Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/26/1984E PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 26, 1984 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman Dave Gilfillan at 6.32 p.m., March 26, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Tim Dow, Dave Gil- fillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, and Alternate Randy Larsen. Staff members present included: Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, Curt Smith, and Gail Ault. Legal Representative was Ken Frazier. Ken Waido reported that three additional items had been added to the agenda; one concerning the DDA Parking Garage and one regarding site development problem areas had been placed at the end of the agenda. A presentation by Core Area Neighborhood Steering Committee representative, Linda Ballarin, was to be presented at this point. Linda Ballarin outlined the ongoing process to develop a neighborhood master plan for the Laurel School Neighborhood. She stated completion of the plan was scheduled for September 1984. They would be dealing with such areas as noise abatement, pedestrian circulation, pollution, crime, and aesthetic considerations. Ken Waido reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. These items were: February 27, 1984 Minutes, Mini-U-Storage PUD-Preliminary (#7-84), Brown Farm Highlands PUD-Preliminary and Final (#8-84), Pinewood PUD-Preliminary and Final (#32-79B), and Collindale 5th Filing Replat PUD-Preliminary and Final (#209-79I). Ken indicated the applicant had requested item 12 (#2-84B) Springfield Recre- ation Center PUD-Waiver - Country Referral be tabled. Member Brown moved to pull #7-84, Mini-U-Storage PUD and Member Ross indicated he had a conflict of interest with that item and would not participate in the voting. Dennis Georg moved to approve items 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Consent Agenda and Member Crews seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Mini-U-Storage - Preliminary (87-84) Questions were raised regarding the parking and amount of room in rows of the site plan. Ken Waido indicated the traffic volume therefore, the aisle width was acceptable. Member Larsen questions building's height and access and Ken stated they would be accessed and elevators. the middle was light; the middle by forklift Keith Lyon, President of C. J. Bonner Corporation, the applicant, indicated the drives would be one way. He pointed out where the elevators and stairs would be located and stated they had 35 similar projects some with lesser aisle widths and hadn't encountered problems. Parking limitations could be imposed and signs could be put up stating the limitation. March 26, 1984 Page 2 Member Crews moved to approve the project and Member Georg seconded. The motion passed 6-1 with Member Brown voting no. Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision - Preliminary (#92-83) Ken Waido gave a staff update indicating the developer had dedicated ) the ROW along the south edge of the property line per staff request for an alternate access to the western properties. This changed the staff recommendation from denial to approval. Applicant Don Berry, 5650 BTC Parkway, Englewood, indicated he had nothing to add to last month's presentation but was available for any questions. Jerry Roselle, 720 Whedbee, Chairman CAN traffic committee, presented informa- tion regarding an informal people count they took. Of the 90-100 surveys, they received 54 back. The majority of the respondants opposed increasing traffic on a residential street (91%), opposed the extension of Laurel Street (85%), and opposed the shopping center (54%). He asked the issues of extending Laurel Street and the shopping center be separate items. Scott R. Peterson, property owner of 710 Colorado, welcomed the shopping center over the current "eyesore". Felt the area had long been neglected and it was no longer a truly residential street. He felt Laurel needed to be incorporated into a street with the traffic controls of a public street and doing so would help curb the speeding that currently exists. Stanford Kern, 804 E. Elizabeth, opposed the shopping center but felt the area might be right for other development. The Riverside/Lemay junction would become a "stopping off" place rather than being used by the neighborhood. J. B. Foster, owner of 825, 827, 829 Riverside, indicated it used to be a salvage yard and he had improved the area from what it had been. He felt he would definitely use a shopping center in that location. Karen Waddell, 309 Garfield, Liaison for CAN, stated the elderly would like a thoroughfare that catered to pedestrians, not fast or excessive traffic, possibly with a walkway. Michael Ehler, 429 Magnolia, questioned the ROW along the southern property line. Rick Ensdorf, Traffic Engineer, stated the City believes Laurel should go through but other issues must be discussed prior to finalizing the decision. At this time Laurel will not go through. The site plan and potential impacts are being reviewed. Member Ross asked how the ROW would continue after it left this property. Rick Ensdorf pointed out the route but doubted it would continue past the property line. . March 26, 1984 • Page 3 u Member Dow questioned if the ROW would access landlocked property to the north of the school, and asked about the dedicated ROW of 27 feet on the west as well as the south. Rick stated discussion with the developer, looking at potential site plans and impact studies, has alleviated need for western ROW. A street on the south provides the minimum needs. Member Georg asked if an access on the property line was the right choice. Rick indicated is was a reasonable location in relation to Riverside and Elizabeth. Member Ross asked about the lot configuration and Ken Waido said they met the technical requirements. Member Dow asked about the curbcuts. Ken stated curbcuts would be reviewed by Traffic at the time of building permit issuance and curbcut access could be denied if traffic flow was too heavy. Zoning Administration reviews parking lot layout. Member Dow wondered what controls Planning and Zoning would have if the pro- perty was not developed as stated. Ken said the same rights would transfer to the new owners. Ken responded "Yes" to Member Ross' question on whether lotlines could be moved. The applicant indicated the City retained much control over parking lot lay- out, landscaping, etc. Since the intent was for a shopping center, they had no objection to a use restriction. Ken reminded the Board we would see the item again at Final. Member Dow felt it would be a way to avoid disaster. Ken Frazier indicated if the applicant entered into such an agreement willingly there was no difficulty, but the Board could not force such a condition on an applicant. The applicant asked we approve the project at this time and they would add the condition to the final, rather than having the item tabled for an additional month. Ken indicated the earliest the item could be reviewed would be May. Member Dow moved to approve the subdivision -preliminary, subject to the condi- tion the current developer develop it as a neighborhood shopping center since the applicant was agreeable. Member Ross stated he had confidence in the staff and developer but also believed in the cautious approach. He felt the public needed the opportunity for input and review and the process was not open enough. Member Georg felt problems might arise since we were not considering potential use. He didn't feel the City was providing good traffic access and wished the item was being treated as a PUD. He reiterated open public hearing were a key element. Chairman Gilfillan stated that would apply to other projects as well. Member Brown told the audience they could feel the Board's frustration at not having control, due to the system. She then seconded the motion. Item was approved 5-2 with George and Crews voting no. Gables End PUD - Preliminary & Final 010-84) Cathy Chianese gave staff report recommending denial based on incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. March 26, 1984 Page 4 Bob Mooney, architect with Larsen and Associate, and Tim Conine, applicant, gave a presentation on the 340 s.f. efficiency apartment units. The location was an area of transition and the submission was appropriate density. They would keep existing landscaping, the building heights were compatible with the neighborhood, and the project was consistent with the LDGS. Answered Board's questions regarding number of curbcuts (2) and length from driveway to Shields (98 feet). Member Georg pointed out there were six areas for denial. Member Crews asked about plans for widening Shields and how they would affect the project to which Bob Mooney replied he thought it would affect the east side of Shields only. Chairman Gilfillan asked what uses were permitted. Cathy indicated anything above the density of a duplex needs a site plan review. Phyllis Bostling, 1213 Westward, felt the project was inappropriate and there are too many commercial projects already. Alden T. Hill, 1125 S. Shields, resident of 33 years, didn't object to Colum- bine Cable TV, or to the high density housing; but the water pressure is poor, the many college kids are causing problems, there's not adequate parking on the site, there won't be management of the property, and he and his wife object to the project. They own five acres to the north (165 feet on Shields and 3 mile long). Member Dow asked Mr. Hill what he felt would be a good use of his property if it was in transition. Mr. Hill indicated the area will probably eventually become higher density, but he isn't ready for it to happen yet. Gene Fisher, 1201 Wetward Drive, a resident since 1959, felt the development was incompatible. It is a mature established single-family neighborhood and the neighbors are opposed. He felt traffic was a definite problem. Density would be doubled with this project. He then presented to additional letters for neighbors opposing the project. Chairman Gilfillan asked for suggestions on compatible usage. Mr. Fisher responded single-family residences or, if new construction, a two-family townhome. Dan Elliott, 1305 Westward, property owner for seven years, felt traffic would be a definite problem. The high density and student parking would be too big a burden for the street. Fritz Seeker, 1308 Westward Drive, resident of eight years, indicated the neighborhood might be in transition but not Westward Drive. It was very stable. There were areas within half a mile vacant that could be used for development rather than this area. Shields Avenue has many large older homes and this would be an unfortunate trend to promote. Member Georg stated it was not a bad design but a wrong location. The project was incompatible in density, building/parking setbacks, and building scale. Member Crews felt it was a transitional zone and, therefore, the Board needed ' March 26, 1984 Page 5 • to monitor it closely. Member Ross disagreed saying it was not transitional in nature on the west side of Shields Street. Member Georg moved to deny the project. Member Brown seconded. Motion to deny carried 7-0. Raintree PUD - Master Plan (#146-79C) Joe Frank gave staff report on revised master plan for this neighborhood shopping center, increasing from 125,000 to 219,000 s.f. the commercial size. Staff recommended approval. Bob Clements, Slawson Development Corporation (an affiliate of Slawson Oil Company, Denver, CO), developer, reported the land was purchased in 1978 and they were a developer/owner with a long-term interest in the property. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects, noted there were two property owners, one ready to develop, one not, creating a challenge. The curbcuts on Drake and Shields both would be limited turns. Member Georg questioned the density of Parcel C. Vaught stated with Raintree widened as a collector this flexible parcel could be high density apartments. Member Brown wondered if the maximum master plan building height was 40 feet, Vaught concurred. Roy Carpenter, resident to north of project, mentioned he had been contacted by a person name Nix regarding the widening of Shields. He felt traffic and parking were big concerns, and wondered if the center would have a restaurant or McDonald's. Chairman Gilfillan indicated the applicant would be paying for the widening of Shields. Joe Frank mentioned there would be no improvements at the master plan level, as the phases were developed the adjacent streets would be improv- ed. Member Dow was concerned about the access points shown on the master plan. Asked if staff felt they were the best? Joe noted the curbcut was dependant on the intensity of the project. Ross moved to approve, Gilfillan seconded. Motion to approve carried 7-0. Raintree PUD, Phase 2 - Preliminary (#146-79C) Joe gave staff report on this project which has been worked on over a year, recommending denial. Major problem areas are 1) accress to site (emphasis on arterial street curbcuts, deemphasizing Raintree), 2) site orientation not geared toward pedestrians as LOGS requires, 3) grocery store circulation, and 4) several (6 of 44) of the LOGS criteria are not met. March 26, 1984 Page 6 Bob Clements, applicant, reported a market feasibility study showed project was economically feasibly and provided needed neighborhood services. By developing the total project at one time they would provide project consis- tency. Frank Vaught, Architect, pointed out dual ownership had created some problems. More than one curbcut off Raintree would be difficult. The wagonwheel design was being used with shared parking in the middle, and building entrances facing the middle. Safe pedestrian crossing was provided. Over 25% of the site was in open landscaped areas. No left turns onto Drake were allowed. The center was compared to Toddy's and Drake Crossing for similar circulation, and much thought went into pedestrian circulation. Bob Clements felt they met the neighborhood shopping center criteria, pedes- trian safety criteria, and had easier pedestrian access than other centers. Roy Carpenter, neighbor to north, wondered what was happening on the north. Joe indicated it was open space. Chairman Gilfillan questioned need of third access. Bob Clements stated, while it was not a traffic concern, it was for easy access of the consumer. The center compares favorably with Toddy's and Drake Crossing. Member Georg noted we were not evaluating existing development but a new plan, and wondered when medians would be put in. Vaught stated Drake median would be put in at construction, Shields median at the City Traffic Engineer's discretion. Member Ross felt store traffic was controlled as traffic exits and goes nort- He's in favor of the project and will support it. Ron Miller, 3119 Sharp, echoed Ross that it was a nice plan, but was concerned about traffic in front of the grocery store. He suggested an additional pedestrian ramp. Mentioned he would buy at the store because of prices, not access, and wondered how water pressure would be affected. Joe Frank reported water and sewer reviews all PUD but did not identify water pressure as a problem. Member Crews asked if we should exclude video game parlors. Member Simpson felt north access should be closed off. Member George wasn't sure enough information was provided. The developer had worked with the City for a solid plan but safe and convenient pedestrian movements were not a part of the plan. Member Brown felt a higher percentage of LOGS criteria should be met. Vaught point out many points were not included. No energy savings points were added because developer wasn't exactly sure what applications they would use. Member Dow moved to approve the project stating while he wasn't crazy about the Drake Road curbcut and wished auto -related marketing was deemphasized, the quality was good and this was a preliminary plan. Member Ross seconded. Motion to approve was passed 4-3 with Georg, Brown and Gilfillan voting no. Member Georg felt the plan was not the quality the Board should promote. yMarch 26, 1984 Page 7 �J Timberline Apartments PUD - Replat - Preliminary and Final (#32-83B) Member Dow abstained from the discussion because of a conflict of interest. Joe Frank gave staff report recommending approval. John Dengler, Architect, stated American Republic Realty Corporation was the applicant. They wanted to incorporate a 2-story 16-plex building type into the plan as well as a pitch and putt in the flood plain. Building height will be two story and there is better buffering under this revised plan. Bob Franzen, 1931 Sonora, questioned the drainage flowing over Timberline. He disliked the apartment traffic coming through the residential area to the north but felt the building changes on the north were an improvement. John Dengler responded that Eastbrook splits and they feel most traffic will enter from the south and leave the same way. Joe Frank indicated four 12-inch pipes would be installed to go under Timber- line to alleviate the drainage problem. Mr. Franzen stated the rough grading was done but that was all. Joe indicated the design had been approved but he wasn't sure when the construction would be completed. Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, indicated the site drainage will overtop Timberline until completed. Member Georg moved to approve the project, Member Crews seconded, motion carried 7-0. Springfield Recreation Center PUD - County Referral (12-84) Ken Waido gave staff report to recommend approval to the County. Vern Sunset, developer, indicated he and Bill Kruback, Engineer, were avail- able for questions. Member Larson felt project was incompatible with City standards, plain, and lacked imagination. Member Brown felt it resembled a typical strip development. Member Georg agreed with Larson. Member Ross moved to recommend approval to the County, Member Crews seconded. The motion passes 5-2 with Dow and Brown voting no. OTHER BUSINESS Cathy Chianese gave staff report outlining request by DDA for the option to use the administrative change procedure on the choice of facade for the parking garage. Earl Wilkinson, DDA Board of Directors, explained reasoning behind request; timeframe shows completion by October 84 and budget constraints. March 26, 1984 Page 8 Member Simpson asked about the leeching effect on the new facade and — weathering, Dow questioned the surface coverage. Glen Conine, ZVFK architect, explained the new facade. Member Larson added he would not have voted for the project if presented with this suggested facade. Brown was concerned the site would not coordinate with downtown area. Dow pointed out we were voting on whether the change constituted a change in character and could not, therefore, be administrative ly done. Chairman Gilfillan asked if specifications would change. Ross asked if change was significantly different from what was presented he would like to see it again. George also believed it was a substantial change, and the character of the building was changed. Brown reiterated the project was promoted as coordinating with old town and she believes it is important to insure that it does. Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development, reminded Board the vote was whether or not it was a change in character but whether he would have the authority to approve/disapprove the facade change. Member Dow moved to approve the option of use of the administrative change for the DDA Parking Garage, George seconded. Motion passed 6-1 with Georg voting against since he believed it constituted a change in building character. Ken Waido held a brief disscussion on City -zoned property that had the poten- tial to be problem areas during the development procedure. The general conse- nsus was that it would be best to develop as a PUD and this condition should be placed on the property prior any development review. The April worksession was changed from Friday, April 20, to Thursday, April 19. The May Planning and Zoning Board meeting will be on May 21, not 28. Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.