Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/25/19840 06 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES June 25, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chariman David Gilfillan at 6:35 p.m., June 25, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at roll call included: Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Alternate Randy Larsen. Board Member arriving late: Ingrid Simpson arrived at 6:40 p.m. Board members absent were: Gary Ross and Dennis Georg. Staff members present included: Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Mauri Rupel, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Gail Ault, Curt Smith, Jan Shepard, and Bonnie Tripoli. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the Consent Agenda. Chairman Gilfillan stated the Board wished to pull item 4 (#28-84A) St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton Catholic Church PUD, Phase I, Preliminary & Final, from the Consent Agenda. Member Crews made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of #4. Member Brown seconded. Member Larsen indicated his vote would not apply to item #5, Helmshire House 2nd, as he had a conflict of interest. The motion carried 6-0. The items approved on the Consent Agenda were: Minutes of May 30, 1984; #18-84A, Mini -Mart PUD - Final; #28-84, St Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church PUD - Master Plan; #30-83B, Helmshire House, Second, PUD Preliminary & Final; #72-79D, Fairview PUD, Phase IV - Preliminary & Final; #5-84A, Prospect/Overland PUD - Final; and #122-808, Stockbridge PUD Extension ST ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH PUD, PHASE I, Preliminary & Final (#24-84A) Cathy Chianese gave staff report recommending approval. Carr Bieker, architect/planner representing applicant, indicated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Gilfillan stated the Board would like some discussion on ramps, open grass, phasing, elevations, optional materials. Mr. Bieker addressed all items indicating the building would be predominantly stucco with stone accent and a metal roof system (preferably copper but otherwise a dark brown metal roof). He explained the roofing layout. The options for an asphalt roof and redwood siding had both been eliminated. Member Brown questioned the plot layout and where the Swale was. Chairman Gilfillan asked if the Board intended to hear the item tonight and Board agreed to do so. Carr Bieker explained the building/parking layout. The upper lot feeds the second story of the building which is offices. The low lot is for the lower level or main building. Regarding the phasing, weed and dust control will be provided during all phases. Phase 1 will include the outer perimeter buffers, irrigated lawn, landscaping has been coordinated with neighboring SouthRidge Page 2 June 25, 1984 P&Z Green. They have attempted to tuck the building into the natural contours of the land. Member Larsen asked about the detention area and whether replanting would occur. Bieker indicated yes, they definitely would replant any necessary area. Member Dow asked staff about the parking requirement. Cathy stated one parking spot per four seats was required, hence the 183 parking spots. Additional parking would be provided with future phases. Member Dow asked if the options presented any problem. Cathy indicated only those specified tonight would be allowed or an administrative change would have to be filed and approved. Member Gilfillan stated he wished the elevations requested at worksession had been available tonight. Member Larsen moved to approve the project and Member Crews seconded. Motion to approve carried 6-0. FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, PHASE 2, PUD - Preliminary & Final (#193-79D) Member Brown excused herself from the vote as she lives within 500 feet of the project. Joe Frank gave a summary of the First Christian Church project. Additions include more plantings and a sloped metal roof in character with existing building. Phil Taylor, Al Hockett, construction, representing the applicant, indicated he was available to answer questions. He indicated the master plan landscaping is 50 percent planted now plus some additional plantings. .Administrative changes have been approved adding more trees and a drive. Member Simpson asked the size of the trees and Member Larsen questioned the changes in the landscape plan. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the letter of credit. Joe Frank stated the landscaping should be installed by August 1. A letter of credit, good for 2 years, would be required if landscaping was not all in place. Gordon Warrington, 2613 Dorado Court, neighbor, questioned exact location of proposed building and asked about construction practices and dust abatement. Chairman Gilfillan stated building codes regulate the construction practices. Joe indicated the building was one story with basement and indicated on slide where it would be located. Mauri Rupel indicated when there were problems there could be a hold on construction until the problems were resolved. Mr. Warrington expressed his desire that possible preventive measures be looked into and followed and also would like to receive continuing information on the project. Chairman Gilfillan stated he was welcome to visit the Planning Office to obtain the latest information but because of the timing and expense it was not possible to send out mailings to neighboring property owners. Mauri also indicated since there is now a contractor and architect who are aware of the neighbors concerns, the problems should be taken more seriously. Member Larsen asked how the 12,000 s.f. building was laid out and Bieker replied 2/3 on main floor (approximately 8,000 s.f.) and 1/3 allocated to basement (approximately 4,000 s.f.). Member Dow moved to approve the 2nd Phase and Member Simpson seconded. The motion carried 5-0. RIVERSIDE SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION - Final (#92-83A) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report indicating a 2-year protective covenant (tied to the final subdivision plat) limiting development to a neighborhood shopping center had been entered into and recommending approval. Don Berry, Englewood, applicant, indicated he was available for questions. Page 3 June 25, 1984 P&Z Chairman Gilfillan asked Mr. Berry if he was aware of the covenant and had signed it, and he responded affirmatively. Member Brown moved to approve Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision - Final, and Member Larsen seconded. Motion to approve carried 6-0. McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK PUD - Preliminary & Final (#29-84) Joe Frank gave staff report with slides recommending approval. Eldon Ward, representing applicant, indicated he would answer any questions. Chairman Gilfillan asked if it was a phased development. Mr. Ward indicated the center building with all utilities, public improvements, private improve- ments relating to the building, would be the first phase. The sidewalk, which was not yet installed, had not been addressed but could be put in in the first phase. Chairman Gilfillan indicated he would like to see the total sidewalk and landscaping a part of the first phase. Member Dow wondered if the phase could stand on its own. Mr. Ward indicated all phases would stand on their own, and parking would be no problem. Member Larsen asked about the building height and where the elevator was located. Ward pointed out on a slide and indicated the building elevation and setback of 22-26 feet is consistent with Solar One, the neighboring building. Member Brown was concerned with height and mass so close to the public ROW. Ward indicated Solar One was actually slightly closer to the street and that their building was not as complicated as Solar One but fairly similar in size. Larsen questioned McClelland's arterial designation. Ward indicated a traffic impact study had been done. Joe Frank stated no need had been identified in the study for widening McClelland. Chairman Gilfillan also was concerned with the mass but felt since the other buildings in the project were offset from the building he could support the project. Member Brown indicated the architect had done a good job however she also felt the building was too close to the street. Member Simpson asked about the possibility of shortening the building, or relocating it further from the street. Member Crews moved to approve the project provided sidewalk and landscaping along entire western property line be installed with Phase 1. Member Gilfillan seconded. Motion tied 3-3 with Members Larsen, Brown, & Simpson voting no. Member Dow indicated the property could be developed as a subdivision but the developer chose the PUD process. He preferred a larger setback also, but felt the project should be approved. Member Larsen brought up the possibility of different access. Chairman Gilfillan stated the access easement made that difficult. Eldon Ward responded they had asked Ken Pastor about moving the easement but it was not acceptable to him. He also pointed out the finished grading on site would drop the building below McClelland approximately 4 feet and they could increase the landscaping in the front, minimize the landscaping to the east, and slide the building 4 feet to the east. He also pointed out this is currently the only building facing McClelland. Bill Tiley, owner of the property, reiterated the fact that this was the only building facing the street and felt the project was consistent with the neighborhood. Eldon Ward stated the building could be setback as far as 10 feet if some landscaping from the backside of the building was removed. Joe stated the parking aisle width could be reduced and the landscape buffer reduced, and 10 feet gained. Page 4 June 25, 1984 P&Z Member Larsen felt this 10 foot movement would satisfactorily improve the project and he could support it. He moved to approve the project with the understanding the sidewalk and landscaping would be extended along the entire property line and that Building B be moved 10 feet to the east with the additional footage coming from: 4 feet from landscaping to the east, 4 feet from the parking area, and 2 feet from easterly building landscaping. Member Brown seconded. Member Dow suggested the possibility of this being only a preliminary. Larsen indicated if it was more or less than 10 feet the project would need to come back for review. Motion carried 6-0. OUT -OF -CITY WATER REQUEST - 2407 WEST DRAKE ROAD (#33-84) Ken Waido gave staff report indicating we recommend approval to City Council. Site would be required to annex at time of redevelopment. Member Brown moved to recommend approval to City Council and Member Crews seconded. Motion passed 6-0. LYNN ACRES REZONING - COUNTY REFERRAL (#43-84), REPLAT OF LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 7, Lynn ACRES (#43-84A), and REPLAT OF LYNN ACRES SUBDIVISION WAIVER (#43-84B) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report on all three related item, recommend- ing approval. The Replat created three single-family building sites out of two and the street improvement waiver was felt to be no problem since only one additional lot was being made and the area was an in -fill site. The condition was added to the Waiver that the applicant commit to future street improvement districts. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the access to the new lot. Sherry stated it would be from Vivian Street. The two existing structures access from Trilby Road. Member Brown asked what the waiver fee was and when it would be paid. Sherry stated it was paid at time of building permit issuance however the fee had not yet been established. Member Dow moved to approve Lynn Acres Rezoning and Member Larsen seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Member Crews moved to recommend approval to the County of the Replat of Lynn Acres and Member Simpson seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Member Larsen moved to recommend approval of the Waiver of the Replat of Lynn Acres and Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Gilfillan indicated a concern over the development of SunRay PUD and complaints that it was not in conformance with the plans. Joe Frank indicated there were no administrative changes that he was aware of, but he had watched the project and the problem seemed to be in the interpretation of building height. The project is in conformance with the plans and this seems to be a case where the drawn elevations look much better than the finished project. Also the building height measurement was in conformance, however, a new definition will be followed in the future for a more consistent interpretation among various projects. Chairman Gilfillan commented that having additional on -site slides included in the staff presentation was very helpful to the Board and requested they be included for future presentations. Member Simpson moved the meeting be adjourned, Member Brown seconded, motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.