Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/27/19840 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 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., February 27, 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, Randy Larsen, Don Crews and Sharon Brown. Ingrid Simpson was absent. Staff members present included: Mauri Rupel, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Linda Hopkins, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli, John Dewhirst and Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel stated that the applicants of Items #16 and #17, Raintree PUD - Master Plan (#146-79C) and Raintree PUD, Phase 1, Preliminary (#146-79D) requested a continuance. Mauri also stated that D.A.H., Ltd., Rezoning - County Referral (#11-84) has been withdrawn. Member Brown requested that Item #5, Lot 2 Mason Street PUD - Preliminary and Final (#14-83A) be pulled. Mauri reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. These items were: Revisions to Fort Collins City Code, Chapter 99, Subdivision of Land; Fairview, Phase II, Revised Preliminary and Final, PUD (#72-79C); Sandcreek Village PUD - Preliminary (#1-84); Prospect/Overland PUD - Preliminary (#5-84); Lot 2 Mason Street PUD - Preliminary and Final (#14-83A); Lemay Medical Park PUD - Extension (#118-80A); Minutes of January 23 and 24, 1984; Value Plastics - Preliminary and Final (#95-83); Prospect II - Final (#82-79C) and The Meadows at Redwood Village PUD, Phase l Amended (#44-82D). Member Ross motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0 with the exception of Item #3 which was 6-0. Member Dow abstained from voting on this Item due to a potential conflict. Lot 2 Mason Street PUD - Preliminary and Final - (#14-83A) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave report recommending approval. Robert Sutter, of Sutter Architects, spoke for the applicant. Member Georg asked Sutter to discuss the landscaping, the screening of the dumpster in rear of the building and inquired about the total length of the property. Sutter responded by explaining that there is wooden screening and a tree and several smaller shrubs around the dumpsters. The total length of the property is 212 feet. Member Georg asked about berming. Sutter said there is no berming because the area is somewhat limited but there is some screening. Member Larsen inquired about the sign in front of the building being in the public right-of-way. Sherry replied that the applicant had been put on notice that the sign as on the plan shown would not be permitted. Member Ross motioned for approval of Lot 2 Mason Street PUD Preliminary and Final (#14-83A). Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 5-2 with Member Larsen and Member Brown voting no. Frank Vaught, planner with ZVFK and representing Slawson Company, explained why the applicant requested continuance of Raintree PUD. The explanation was that negotiations of the land trade were not consumated and more time is needed to address some of staff's additional problems. Member Ross motioned to table Raintree PUD Master Plan and Raintree PUD, Phase 1, Preliminary to the next regular Planning and Zoning meeting. Member Dow seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Upland Annexation - (#3-84) Ken Waido gave brief report recommending approval. Dave Urich, Director of Land & Industrial Development for Upland Industries, spoke briefly on Upland Industries, the proposed annexation and their plans to widen Prospect Street, installation of a cul-de-sac street to provide access, extend sewer and water utilities and subdivision of the lot. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the cost to the property owners for the Prospect Street improvements. Waido replied that just the additional costs across the railroad right-of-ways would be incurred by the City. No payback agreement could be extracted from the railroads. Member Brown questioned the fire access of the property. Arnold Neimeyer, Land Development Engineer for Upland Industries, stated that he met with Larry Donner of the City Fire Department and came to the solution to provide a fire access service road which would run along the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and provide an emergency crossing of the railroad for emergency vehicles. Also discussed was the possibility of providing on -site fire lanes which would access from the initial entrance off of Prospect going along the east boundary line and going along any frontage of any buildings. Member Georg motioned to recommend to City Council the Upland Annexation approval. Member Dow seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Upland Annexation Zoning - (#3-84A) Ken Waido gave a brief report recommending approval subject to PUD condi- tions. Member Dow moved to recommend approval to City Council subject to PUD condi- tions. Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 7-0. -2- 0 Windtrail PUD Extension (#13-80E) Member Larsen abstained due to a conflict with this item. Joe Frank gave brief summary recommending approval of a one year extension. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Jack Trigg, discussed problems that have been solved, concerns of the residents, Shields Street improvements and items discussed at a neighborhood meeting held January 11, 1984. Concerns of the residents were the pond water level that keeps dropping very low, unsightly weeds, the pond pump not working properly, the landscaping not being main- tained properly and the riprap not being sufficient. She stated that the ori- ginal plans had called for a river riprap and broken concrete had been put in. She stated that some of the problems resolved were that parts of the electrical box controlling the pump have been replaced, a timing device has been replaced, and a bid has been obtained for spraying the weeds around the pond area and for reseeding a portion of the site adjacent to the floodway. She added that grading and riprap of the floodway are being handled now. The top layers of loose concrete riprap will be taken out and river rock placed on top so the visual effect will be only red river rock. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the one year extension. Liley replied that in terms of the timing, the applicants anticipate having substantial completion of the floodway im- provements, the landscaping and the ponding problems within 3 months. Progress will be made within 6 months for the street improvements. A six month limitation could be handled although the level of commitment and the progress made makes a six month extension unnecessary. Chairman Gilfillan suggested that a consideration of a six month extension be made. He then stated that, if at the end of that period, there is need for an extension, then the item can come to the Board again. Liley concurred as long as substantial improvements are being made at that time. Frank Silar, 1907F Waters Edge in Hillpond area, discussed his opposing views on this item. John Rash, 1901 Seawaters Edge in Hillpond area, spoke in opposition of this item. He was concerned about the pond area not being taken care of and consideration of having the trail turned over to the city. He also feels that care be taken to restore contour of slopes to 4-1 or 3-1. Steve Foster, Hillpond Board of Directors President and resident, spoke ob- jecting to the appearance of Windtrail, concerns about the pond and flood - plain. Member Georg asked Joe Frank to review the procedure the City follows in making sure the developer does conform to the plan as approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Joe reviewed the procedure. Member Georg then asked Joe to summarize the administrative changes made by Windtrail. Joe answered that there has been no administrative changes made other than the extensions. -3- Chairman Gilfillan recommended a six month extension with a monthly update to staff and then passing this report on to the Homeowners Association. Member Crews questioned the steps in the phasing of the floodway completion. Marc Engemoen, City Engineer, explained that the floodplain is administered by the City but is based on the sample requirements put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to their regulations, you can not allow construction in a floodplain without either elevating the structures or, if it's in a floodway, allowing any construction at all. Part of the Windtrail site is in the floodway and part in the floodplain. To developthis site, the developer had to shrink the floodplain. He did this by channelizing Spring Creek. This is why channel improvements went in first and floodplain improvements went first. Member Crews asked if this was complete now. Marc explained that the slopes were 3-1 or 4-1 which, as far as the Engineering Department is concerned, are complete. John Rash stated that when he measured the slopes, he did not measure 4-1. He also asked who in the city is legally obligated to change a contract where they specify 6"-9" diameter riprap and they end up with 3' square pieces of concrete. Ken Frazier stated that Lucia Liley could address Mr. Rash's question. Liley stated that she was concerned about where the riprap discussion was going other than just a general discussion of city policy changes. She felt that the developer has been hurt by the riprap issue. The change to a concrete riprap was approved by the city when Mr. Trigg bought the development. He has chosen to voluntarily put in the river rock riprap. She felt the performance bond would add to an already costly project. Chairman Gilfillan explained that the performance bond was something that he brought up for discussion. John Payne, of Victoria Limited, stated that the three month time schedule is one they put on themselves to be totally complete with the floodway. This is contingent upon the approval by the Federal Regulating Board over the floodway area. The rock riprap and the additional landscaping, weather permitting, should be done within one and one-half months. Member Dow moved to grant the Windtrail PUD extension in that the Board ex- tends for 3 months the PUD as it relates to improvements along Spring Creek including the pond, the replacement of the existing concrete riprap with the river rock, and the completion of landscaping and grading along Spring Creek. With respect to the other aspects of the PUD under the extension, Member Dow moved to extend those other matters for a period of six months. Member Ross seconded. Chairman Gilfillan requested that a monthly update of their progress provided to the staff and reported to the Board by the staff be added to Member Dow's motion. Member Dow and Member Ross concurred. Motion carried 7-0. Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision - Preliminary (#92-83) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report recommending denial. The basis for -4- 0 • the denial recommendation is due to a request, made by staff, which has not been met. That request was that the right-of-way be dedicated along the western property line and the southern property line, the purpose being to allow for alternative access to this site rather than requiring or permitting only access from Riverside and Lemay for future development. Don Barry, of CDB Development, briefly discussed the site, the proposed Albertson's and Long's Drug Store development, the adjoining property south owned by Reid Rosenthal and his proposed use, and showed slides of the area as it looks now. Gary Jones, of Flickenger Associates, spoke about the site plan, the access points, parking on the site, the service area, and the proposed use. Don Barry then addressed staff's concern about the street between Rosenthal's property and the propose property. Terrence Southwell, E.G.C. Southwell Trans- portation Consultants, discussed briefly the traffic impact report of this proposed center that was delivered to staff Friday. Lee Keller, E.C.G. Southwell, spoke on the traffic impact study and accesses. Based on their analysis, the intersection is operating at an acceptable level of sevice. Traffic projections were viewed, and with increased volumes at the intersec- tions with no improvements, the intersection is still expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. Trip generation is expected to be over 8,000 trips per day. Of that 8,000, 840 would be in the p.m. peak hour. Of that 840, approximately 400 are expected to enter the site during the p.m. peak period and 400 expected to leave the site during the p.m. peak period. He also discussed the directions of which the traffic will be coming. Member Ross questioned the access point to the south of Rosenthal's property. Keller replied that half is on Rosenthal's property and half is on the proposed site. Member Ross then asked if of the 8,000 trips anticipated, did this include trips on Rosenthal's ground south or just on the proposed site alone. Keller answered that the 8,000 trips are just from the development to the north. Chairman Gilfillan asked if Keller's recommendation for the potential access from the west would be one-way street, full street, or walkway? Keller replied that it was viewed with and without a two-way access drive. They felt that it would be a convenience for the neighborhood. Without it, it would not adversely affect the operations of the existing street system. Ted Ritter, Real Estate Manager for Albertson's, spoke on behalf of Riverside Shopping Center project. Member Ross asked how the shopping center will blend into the area with a hospital to the south, concrete company to the north and a veterinary clinic across the street. Ritter stated that it depends on the tenant mix within the center. He feels that with Long's Drug associated with the medical facilities in this area and the convenience of this intersection and the need for a shopping center in this vicinity, the shopping center would blend in as compared to what is there today. Member Georg asked what the preferred approach would be for Albertson's - a subdivision or planned unit development approach. Ritter said they would prefer subdivision. -5- John Schnieder, residert at 627 Lesher Drive, spoke opposing the R 4. verside Shopping Cen.er project:. Jerry Roselle, resit=_r.,: uc -/ a Whedbee and Traffic Committee Chairman of Core Area Neighborhood Inc., and Barbara Leibler, 817 Peterson and Vice -President of Core Area Neighborhood Inc., spoke on behalf of several people in the audience. They had concerns regarding the related traffic issues, Laurel Street extension, CDBG Grant for comprehensive plan for preservation of the area, Laurel Park users and the impact the street extension will have on them, and the effect on the schools in that area. They discussed a neighborhood committee meeting they have proposed with two staff members and one P & Z Board member sitting on the steering committee. They asked for two specific things - that the access to the west as a connection to Laurel Street be separated, if possible, from the subdivision and, they would like that issue to be delayed until C.A.N. has come to a large scale look of the entire problem of east -west streets through the Core Area Neighborhood, which is due September 30, 1984. Sanford Kern, 804 E. Elizabeth, was concerned about the surrounding streets and spoke in opposition of the shopping center. Ernest McQuidy, 421 E. Laurel, presented a petition opposing the extension of Laurel to Riverside or Lemay Avenue. Joe Carroll, 805 E. Elizabeth, spoke opposing this issue. Dave Osborne, attorney representing a seller involved with this project, spoke in favor of this issue. He felt the traffic issue is ligitimate, the location for Albertson's is good because of the locations of the nearest shopping centers from this area. Clifton Davis, part owner of property, was concerned about the Laurel Street extension. Dan Michaels, attorney for an adjacent commercial owner, spoke in favor of this issue. Arvin Lovas, 304 E. Myrtle, spoke of his concerns of the proposed Lemay extension. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, spoke concerning the development itself and Core Area Neighborhood. He stated the developer did not make available to the City Traffic Department the information that was presented tonight until last Friday morning and the recommendation had already been made. As far as the development is concerned, he would not change the recommendation on this project. Rick also stated that the traffic department would welcome the opportunity to work with C.A.N. and the neighborhood. He discussed the traffic problems and possibile solutions around the site. Member Ross stated that all the comments have been directed to the impact of the larger area. He felt that this should be looked at as a PUD because of the major impact on a large part of the city. t Member Georg commented that he had no problem with the potential use but he does have trouble with the potential mechanism for arranging for that use. Member Dow agreed with the sentiments of Member Ross and Member Georg but felt that certain rules must be played by the Board too and isn't sure it's fair to any developer to try to force them into coming in with a PUD when that developer is legally entitle to come in with a subdivision. Member Dow felt there are a lot of problems in this area. He feels there are specific things which are to be looked at when they approve or consider a subdivision, such as parking requirements, general lot design and traffic and access point control. Chairman Gilfillan commented that he would like to see this project come back with the city and developer in a more compatible relationship with the neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting is not required but would be welcomed. Member Larsen stated that he agreed with Member Dow and Chairman Gilfillan and motioned to table this item until March 26, so some of these traffic problems can be analyzed and some decisions reached. Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 6-1 with Member Georg voting no. University Place PUD - Final (#63-83A) Member Crews abstained from participating in this item due to a potential conflict. Joe gave a brief report recommending approval. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh & Associ- ates, representing John Q. Hammons, applicant, gave a summary of the project. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the timing, taking into assumption of approvals, of the relocation of the ditch. Gefroh replied that all of the construction documents and all the bids have been received on the relocation of the ditch and construction would commence as soon as this approval is achieved. Gene Mitchell, Mitchell and Company, spoke in opposition. He was concerned about the ditch being relocated before the liquor license is resolved. Don Parsons, Parsons and Associates, stated that Mr. Hammons would make the final decision on when to start the relocation of the ditch. Parsons felt that Mr. Hammons did not plan on starting that prior to the Liquor Licensing Board Wednesday night. If it is constructed, Kiefer Concrete will build it. They have indicated they can do it in 30 working days, which is enough time to get it accomplished prior to needing water in it. Member Dow asked Joe to detail the planned traffic flow into and from the site and as part of that, whether or not any serious consideration were made for accelerations and decelerations lanes along Prospect to mitigate the impact of traffic. Joe responded by reviewing the points of access, signage of the wildlife property, and left turn lanes. -7- Member Dow then asked about the College Avenue improvements. Mauri replied by stating that the developer will provide a right hand turn lane on Prospect going south to College and the City will supervise the construction of this, traffic signals will be timed, and the other three corners of the intersection will be widen to 25' radius at the curb. Member Ross motioned to approve University Place PUD Final. Member Larsen seconded. Motion carried 5-1 with Member Brown voting no. Superior Datsun - Phase 1 PUD - Final (#83-83A) Joe gave a brief summary of this project recommending approval. Bob Sutter, Sutter Architect/Planners, stated that they would like to change the name from Superior Datsun PUD to Harmony PUD. He also discussed the landscaping changes that were requested by the Board at the preliminary stage. He then presented slides showing the landscape changes. Member Georg motioned to approve Superior Datsun Phase 1 PUD Final. Member Crews seconded. Motioned carried 7-0. Rutledge Rezoning - County Referral (#13-84) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave report recommending approval with conditions that the rezoning permit only the existing use and any changes or future expansion to the existing use would have to come back and comply with the Urban Growth Area Phasing Criteria. The applicant was not present. Member Dow asked why not rezone subject to any further development being a PUD. Sherry replied that would be appropriate in place of -the second condition as well. Ruth Yoder, resident two doors from the site, asked what Member Dow said regarding a PUD. She stated that if this site was changed to commercial, it would be just one small portion that is commercial in that area. What would that do tax wise or would that be a County issue? Ken Waido responded by saying it would be taxed on the use. Member Dow motioned to recommend approval of Rutledge Rezoning subject to any subsequent rezoning or expansion of changes from the existing use being done subject to the PUD requirements. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Commercial Design, Inc., Rezoning - County Referral (#12-84) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave report recommending approval conditioned on the site being developed as a PUD. Rod Arndt, 135 Circle Drive, applicant, briefly spoke on the proposed use of this issue. At the present, they do not plan any development of the property besides the remodeling of the existing structures to use for office use. Member Crews motioned to recommend approval subject to the site being devel- oped as a PUD. Member Larsen seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Ross moved to adjourn. Member Georg seconded. Meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.