Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/23/1984PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 23, 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., January 23, 1984, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins. Board members present included: Gary Ross (arrived at 6:35), Dennis Georg, Tim Dow, Dave Gilfillan, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, and Alternate Randy Larsen. Staff members included: Mauri Rupel, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Sherry Al- bertson -Clark, and Gail Ault. Legal Representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. These items were: December 19, 1983, Minutes; Value Plastics --Preliminary & Final (#95-83); Portner Estates South, Phase 1,--Final (#21-83B); DDA Parking Garage PUD--Fi- nal (#41-83B); Colony Place PUD--Preliminary (#89-83); Waffle House/Motel 6 PUD--Country Referral (#97-83); Munn Special Review --County Referral (#98-83); and Springfield Rezoning --County Referral (#2-84). Two agenda items, #92-83, Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision --Preliminary, and #83-83A, Superior Datsun PUD, Phase 1--Final, were continued at the applicants' requests to February 27, 1984. Mauri Rupel stated the staff wished Item 6, #97-83 Waffle House/Motel 6 PUD, be pulled. Board requested Items 2 (#95-83 Value Plastics), 4 (#41-83B DDA Parking Garage PUD), and 8 (#2-84 Springfield Rezoning) be pulled. There were no public requests. Member Georg moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 5, and 7. Member Ross seconded and the motion passed 7-0. #95-83 Value Plastics Staff member, Sherry Albertson -Clark, gave report recommending approval. Joe Frye, representing the applicant, indicated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the setbacks at the rear of the building. Mr. Frye indicated the setback was three feet. Member Brown asked about parking designated for future expansion and the property line to the north. She indicated a five foot setback for parking may not be sufficient. Wondered if there would be any security fencing and the possibility of shifting everything to the west. The applicant indicated there would be no security fencing. Leslie Caron, ZVFK project planner, indicated there was a larger greenspace because another building may be coming in. January 23, 1984 Page 2 Member Georg indicated while the questions were answered, the concerns regard- ing landscaping and buffering behind the garage and elsewhere had not been. It appeared these items were the responsiblity of adjacent property owners. Member Dow asked staff if the City had received plans for adjacent properties. Sherry replied no. Member Ross asked if the landscaping strip were widened would the garages be too far forward. Sherry replied the deletion of a 10 foot wide loading zone would occur but she believed that was the only consequence. Frank West, The Neenan Company, responded the garage acts as a screen from the loading/unloading zone for adjacent property. Member Ross felt landscaping was still needed. Chairman Gilfillan noted Board could approve as Preliminary only with additional buffering required for final approval. Member Georg added he would include the fact that secondary use parking spaces need to be larger than five feet. Chairman Gilfillan asked applicants to respond. Mr. Frye indicated they would prefer preliminary approval. Member Georg believed there were too many items (landscape plans, changing radius of curve, setbacks, etc.) and he felt tabling would be the best action. Member Brown concurred. Member Dow responded he also agreed and stated he had absolutely no problem with the use, only some design factors. Applicant Frye stated if it could be tabled until February they would work on the changes. Member Brown recommended tabling until the February 27, 1984, meeting. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Albert Roller, representing the corporation immediately to the east of this property, Collinsbrook Building Inc., came forward to voice his approval of the project and indicated they were looking forward to the completion of this project. He and the applicant had even discussed sharing Guardian Security services. #41-83B DDA Parking Garage PUD - Final Cathy Chianese gave staff report and elaborated on the architectural design which had been questioned by the Board. Member Gilfillan asked if the roof parking would be striped. Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects & Planners, indicated the striping would be uniform allowing 30 percent compacting. The top rail would measure 3 feet 9 inches which was three inches higher than required by code and should screen a vehicle from the view of anyone on the adjacent sidewalk but not from those across the street. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the possibility of allowing only compact vehicle parking on the roof. Mr. Zdenek stated they discussed restricting parking to vehicles with high windshields by the use of signage. Mauri Rupel indicated this would be a hard regulation to govern. Chairman Gilfillan felt striping for compacts only preferable. Member Ross questioned entry ramp clearance. Mr Zdenek stated it would be difficult for a large camper to manuever. A van -type vehicle would be the most difficult to restrict. Member Ross asked if we were making a mountain of a molehill. Gilfillan questioned snow removal and drainage on the roof. Mauri Rupel stated they might lose a few parking spots in the winter but the drainage will work. Member Simpson questioned the January 23, 1984 • Page 3 adequacy of four handicapped spaces. Mr. Zdenek responded an additional had been added since the preliminary submittal. Member Simpson asked about he facade. Mr. Zdenek responded it would be precast concrete, exposed aggregate. Member Ross asked about street layout. Mr. Zdenek responded the site plan remains the same as the preliminary with changes in parking and office building size only. Member Dow moved to approve the DDA Parking Garage PUD with Member Crews seconding. Motion carried 7-0. #97-83 Waffle House/Motel 6 PUD - County Referral Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report recommending approval also indicating the applicants' have made a committment toward installing curb and gutter. width Approval n thof 32 feet; 2)curb following the andgutter conditions being requireded al ngboe both sides off the frontage road with a 4 foot sidewalk along the developed side; 3) curbcuts designed to City standards; 4) "No Parking" signs installed along frontage road; 5) Handicapped ramps at corners; 6) Curb and gutter along both sides of John Deere Drive; 7) Minimum setback of 40 feet to 50 feet between the flowline of John Deere Drive and the driveway aisle; and 8) storm drainage designed according to City standards. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates, indicated that while the applicant is not happy with all the above conditions, he does agree to them. Applicant felt the Holiday Inn was receptive to entering into a Special Improvement District with the applicant. Member Dow asked about the looks of the build- ing. Sherry replied the county had not furnished anything regarding appear- ance. Possibly a condition could be added that elevations be required prior to County's approving the final. Mr. Rutherford stated the item would go to the County Commissioners on February 21 as a preliminary and 42 days later the final would be heard. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the Board being concerned with elevations, renderings, signage, materials and Member Dow replied that the prominent location dictated caution and he would like the condition added that we review this item prior to final. Member Ross agreed. He had viewed a Waffle House at another location and felt it was rather plain. Mauri Rupel saw no reason the Board couldn't view the final. Member Dow moved the project be approved subject to the conditions stated in Sherry's report and the condition the Board review the plan prior to final. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. #2-84 Springfield Rezoning Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report recommending approval with the condi- tion the property be developed as a PUD. She stated the applicant, Vernon Sunset, was aware of the condition and had no problem with it. Member Brown moved the item be approved with the condition and Member Georg seconded. Motion carried 7-0. January 23, 1984 Page 4 #144-80C Dixon Creek Rezoning Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report on this staff -initiated project recommending approval while retaining the PUD condition. The applicant has no concerns. Member Brown indicated her concern was that this was next to the UGA west edge and in proximity to the foothills, a lower density was necessary. Member Georg indicated the LDGS tools was set up to help make such determinations and we need to rely on the tool. Member Georg moved to approve the Dixon Creek Rezoning retaining the PUD condition. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 5-2 with Members Brown and Simpson voting no. 210-79C Cimnaron West PUD Member Ross excused himself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Joe Frank gave a staff report on the amended plan for 308 dwelling units recommending approval. John Dengler, Architect representing T. D. Murphy owner/developer, indicated the project was similar to Governor s Park but had 16-plex and 10-plex build- ings. Addressing the staff's three major concerns Mr. Dengler indicated traffic flow had been addressed by adding two public streets. Commenting on proximity to western neighbors he stated the five buildings are now 50 feet from the neighbors, not 30-35 as in the old plan, plus additional active open space has been added. The project density has been reduced from 330 to 308 units and the project redesigned maintaining only two building types. Buildings 23 and 24 could be turned should Board feel it advantageous. Member Crews asked if there would be any problem where the public and private streets meet. Mr. Dengler stated it had been discussed with the City Traffic Engineer and emphasis would be placed on the street leading to Drake Road. Chairman Gilfillan questioned the treatment of pedestrian crossings. Dengler stated they were designed according to City standards with asphalt marking the crossing. Member Brown asked where the stop sign would be placed. Mr. Dengler replied it made sense to sign all four corners. Member Dow questioned shadow lines of realigned buildings, Member Georg the distance between buildings 5 and 6, and 18 and 19. Dengler responded the shadow would fall in the middle of the parking lot and the building distances were approximately 20-25 feet for both. Member Georg asked to compare the active and residual open space of this project with Governor's Park. John Dengler responded 18+/acre for Governor's Park and 18.7/acre on this project. The total open space was 18 percent residual and 13 percent active for this project and 45-50 percent for Gover- nor's Park. The Governor's Park building are closer together with the open space next to Drake Road. January 23, 1984 Page 5 Member Simpson questioned the landscaping. Mr. Dengler indicated it would be a boulevard effect matching the neighboring PUD with berming and a substantial setback. Member Simpson asked for clarification on deciduous vs. conifer. Mr. Dengler stated it would be approximately a 50 percent split with conifer lining the boulevard and a mix between residences for aesthetics. Mauri Rupel reminded Board we would look at this again at final. Member Brown questioned storm water detention. Mr. Dengler believed it ran down the middle of the project. Chairman Gilfillan called for audience comments and there were none. Member Dow stated he was 1) concerned about the mass in relation to neighbors on the west and feels 50 feet is too close. The diagram is misleading in terms of mass of building next to a single-family residence. 2) The net density is 22.9 dwelling units/acre and is too dense. For consistency sake this should be turned down because a 21/23 d.u/acre project was turned down on Lemay because of density and mass. There is also a lack of green space. Chairman Gilfillan stated the project denied also had office space, a slope, and was not comparable. He also asked the density difference across the street at Cimmaron Square, and a height comparison. Dengler indicated Cimma- ron Square was 12 dwelling units/acre but they were large 4-plex townhomes. Member Georg shared Dow's concerns but agreed comparison was not possible. The project provided attractive dwellings for small families. The open space was less than similar high -density projects. He was pleased the applicant was willing to reorient his buildings but felt there was too much on this piece of property. Member Simpson agreed though was impressed with the design of the buildings. She felt there would be a traffic flow problem and it was too great a mass. clear upr.phyTheeVscalerofintheated d awingsewasesome corrrectnandurtheeSlayo t like the buildings was not intended to deceive. The setbacks at Drake and Shields make the project look less dense than it actually is. Also density is arrived at after deleting streets. Project is near (2 blocks) the largest park in the City so open space is felt to be less important. The tenants at Governor's Park are young couples generally, some older couples, but few children. The projects are similar. Member Brown asked if they would be encouraging student tenants. Mr. Murphy stated pets were not allowed, only two unrelated adults per apartment, no more than two children, and because they were a little higher priced they generally wouldn't appeal to the college set. Member Brown questioned the building envelope on the 10-plex and the height at the highest point. Mr. Murphy stated the envelope was approximately 100x50 and it was 38 feet at the highest point, from the lower side. Chairman Gilfillan stated he felt comfortable with the proposal. Member Dow moved to deny the Cimarron West project for reasons stated above. Member Crews seconded and the motion carried 6-1 with Gilfillan casting the only dissenting vote. January 23, 1984 Page 6 #54-83B Columbia Estates PUD - Final Joe Frank gave staff report recommending approval. Jerry Alp, developer, indicated the project had been restructured, redesigned, and reshaped to satisfy the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff, and the neighborhood's concerns. Carr Bieker, Architect, indicated the project was a transitional land use, an in -fill development -type housing appropriate for this location. Problems addressed to meet concerns resulted in some changes: 1) heavy landscaping; 2) trash, lighting, and pool internalized as well as parking for the office; 3) revised the access for one cut (not two) on Lemay and one on Columbia; 4) revised internal circulation; 5) front entry approach for a single-family look with roof lines varying. The units will use quality materials and range in price from mid $70,000 to high $90,000. They will be one and two bedroom units in earthtones with brick and wrought iron fences; and 6) and elevation of the office building has been given to the Board showing the 16,000 square foot main level and 6,000 square foot second level. The stepback design is intended to minimize this mass. Chairman Gilfillan questioned how close the office building was to the prop- erty line to the west. Carr responded 50 feet and 60 feet further to the south. They have applied the courtyard concept and also windowless west on second floor. What windows there are are primarily clerestory on the north and south. Building height now is 32 feet and this project will have a 24 foot height. The material will be compatible with the neighborhood. Member Ross questioned the ditch treatment along Lemay and the drive off Lemay. Russ Butler, EDAW landscape architects, indicated the buffering problem was alleviated by turning some buildings. A headlight study was done and some headlights will shine toward the west. There will be heavy planting in front of the six foot wood fence screen at the end of the parking as well as berming planted with deciduous trees 8-10 feet in height, approximately 111 trees per acre for buffering. The ratio will be three coniferous to one deciduous tree. Chairman Gilfillan asked the height behind the office building of the trees. Butler replied 8-10 feet with no berming. There will be street trees along Lemay, the ditch will be treated to take advantage of it, not use it as a liability. Member Ross questioned ditches path. Lloyd McLaughlin, RBD Engineering, indicated the ditch goes diagonal across Lemay into Parkwood. During construction the ditch could be covered with a trash collector to keep construction debris from plugging up the culbert. Member Brown questioned landscaping further. Mr. Butler indicated trees would allow a view into the development where there were no buildings. Member Ross moved to approve the Columbia Estates PUD, Member Dow seconded. Motion carried 7-0. January 23, 1984 • Page 7 #144-80B Amendment to Dixon Creek - Final Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report. The amendment increases the number of dwelling units from 407 pat io/townhomes/apartments (6.9 du/acre) to 508 unitmostsaf8fected/acre). The by the densitytern edge of change. Thehsiteoisrty notalong within 3500 feet rland Trail ofia park facility and requests a variance. Staff recommends approval because of proximity to PineRidge Open Space Property and the Spring Creek Trail. The areas affected in the change include a decrease in the body of water, the density changes in a couple of areas, and the overall amount of pavement. The critical areas along Overland Trail have additional landscaping. Staff recommends waiving Criteria D regarding density for this project. Eldon Ward, Cityscape, representing the applicant, indicated they have sub- stantially retained the approved play but the increased density is necessary to help the developer recapture the investment necessary to develop the Dixon Trunk Sewer. The landscaping and active open space has increased ten percent but there are more units with less coverage (square footage is reduced by approximately 20 percent and the typical units are smaller.) The project retains the major natural open spaces and they feel the intent of the LOGS would not be undermined by waiving Criteria D. Don Jensen, developer, stated he wanted to use a theme consistent with the history of the area. A long time was spent discussing the sewer agreement and the costs since initial discussion have increased from $35,000 to $135,000. He feels it is possible to increase the density and still maintain the integrity of Dixon Creek. Chairman Gilfillan asked about the phasing. Don Jensen responded the area along Yorkshire would be developed first with two model home areas and townhomes and patio homes. Natural grasses would be used when possible for landscaping. Member Ross questioned the increased number of units and decreased square footage. Jensen replied the average floor space per unit decreased from 1600 s.f. to 1000 s.f. and there were formally four building types and now are only two. The parking areas is larger and more efficient and the green area has increased. Member Dow asked about the patio home landscaping. Eldon Ward pointed out the landscaping shown for the common areas. Don Jensen indicated there would be a landscape allowance for the front yards and the homeowner would be responsible for the backyard. Member Dow asked about amenities. Jensen responded there would be a pool, tennis courts, volleyball court, clubhouse, and he hoped to have a cabin/play area. Member Brown questioned the landscaping at Overland Trail. Jensen replied Overland Trail would eventually be six -lane; therefore, the parking area was placed there as a buffer to the homes. Eldon Ward indicated it was increased to a solid evergreen wall, the parking was shifted back and turned into compact spaces and there should be 8-10 feet between the walk and parking. January 23, 1984 Page 8 Member Georg asked about bonus points. Ward described in detail their reasons for believing the variance was valid and indicated they needed only a 5 percent variance. The bonus items didn't make economic sense so they didn't pursue them. Member Brown questioned the net density of condo area number one on the northwest and Ward replied it was close to 20 units. Brown asked about the transit route and was told it came down Drake Road and up Overland Trail. Member Brown asked proximity to PineRidge Open Space. Ward responded 5,000 to 6,000 feet, or approximately 1-12' blocks. She then asked about the phasing of the landscaping and Mr. Ward responded. Member Larsen asked if patterned concrete walks were being installed. Ward indicated they would not be used. Larsen questioned the park credit in the LDGS and whether future designated parks counted. Sherry responded that park sites were not designated in advance. Member Ross explained he expected the project to look like Silverplume. Member Georg indicated he felt the reason for the variance was not demonstrat- ed and it would be a poor precedent to approve the project. It was too dense (25 percent above the norm for the LOGS) and could not be justified by the criteria and, therefore, he could not support it. Member Ross moved to approve the amendment subject to City Council approval of the Rezoning. Member Dow seconded. The motion carried 4-3 with Georg, Brown, and Simpson voting no. #94-83, 94-83A K-2 Industrial Park PUD and Waivers - County Referral Chairman Gilfillan asked that both items be covered at the same time but two motions be made. Sherry Albertson -Clark explained there were two illegal county lots and the applicant was requesting a 6,000 square foot expansion of an existing ware- house. Concerns about the expansion included four waivers: 1) Public sewer for which there appeared to be no serious problems; 2) 1/6 contiguity; there were no existing surrounding developments and this was not considered an in -fill project; 3) Minimum water requirement for fire protection, and the Fire Department indicated they could handle up to 5,000 square feet of expansion; and 4) Off -site street improvements for the road that would carry mostly truck traffic and thus generate a greater burden on the road. Staff was concerened with the commercial nature of the property which was not or- iginally intended for this area and, therefore, recommends denial. Jim Martel, representing the applicant --Mr. Krenzel, stated the applicant was trying to correct this illegal lot problem. The existing parcel does not meet the requirements for PUD but would cause no increased cost to the County or City. It is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan in that the I -Industrial use is non-polluting, adequately buffered, and near transporta- tion. It constituted an unusual circumstance because it was an illegal par- cel; therefore, no precedence would be set and the proposed waiver would not impair public health or safety. It meets the phasing criteria and the staff does support the existing use. The expansion of 6,000 feet was proposed because the site is situated for this size. The additional warehouse won't change any of the phasing criteria and the sewer/environmental impact will January 23, 1984 . • Page 9 remain the same. Exceptional circumstances apply because of the illegal lot situation. The fire department requirement is satisfied because a two-hour firewall will be installed between warehouse and present building. Mr. Krenzel will agree to the County requirements. Art A. Krenzel, applicant, spoke on the water requirements for the business (approximately 10,000 gallons a year). The building is 1; miles from Highway 14 and he operates a seasonal business with 80 percent of the business occur- ring in a six-month timeframe. One product generates 80 percent of the volume and he needs the additional space to store semi -loads of the product for future distribution. He needs a dock high facility. It will be a dry storage warehouse. To the west is an irrigation ditch, which is a natural barrier to western expansion. Member Dow understood applicants' desire to make the parcel legal by subdivi- sion. Krenzel stated to get a building permit this had to be accomplished. Martel added there was no litigation pending at this time regarding the property. Dow approved the PUD to make the parcel legal but felt he would deny the expansion. Chairman Gilfillan summarized by indicating applicant wanted it legalized to sell or convey the property and secondly to expand, but feels it would be difficult to accomplish. Member Ross asked about future development on the other side of the interstate and what problems that might create for the applicant. Krenzel indicted his land was somewhat landlocked. Member Georg shared applicant's desire to develop this into a legal lot but felt they could not approve any small project without consideration of developments in the Urban Growth Area. He had no problem with making the lot legal but this project, as a precedence, creates a problem. Member Ross felt since the building was existing (similar to a non -conforming use) it should be allowed to expand. Chairman Gilfillan indicated he also felt the possibility Of splitting lots was fine but not the expansion. Member Dow asked if we could approve the subdivision but not the PUD. Sherry indicated the subdivision and PUD were done together. Member Crews asked about consequences of use change after the expansion. Member Larsen felt the difference between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet wasn't significant. Member Dow sympathized with the applicant but didn't feel that was reason to approve the expansion and moved to approve the PUD subject to the condition the proposed expansion not be included and that the existing uses remain the same until subsequent approval. His intent was to allow the property to be subdivided but not expanded. Member Ross stated he felt both should be approved. Member Brown seconded. Motion of recommendation to the County carried 5-2 with Members Ross and Simpson voting against. Motion for denial of the waivers was made by Member Dow, seconded by Member Brown, and carried 5-2 with Members Ross and Simpson voting no. #6-84 Magic Time Machine Special Review - County Referral Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff report indicating the applicant must commit to meet phasing criteria. The scale of the amusement park was felt to be fairly significant. The lack of water pressure for fire protection was a problem, and the site sewage disposal might not be appropriate. Staff was recommending denial. January 23, 1984 Page ly Larry Bergman, applicant, indicated the 7.27 acre site would be divided into 11 acre for three golf courses with animated animals which would be heavily treed and shrubbed and should look like a jungle in several years. The re- maining property would have two structures on it: Building 1 10,000 square feet intended for kids up to 10 years of age and furnished with cars, plane rides, snack bars, entirely indoors; Building 2 would be an indoor ice skating rink matching the other building and next to it. Three -fourths of an acre would contain a pond for bumper boats. The land is currently commercial zoned. There would be 49 employees initially with 70 after project is com- pleted. The ice skating rink is considered a regional facility since Fort Collins alone could not support it and, hence, the choice of location at I-25. Member Ross questioned access to the park from the north. Bergman indicated it was easy to get on but not off. He added there were two fire hydrants currently within 500 feet of the property and he would add an additional two. There would be one egress/ingress to meet the State Highway Department requirement. People would not sure in or out so this should be adequate. Currently Mr. Bergman counted five cars on the road in a nine hour period. Member Simpson questioned pond maintenance. Bergman indicated it would be drained when not in use. It would be in use approximately four months a year. Most of the water would be from natural sources; however, some would be purchased from ELCO. Bruce Lockhart, concerned citizen-615 Mathews, indicated this was a golden opportunity to save the City from the major expense of building the ice skat- ing rink they have been talking about at a tremendous cost to the citizens. He didn't want the applicant discouraged. Chairman Gilfillan felt the Prospect Road problem was severe. Mr. Bergman indicated he felt the service road was sufficient. It would be 3-5 years before the rink would reach a breakeven point economically and the other buildings would be relied on to support the entire operation. Member Ross felt it was a potentially good thing for the area from what he had viewed tonight. Mr. Bergman said the site selection away from Fort Collins was intentional to insure trips to the park were deliberate. Member Brown questioned fire protection. Mr. Bergman indicated there were concrete structures and water pressure of 30psi. The fire marshall felt comfortable. The current line has only three other users. Member Brown asked about variances. Bergman indicated a variance from an 8-inch water line. Brown questioned trip generation. Bergman anticipated 600 people daily at the summer peak with well over half the business coming from out of town. Chairman Gilfillan asked about locations of similar projects. Mr. Bergman indicated he was only familiar with one outside Atlanta as ice rinks are unusual. Member Brown asked about ice training. Bergman indicated it must be promoted. The rink size would be 60X165 feet. Member Georg felt we needed more information before making this land use decision. Member Georg moved to deny the project. Seconded by Member Crews. Motion to deny carried 7-0. January 23, 1984 r • Page 11 OTHER BUSINESS Member Dow stated he felt the Board needed to receive more information from the County regarding the projects they wanted recommendations on. Member Georg felt it would be appropriate for the Board to express their frustration to County staff members. Meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.