Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/18/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD . MEETING MINUTES May 18, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Members absent included Lloyd Walker and Jim Klataske. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Peter Barnes, and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes of the April 27, 1992 P&Z meeting; Item 2 - Prospect/Overland PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #5- 841); Item 3 - Brice PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #19-92; Item 4 - Speights PUD, Preliminary and Final, Case #17-92A was pulled for discussion by Staff; Item 5 - Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, Preliminary, Case #18-92; Item 6 - Resolution PZP2-7 Easement Vacation, Fort Ram Village, PUD 2nd Filing; Item 7 - Trappers Point Subdivision, County Referral, Case #23-92 was pulled for discussion by Staff; Item 8 - L9rimer County is Intermediate Processing Center, County Referral, Case #24-92; Item 9 = Burns Second Annexation and Zoning, Case #27-92,A; and Item 10 - Amendments to the Zoning Code, Case #30-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 11 - Brittany Knolls PUD, Phase 2, Final, Case #21-83H; Item 12 - Southside Service center Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #52-82E and Item 13 - Southside Service Center PUD, Phase III, Preliminary and Final, Case #52-82D have been continued to the June P&Z meeting; and Item 14 Pinecone Apartments PUD, Preliminary, Case #60-91C. Jay Arrasmith, 3012 W. Prospect, asked that Item 2, Prospect/Overland PUD, be pulled for discussion. Member Carroll moved to approve Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Consent Agenda. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. PROSPECT/OVERLAND PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - Case #5-84D Mr. Peterson gave a description of the proposed project with a staff recommend of approval. • Jim Brannan, represented the developer Rex Miller. ,He,stated that they had requested an amendment to Lot 1 which consisted of converting this lot to a low -impact rental storage May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 2 building. The landscaping buffers, street landscaping, berming, fence sections, and screening issues had been addressed. PUBLIC INPUT Jay Arrasmith, 3012 West Prospect, stated that she was opposed to this proposal because 1) more vaults along that area would, in her opinion, reduce the value of their property, as did happen when the first group of vaults were installed a few years ago, and; 2) changing the location of the very noisy vacuum cleaners in connection with the car wash would, beyond question, increase the noise level for the neighbors across the street on whose side of the street the vacuum cleaners would be. She added that since this was originally approved for residential units, this is what the neighborhood believes should be built and this is what they had expected to happen when the purchased the property they are now living in six years ago. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member O'Dell asked why the applicant was proposing to move the vacuum cleaners Mr. Brannan replied that it was Mr. Miller's experience on the site that traffic could better be served by removing the vacuums from their current locations and placing them in some seldomly used parking spaces that are immediately in front of the car wash. He added that they have modified the landscaping to include more vertical height, both with earth shapes, a shallow height retaining wall, landscaping intensification on that berm, to reduce the overall height of the vacuum cleaner structures and to muffle them. Member O'Dell asked if other car washes use those mufflers and if it really makes a difference in the noise. Mr. Brannan stated there are other commercial car washes in the area that have the vacuums in front of the service bays and that they have been successful with that configuration. Chairman Strom asked what would be the hours of operation. Mr. Brannan stated that it would be open 24 hours a day. Member Cottier stated that the plan for residential uses in Lot 1 was amended in 1987, deleting that residential use. She asked if any plans have been on record since 1987 for residential uses Of Lot 1. Mr. Brannan replied that the residential uses were deleted in 1987 and there have been no plans for residential uses since then. He added that the original PUD had an approval for a residence . May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 3 for the storage manager, which is still in effect with the approved PUD. However, this residence does not exist, it is a temporary office space. Member O'Dell asked what the setbacks were on Prospect. Mr. Brannan replied that they were 15 feet. Member O'Dell asked what the setbacks were from the property line to the east. Mr. Brannan stated that the setbacks were 5 foot but they were proposing 12 feet. Member O'Dell asked what the length.of the building was that frontages Prospect. Mr. Brannan responded that it was 60 feet in width. Member O'Dell asked how this compared to the existing building. Mr. Brannan explained that the building had a deceiving appearance because of its mass but is deep from front to back. He stated that the existing car wash is 58 feet in width, the 7-Eleven store is approximately 54 foot in width. Member O'Dell asked if West Prospect was proposed to be widened near Ov irland Trail. Mr. Herzig stated there were no plans in the immediate future. He added that the street was already widened on the south side adjacent to this proposed development. When this becomes a four lane arterial street in the future, it will be widened on the north side. Member O'Dell asked what the setback was of the new medical building on the northeast corner of Lemay and Prospect. Mr. Peterson stated that this was approximately 15 feet. Member O'Dell stated that she was concerned about the bulk of the building and limited setback and that it was not compatible with the neighbors across the street. She added that she did not have concerns with the car wash and the convenience store because their long setbacks. Chairman Strom asked how low would the retaining wall and the berm be. Mr. Brannan stated that there was some existing landscaping that they would like to salvage and were proposing to build a shallow height retaining wall of masonry to match the existing project • behind the existing landscaping. This would create a visual screen and a year round element that would reduce vision and noise. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 4 Chairman Strom asked how high the retaining wall and berming would be. Mr. Brannan replied that it would be approximately 30 inches in height and the vacuum cleaners, after remounting, would be approximately 4 feet high. Chairman Strom asked where the exhaust point on the vacuum c}eaners Would',be and how high off the ground they would be. Mr. Brannan replied that they would be approximately 36 inched above the ground. The motor housing are low and fully enclosed. He added that they were counting on they direction of the vacuum cleaners and the mufflers to reduce the noise level. Mr. Brannan clarified :that the building setbacks were proposed to be 15 feet. Member Cottier asked why the building was not shifted to the west and further back from Prospect. Mr. Brannan replied that the nature of this building would have minimal garage door type storage and is divided into 5'X5' and 5'x10' lockers. On the west side of thbuilding, there is a service lane that would allow customers to back down to alleyways that traverse the building east to west so it would be more convenient for them to take their personal possessions through doorways and straight to lockers. An adequate traffic width w s maintained Pn the west side of the building. He added that they did not; go beyond 60 foot was because building beyond 60 foot in depth would not be functional unless it was double -loaded. Chairman Strom asked if there had been any formal complaints regarding noise from these particular units. Mr. Brannan responded that, to the best of his knowledge, there have been no complaints of noise. He stated that many of the residences on the east side of the site stated that the building was to be a welcome addition because of the all-night traffic that is generated by the convenience store. He stated that a complaint from the area residents was of trash blown around in the vicinity which was intensely generated by the convenience store. Member O'Dell moved to approve Prospect/Overland PUD, Preliminary with the following two conditions: 1) That the vacuum cleaners not be moved unless it can be shown that the type of vacuum cleaner and the berming proposed would not allow any more noise than there currently is to escape to the neighbors to the north, and; 2) That the rental storage building on Lot 1 be reduced in size so as to increase the setback from Prospect Road to be compatible with homes across the street and the types of setbacks that the residences have. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes • Page 5 Member Cottier suggested the amendment to the motion that if the applicant could move the building they could maintain the same size, such as further back from the street. Member O'Dell accepted this as an amendment to the motion. The motion to approve carried 5-0. Member Carroll moved to table the Prospect/Overland PUD IFinal to the June 22 regular P&Z meeting. Member Collier seconded the motion. The motion to table the item carried 5-0. SPEIGATS PUD. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - Case #17-92A Mr. Peterson stated that staff requested this item be pulled for �wo reasons. (First, because a solar orientation variance was required and second, Staff had commended 4 condition on a pedestrian path which that the applicant objected to. Kirsten Whetstone gave a brief description of the proposed project. She stat that two of the five new residential lots, or 40%, have a solar orientation. The ordinance regq ires 65%. She added that the applicant has submitted a variance request to this ordinance requirement and that staff finds that the variance request is justified under the second requirement specified by the Solar Orientation ordinance which states that: i "By reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, hardship would be caused to the subdivider by strict application of any provision of this article." Ms. Whetstone stated that staff believed a hardship would be placed on the applicant to provide limited opportunities for alternative designs to meet the solar ',requirements by the existing drainage channel to the north, an existing early 1900s farmhouse, which will remain standing, and numerous mature trees located on the site which the applicant would like to preserve, as well as the site's frontage on Timberline Road. She added that granting the variance would not result in the detriment to the public good. Ms. Whetstone stated that staff was also recommending a pedestrian walkway along a private access drive that will serve lots 1 and 2. The pedestrian walkway should extend to the .parking lot for lots 6 and 7 from Stoney Creek Drive to provide pedestrian connections between the residential and business uses of this PUD. She stated that the PUD does not meet All Development Criteria #26, #27, and #40 without providing a connection between the various uses and between this PUD and the neighborhood. • Dana Lockwood, Project Planner and representative for the applicants, stated that the site is restricted in a number of ways, such as its size and the streets bounding on the west and east May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 6 have north/south access which limit the possibilities of fronting on the north/south access street while maintaining a north/south orientation. He stated that this plan has resolved several issues and problems. He stated that the neighborhood had concerns that the residential portion of the project be consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood. He continued that the purpose of the private drive at the end of Stoney Creek Drive and Sunstone Drive was to get a 30 foot utility easement over to the commercial lots on the west and to provide access to the second lot. He stated that staff was recommending that a pedestrian walkway be provided along the private drive, however, the applicant disagrees with the recommendation because this is a small project and there is an existing pedestrian access walk a few lots to the east in Sunstone Village. He stated that this pedestrianway connects to a bike path that is planned to connect into a convenience store north of this proposed project. He stated that there are sidewalks in place on Stoney Creek Drive and a new 7 foot walk planned along Timberline Road. This site is or will be surrounded by pedestrian paths. He believed that criteria #26, 27 and 40, in the bigger picture of the total neighborhood, have been met with the existing and planned pedestrian paths. He added that the applicant would not object to providing for individual gate accesses from the back and side yards of the appropriate residential lots, so access can be gained to the commercial uses to the west. He stated that the applicant was opposed to providing a public pedestrian walk adjacent to this private drive for security reasons. As proposed by staff, it would be very different from a typical public sidewalk adjacent to a public street where Police can easily patrol and observe activities. He stated that the visibility is not good at this point. He stated that the Vet Clinic will also serve as a home for the veterinarian's family.'! This would traffic the public, in essence, through their backyard. Member Cottier asked which side of the fence was the landscape buffer proposed to be on Mr. Lockwood stated that the landscaping was planned to be on the commercial side of the six foot fence which will be on the residential side. Member Cottier asked if there is currently or are they planning on, installing a fence along the 40 foot drainage tract. Mr. Lockwood replied that currently there is no fence but it would be up to the individual lot owner to install one. He added that there is no fence planned 'for the veterinary clinic. Member Cottier asked that if a sidewalk were to be put in and the people from Sunstone Village walked along the private drive and through a gate in the fence by the vet clinic, would they be able to cross the 40 foot easement drainage to get to the convenience store. Mr. Lockwood replied that the Sunstone residents would cross the 8-10 lots, walk along a bike path to the convenience store. He added that the primary concern of the applicant was the security issue. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes • Page 7 Member Carroll asked if the concern between staff and the applicant was just the installation of the pedestrian walkway or about allowing pedestrian access through the fence into lots 6 and 7. Mr. Lockwood replied that the concern of the applicant was keep people from walking through the fence and into lots 6 and 7. Member O'Dell asked if Stonegate Drive would eventually connect through to Timberline Road. Ms.. Whetstone replied that at this time, the ODP for that property shows no access on Timberline Road. The only access to that property is from Caribou or Stoney Creek Drive, Member O'Dell commented that it appeared logical to her to have some kind of access from Sunstone to Timberline in addition to the roads but she was not c �destrianway inced that this was the right location for the access. She suggested that a logical place fora would be to the south past Stonegate. Ms. Whetstone replied that staff has seen a conceptual plan for that property and there was possibly an opportunity to have a pedestrian connection somewhere between Sunstone and Caribou. She stated that staff believed that the volume of trips by bicycle or pedestrian to a • convenient store was probably very few. There was no public input for this project. Member Carroll commented that he was not particularly persuaded to put the walkway in because the access that would be coming through would not be to utilize the uses on lots 6 and 7. He did not agree that criteria 26, 27 and 40 were not being met by not putting this in because the people coming through there would primarily be "through" traffic. He added that he did not believe the solar orientation variance wasn't warranted. Member Cottier moved to approve Speights PUD Preliminary and Final without the condition that the pedestrian walkway be installed and that the solar variance be granted. She stated that she was agreeing with Member Carroll's comments and Mr. Lockwood's presentation and believed that criteria 26, 27 and 40 are being met when one considers that this development is a small project and that this sidewalk should not be required to meet the needs of Sunstone accessing the uses on this proposed site. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that he understood the need to have a pedestrian access but, given the layout of this parcel, it would be awkward to put public/pedestrian traffic through in this • fashion. He suggested that the Board direct staff to look at a pedestrian connection further south when another parcel is reviewed. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 8 The motion to approve passed 5-0. TRAPPERS POINT SUBDIVISION. COUNTY REFERRAL - Case #23-92 Mr. Peterson stated that this particular subdivision was not consistant with the County Land Use Plan. He stated that the County has been involved in a court case that County Zoning does not have to conform to the County Land Use Plan which would allow for 100,000 square foot lots in this area instead of 35 acre lots that would be rural. He added that there are a number of existing wetlands on this site and, based on Natural Resources analysis, these areas should be mapped and not developed. He stated that there was some concern as to whether the septic systems proposed will meet the County's criteria for approval. Staff was suggesting that a fifth recommendation be added that states the applicant must meet all applicable local, county and state criteria for septic system development before this application can proceed. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates and representative for the owners, stated that this project has been to conceptual review and Mr. Jerry Blehm, of the County Health Department, was present at that meeting. He stated that there has been soils testing for septic systems in entire proposed preliminary plat where three out of 16 test holes done would not support a regular septic system, which meets the county and state's requirements. He stated that the lots that could not be served by regular septic systems would still meet the state and county requirements. Chairman Strom commented that the County, not having adjusted thier zoning to their Land Use Plan, does not have the authority to reject a plan of this nature which makes it awkward for the City to evaluate a proposal for development within their area of interest. He stated that when the City was involved in providing input on the Land Use Plan and to not.have the implementing measures in effect to suuport it, makes the efforts superfulous. He encouraged the County to mesh their planning nd the implementation practices. j Member O'Dell commented that she concurred with ChairmanStrom regarding the County changing their zoning ordinance to fit with the plan that they have developed. Member O'Dell moved recommendation of approval of Trappers Point Subdivision County Referral with the following four staff conditions: 1) The potential for extending the cul-de-sacs int he northwest and northeast corners of the site to the property to the north be noted on the final plat, as a "future road extension;" 2) Pedestrian access to the south shore of the lake be provided in a convenient location between lots on the south shore; 3) All existing wetlands on the site be identified on the final plat and be included in open space tracts to be maintained by the HOA, and; 4) A shore stabilization plan, addressing the landscape and maintenance treatment of the lake shore be provided with the 'final plat. Member O'Dell added a condition that the applicant meet all applicable local, county and state criteria for septic tanks systems before the development begins. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 9 Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval passed 5-0. BRITTANY-KNOLLS PUD, PHASE 2. FINAL - Case #21-83H Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Rich Dvorak, TST Consulting Engineers, was present to represent the developer, Mr. Connell. Public Input Vicki Grassman, 6430 Edgeware Street, stated this proposed development is directly behind her home. She stated that there has been a lot of grading in this area and this has significantly lowered the ground behind her home. She asked how low this ground would be lowered, if the soil would erode away where her property ends, and are there plans for a greenbelt area or a barrier built so her property would not erode. . Mr. Dvorak stated that a retaining wall would not be built. The dirt work will continue and the grading will go to the east of the natural slope but won't be as drastic and then moved back into Ms. Grassman's lot line. He stated that there will be smooth transition from Ms. Grassman's lot down to the east with another lot backing up to it. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Member Carroll moved to approve Brittany Knolls PUD Phase 2 Final. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. PINECONE APARTMENTS PUD. PRELIMINARY - Case #60-91C Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. and representative of Timberline Partnerships, stated that this project was designed to be consistent with the planning goals that were established in the Pinecone Overall Development Plan. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of turning radii of trucks throughout the site. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 10 Mr. Ward stated that gas trucks, garbage trucks and fire trucks will be moving through the site from time to time and would enter off of Vermont. He added that there would be 30 feet clear through the main circulation loop of the development. Chairman Strom asked for a description of the bikeways and pedestrian accesses through this area and how it relates to the proposed new high school site. Mr. Ward stated that the main bike/pedestrian circulation route only has a minimal affect on this site, which is the walkway on Timberline. The City Traffic Department has plans of making that trail 12 foot wide as opposed to 7 feet that is typically seen along a major arterial. The other connections into the high school site come from the north through the city park property and through the east. ALthough this project will provide a tie into this system, it will be more for the residents and giving them an alternative pedestrian route to Timberline. Member O'Dell asked if staff was aware of any concerns of having convenient stores directly adjacent to multi -family housing. Mr. Shepard replied no, not specifically. He stated that the convenient store on Horsetooth by Cunningham Corner is not as buffered as this project is proposed to be. He stated the store by Somerset Apartments is buffered by a daycare and the apartments are pulled back somewhat. He added that he has not heard of any specific issues related to this kind of proximity. Member Cottier asked what was the typical size of a convenient store. Mr. Ward replied that they range from 2,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet. Member Cottier asked if there were any considerations as to the types of uses for the other part of the building and would the applicant consider limitations that were placed on the commercial parcel to the far south. Mr. Ward stated that the most likely uses placed in this building would be services oriented to the apartments, such as laundromat, etc. He stated that neither Timberline Partnerships nor the school district beleived that the kind of governance that was worked on at Horsetooth and Timberline is really warranted at this location. This issue can be raised at the final plan for this site. He added that there is a limited amount of governance that the high school can enforce their rules on this proposed site. Member Cottier stated that, given the close proximity to the school, some concern for the use of this site would be appropriate. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 11 Public Input Kevin Burke, 1943 Sonora, asked if there was any plans to widen Timberline and put in a left turn lane or a traffic light by the Meadows East subdivision. He asked where children that might live in the proposed complex attend school. Mike Herzig, City Civil Engineer, stated that Timberline is planned to be widened on the entire east side to include this development to Horsetooth. This will be coordinated with the school district. He stated that there would be enough width to create a left turn lane on Vermont but this would ;depend on what the needs will be at that time. He added. that there will be no widening at this time north of the development. Mr. Shepard stated that school boundaries are always evolving in this community and he was uncertain of how the school boundaries may end up. He stated that multi -family. projects generate less elementary students per unit than traditional single-family housing projects. He added that this ODP has been before the school district for several months and their facilities planner should be aware of how this area will build out. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Member Carroll moved to approve Pinecone Apartments PUD Preliminary. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Peterson stated that staff was requesting that the Board consider adopting a resolution that would extent the approval dates to the June 22, 1992 Board meeting on the following PUDs that were approved on April 27, 1992, to allow for the execution of the development agreements, final plans and final plat: Provincetowne PUd, Preliminary and Final (Redeemer Lutheran Church); Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Preliminary and Final; Kingston Woods PUD Final; Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One Final; Granada Heights PUD, Preliminary and Final; and Riverside Junction PUD, Preliminary and Final. Chairman Strom asked if the development agreements for these projects will be signed by next month. Mr. Herzig stated that some of the projects are on hold by the developers, others staff have not heard from, and some are still being worked on. Member O'Dell asked how many times would be reasonable to extend the approval dates. May 18, 1992 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 12 Mr. Peterson replied that it may, on some of the projects, be quite awhile before the development agreements can be finalized. He added that the reason for the short extension time is to prompt the signatures required. Mr. Herzig stated that the first month that this occurred, three items had to have the condition added, two of which were completed by the next Board meeting with the third being extended six months. He stated at last month's Board meeting, there were ten items being conditioned and there are six remaining to be met. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval that the development agreement signing deadline be moved to June 22, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board meeting for the above - mentioned projects." Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval passed 5-0. Mr. Peterson informed the Board the Councilmember Winokur has appealed the Board's recommendation to the Poudre R-1 School District on the new Fort Collins High School. He stated that this item would be on the June 2, 1992 Council agenda. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ♦ WOODY CREEK S/D , � to RICHAR .:•••.. •' OUNTRY DAKOTA HEIGHTS S/D ... ........ ... .;. l . .. :.. ..... ...... :. .. ...... :.� .... MULBERRY'.::': ....:. • � NIGMWAY 14 r V �'•"" "' .. :... S POTTS ...........is PUD ' ::::::::. S FORT::. .. ::::::: .: FRIES ENTERPRISES'' 1 ::.:. . :........:LLF .::: 1::`K::W ............ ............... 4• .:::: :.::. ........ PROSPECT/OVERLAND PUD.,"" SILVERBERG 1 ...... ........ PUD • . ..:...... � ...... S.l. �. .. .....�.. .I. :: ........... ....... y 1 ,�%/. .. .... .... .. .i. :: .......... .. SQUARE II:.::::::::::..... ::'":i:: .HAMPSHIR_E _S/D f ::; • ::::: DAKOTA_ RIDGE PUD ' �............ .............. MpOR,::::::. STONERIDGE PUD ..........:... :. L LE CAESAR$ ,PUD .. ..:....:. ; :...::::::::' .� ::' r RD ......:::` ......... �..... ::: �:: �'.. BEST BUY PUD :::: �, ...... r . ........ ... .......... OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM A... .7 SOUTHSIDE SERVICE CENTER, %I Ca RD -" ..... . City Limits: t-81-Q2 . ...... . .. 6Q .. ...