home park. However, it has been irf�t}icated that it is not being reviewed for a land use, a density or street design standards. If expressway is not built in that area, it would then require that the Master Plan be amended in that area as well as Preliminary and Final Phase plans be reviewed. Simpson: What type of time frame are we looking at as far as the developer waiting for the expressway to be de- veloped? Albertson -Clark: Time frame is specified at this point. It is one of the last Phases that is called on the Master Plan (the 3rd Phase). Can be negotiated with the developer a certain time frame that if no decision was made regarding the expressway during that period, he would be permitted to proceed with at least submittal of a plan in that area. P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 • Page 15 Dengler: If the highway does not go through, we would have to come through with an amendment of the Master Plan to amend Tract C to whatever density we want it. Then a Preliminary and Final plan for that Tract. Owner has no intention right now of putting in any mobile homes. If he does, it will be with a brand new plan. Simpson: What kind of improvements are expected at the inter- section at Lemay? Albertson -Clark: Offsite street improvements require 36 foot arterial. Evaluation is needed. Simpson: Has staff required information from FAA if they have addressed safety? Albertson -Clark: No. Art Krenzel: Resident with 40 acre horse ranch in backyard. How do you graduatea horse ranch in 200 feet. Backyard being destroyed. Jim Titcomb: Nedra Acres resident. Would mobile homes be permanent structures? Dengler: Term "mobile home" confusing. Applicant intends to do alternate single family detached lower cost home Called mobile home because of way utilities are brought into the unit. Presented as the appearance of modular. Loren Maxey: 1101 Clark, north of this development and on the Board of Directors at the Airport. Are we in first request for approval of zoning? 6ilfillan: As Master Plan Preliminary intent, if approved, another phase can be brought in to change it. As proposed, this is it. Maxey: No road inprovements on arterial streets outside this area that are proposed for improvement. Yet more ve- hicles being used on this system. Master Plan is affected by FAA. Albertson -Clark: Asked for review of potential impacts that the Airpark can have on the site from noise, safety and to evaluate proposed plans regarding impact developing the site could have on the future use of the Airpark. Comments indicated that nothing in terms of safety. Did indicate the site is located in flight patterns for both taking off and landing. FAA said site is not located within P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 16 • a noise sensitive area. Suggested soundproofing be provided in all mobile home units, requested that outside lighting be pointed downward and deed restric- be placed on each lot that would allow the right of flight and the right to make moire over the site. Phase One, the developer would be required to build the new Lemay alignment from Parkville Drive to the north where it would tie in with the existing Lemay. Would be built four lane arterial, curb, gutter, side- walk and bike lanes. Improvements would require the developer to improve the existing Lemay from site along the west edge of Phase One clear down to Lincoln. Simpson: Explain "improved" down to Lincoln. How much improve- ment? Rupel: 36 feet of paved arterial street standards. Standards are being able to handle truck traffic. No curb, gutter or sidewalks. Simpson: Existing Lemay width? Rupel: Varies from 24 feet up to in excess of 36 feet. No structural capabilities on southern part. Parsons: Applicant economically hopes Lemay from Vine to Lincoln is satisfactory in width. Ronnie Lindeman: Drives that street every day. Concerned over traffic and adding another 236 vehicles. Marilyn Kress: 1740 Rangeview Drive. Street issue, is new proposed Lemay, going to be two lane south of Lincoln then to a four lane? Concerned about bottleneck on south as well as the north end being a bottleneck. Rupel: No. Lemay will be four lane all the way from Colorado 14 to the city limits on the north. Yank Banowitz: #12 Forest Hills Lane, Lindenwood. Concerned about blending. Lot width 38 feet is not consistent with surrounding area. Stoner: Feels there is problems with compatibility, adverse traffic, neighborhood character. Will move to defeat the Master Plan. Simpson: Concerned about roadway systems. Development pushes and increases. Roads are getting harder and harder to travel. FAA possible problem area for crashes. Ross: We're dealing with Master Plan, not First Phase. Georg: First assumption for Land Development Guidance System was land use that can be made compatible. Will project not generate traffic volume which will exceed the P&Z Minutes - 5/23%83 S • Page 17 future capacity of the external street system. Diffi- cult to evaluate traffic and traffic flows. Ross: Development to the north, as a community, has been a desire. Trying to work future into the bypass area in the eventuality that it doesn't go in. Feels Master Plan should be looked at and finish up with it. Simpson: We know what Master Plan would indicate. It has already been set and it wouldn't be changed. Ross: Motion to approve Master Plan. Georg: Second Vote: Motion carried to approve 4-3. 20..`#6642C . Parkuille' PUD.-.`PreTimi.nary Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval. Dengler: Where there are units, there is fencing. The burming is done at points where streets either come up to it or greenspace does. Larsen: Are these private streets? Albertson -Clark: No, private driveways. We don't have private streets in the city. Larsen: How wide are they? Albertson -Clark: 24 feet wide. Larsen: Where are the three parking spaces per lot? Albertson -Clark: Approximately 5 feet in front of each unit, then three parking stalls that are head -in spaces, beyond a 5 feet concrete walkway and then the 24 foot driving aisle. Larsen: Setbacks on each lot; are there envelopes or is the lot the envelope; exterior storage buildings? Albertson -Clark: Minimum of 14 feet between each unit to the sides, front setback with parking in front, a minimum of 22 feet from the sidewalk. Storage area provided in front of the unit. Stoner: Is this owner -occupied? YouVselling the lots? C P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 . Page 18 • Dengler: Yes. Dengler: Conceived to be single family detached and the lots. will be sold. The fencing would be an alternative. Same goes for storage lockers. Lots designed for diff- erent lengths of units. All designed for 24 foot wide units. Siding specified to be hard board siding or T-lll type, painted in earthtone colors. Skirted foundations. Private patios are fenced. Every unit backs up to greenbelt. All greenbelts lead to common recreational areas. No metal siding allowed. Being designed to look totally like single family subdivision, basically much more toward a modular home subdivision. Finance -wise, owner is in conjunction with a developer who develops ;SF detached. He is the one who is coming up with the financing. He's done this before.. Stoner: Approving exterior elevations on the Final? Albertson -Clark: If Board is concerned, they can be specified on the site plan. Delores Williams: Concerned about high density. Doesn't like trees along the bike lane. Why hide things with trees and fences? George Thornton: Told intent was that no mobile homes would go onto this space. Understands R-L-P. Told noise level will not be out of compliance with FAA. Sees problem with. noise and safety. Further complication with Master Plan having mobile home park and designation of higher density with apartments immediately south. Haven't seen where Airport is targeted. This site is in direct line with airport. Basil Norcroft Lives in Nedra Acres. Feels railroaded. Yank Banowitz: Feels parking spaces are a problem. Loren Maxey: Against plan, specifically berms. Kids could slide down these directly into the road. Sees no water re- tention. Extra road access, not on master Plan,onto old Lemay. Sound factor from airplanes is a problem. las they are directly in flight path. Carolyn Banowitz: During Lindenwood hearing, required to have 32 foot wide streets. Now they're 24 feet wide? Art Krenzel: Former mobile home resident. Had 36 foot wide lots, 2 parking spaces and one storage shed, about 6 x 6 x 6. Concerned about vehicles parked on street. Con- cerned about noise from airport. Dengler: Are you really concerned about the safety of the people that will live there or are you just against a mobile home park there? No comment about a city park being there and any given Saturday 50 times more people P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 • Page 19 per acre when the soccer fields are there. No mobile home park but the city park is great. Parsons: Lots of problems for developer. But the benefits are the expressway grounds, relocation of Dry Creek, Green - briar Outfall System drainage right-of-way needs to be taken from Lemay south to Dry Creek. This develop- ment will allow for that improvement. Lemay realign- ment has begun. Without developments like this, Lemay will remain unchanged and remain a problem. Bob Knott: Nedra Acres. Am dead against mobile home park. Williams: This is a way for us to get a free street. What is the trade to get a free street? Ross: Motion to recommend denial. Dow: Second. Ross: Sees no problem with 38 foot lot. Is nervous about cutting the project in half by Lemay. Streets shouldn't be called private drives and not have enough off street parking and storage. Gilfillan: Somewhat agree. Also have to be cautious in what we say when referring to a low density single family or mobile home park. Feels low density single family in this area is adequate. Dislikes widths of the streets and parking. Georg: Nothing wrong with concept. Concerned with fencing, storage space and off street parking. The phasing is excellent. It's the design I'm concerned about. Vote: Motion for denial passed 7-0. 21. #110-79 South Glen PUD - Revised Preliminary Joe Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval. Rodger Evans: Architect with Downing/Leach. Upgrade existing plexes. New landscaping and paint scheme revised. Have already installed sprinkler system, replaced dead landscaping with new, have added landscaping, put down sod. Stoner: Why from 149 to 219? Evans: Economic feasibility. Georg: What's the shortest distance from a unit to lot line? Evans: Setback is 25 feet from front. 30 feet minimum on six-plex. r P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Page 20 Stoner: Dow: Vote: 22. #21-83 Motion to approved South Glen PUD Preliminary. Second Motion to approve carried 7-0. Portner Estates South - Master Plan Cathy Chianese: Gave staff report recommending approval. Ed Zdenek: ZVFK Architects/Planners. As far as Master Plan is concerned, would limit it to response to questions. Get into detail of PUD later. Georg: Motion to approve Portner Estates South Master Plan. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. 23. #21-83A Portner Estates South, Phase 1 - Preliminary Cathy Chianese: Variance request was presented to staff to vary the street width on one of the street. On this basis, staff is recommending approval. Ed Zdenek: With me today is Mark Palkowitch, and Steve Dalman with MSP Properties. Richard_, Kellogg with Falkener and Kellogg, who are the eijn4neers on the project, and from our office, Ron Filidy. Things to point out is the creation of the mobile home park. We are trying to integrate it into the community. Another is use of natural topography. Another is the uniqueness of the plan. Also good buffers. Using low profile grading. 1/3 of the lots can accommodate 32 foot wide home. Some lots are 75 feet wide. Narrow lots are 29 to 30 feet wide. 28 foot wide streets. Not fencing this development. On the arterials, there will be landscap- ing. Large setbacks, intense landscaping. Fencing limited to the need of the particular lot for screening and security. Encourage as little as possible. Gilfillan: What about storage? Zdenek: There will be sheds on site. Recreational vehicles will be storing them on the second phase area and will be screened and landscaped. Off site to the First Phase. a P&Z Minutes - 5/23/83 Is. Page 21 is Mark Palkowich: MSP Companies. Looking for approval.Also the people who will turn the dirt and will be the manager of the park. Low profile grading is excavating underneath the home, slide the home in. The home will be sitting on pads under the home. No runoff that will collect. Wheels will be taken off. Going into park initially as a rental park then 6 or 7 years down the road "condo-ing" it. Georg: This is example of infill. No abutting properties. The design differs from the earlier project. Georg: This is a public street versus driveway. Stoner: Motion to approve with variance to 28 foot street requirement. Georg: Second Vote: Motion for approval carried 7-0. 24. #54-80H VAlley Forge PUD - Preliminary and Final Cathy Chianese: Increase daycare center from 5100 square feet to 7337 square feet. The number of children permitted in the daycare center is based upon calculating from the outdoor area. Parking spaces increased from 11 to 15. ,Setback of building has increased in front. Staff recommends approval of the changes. Carr Bieker: ZVFK Architects/Planners. The building is brick with metal roof system very similar to the shopping center. Detailed nicely. Northside towards residential will be brick and a uniform general appearance all the way around. Building orients to the east and west. Fenced from residential back side. Ross: Motion to approve Valley Forge PUD. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion to approve carried 7-0. Gilfillan: flue to the laroe amount of items for next month,. there will be one worksession covering all the items,-- 'bn June 24. P & L Board Meeting will be divided into two meetings, June 27th and June 29th. July 12 suggest- ed date for joint City Council/Board meeting for Solar Access Study. Meeting adjourned at 11:45.