Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/31/19920 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 31, 1992 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order 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, Vice -Chair Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Joe Carroll was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1- Southridge Greens PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #9-82AG; Item 2 - Fox Ridge PUD -Preliminary, Case #9-82AH. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 3-,Horsetooth Commons PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #58-91C; Item 4 - Kingston Woods, 2nd Filing, PUD - Preliminary, Case #58-91B; Item 5 - Wildwood Farm PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #90- 85F, and; Item 6 - Wildwood Farm PUD 1994 Junior High - Advisory Review, Case #90-85G. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. HORSETOOTH COMMONS PUD - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -CASE #58-91C KINGSTON WOODS, 2ND FILING. PUD - PRELIMINARY - CASE #58-91B Ms. Whetstone gave a brief description of the two proposed projects. She stated that the Kingston Woods proposal was requesting a solar orientation variance with 12 of the 22 lots being solar -oriented. Staff recommended approval of both projects. Don Frederick represented the applicant, Progressive Living Structures. He briefly discussed landscaping, buffering, entrance amenities, and the provision of depth in the lots and landscaping along Richmond Drive. Member Walker had concerns about the transition between the residential and commercial to the east. He asked what would be the possibility of creating a better transition to the commercial site as far as landscaping, similar treatment to the streetscape, and height of buildings on the immediate adjacent side. Mr. Frederick replied that the applicant shared Member Walker's concerns because of the proposed single family residential and they wanted the commercial development to be as high quality as possible, as far as the aesthetics were concerned. He stated that the situation with the commercial ground was that they had no ownership or interest in that property at this time so they were not able to plan for a better transition on the commercial property. He did not know if the present owners were approachable for placing any restrictions on this property. He stated that the potential was there. He added that they designed the lots to be as deep as possible with buffering. Planning end Zoning Boe'd Meeting August 31, 1992 Page 2 Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was currently a sign stating that this property was commercial development. Mr. Peterson replied that there was currently a sign that says "Horsetooth Commons" but did not believe that it stated that it was for commercial development. PUBLIC INPUT Don Wilkerson, adjacent property owner, asked if this was 2-1/2 acres or 5 acres and if this property will abut the Kingston Woods property. Ms. Whetstone stated that the amended master plan is an amendment to Tract C, which is Phase 2, which is the southern part of this development. She stated that Kingston Woods 2nd Filing is 5 acres in size and is directly east of Kingston Woods 1st Filing. Mr. Wilkerson had concerns that there would be a holding pond to the west of the property and would drain through the Progressive Living property, then to the east boundary of his property and then to the sewer system in the street. Mr. Herzig stated that this was the plan but was not certain if this was fully established Mr. Frederick replied that this system was through the design process and had been approved by the Storm Drainage Department. He stated that there was an existing design detention area immediately adjacent to the north corner of the Progressive Living property but on the Kingston Woods One property. Most of the drainage from this project would go to that pond and then through a pipe along the north side, to the east, and then north to an existing easement until it would intersect into an existing storm drainage pipe in Laredo. Mr. Wilkerson asked if there was any fencing planned with the PUD Ms. Whetstone replied that on the Second Filing, the fencing would be left up to the property owners and would not be put in by the developer. She stated that on the First Filing, there was a concern because of the detention area and fencing was to be provided, but whether it would be the six foot high fence was not certain. Mr. Wilkerson asked if there was a buffer zone or easements between the Casa Grande property and these two proposed properties. Ms. Whetstone replied that there may be an easement along the rear property line of lots in the Second Filing. Mr. Frederick stated that there currently exists a 10 foot utility easement along the south side of Casa Grande and there will be a 15 foot total easement on the north side of this development, which makes a 25 foot easement. The Public Input portion was closed at this time Planning and Zoning Board Meeting • August 31, 1992 Page 3 Ms. Whetstone replied that the Board was being asked to review an amendment to Tract C, which is part of the Overall Development Plan. Member Walker asked if this was a review for just Tract C or was the whole parcel up for review. Ms. Whetstone replied that this was an amendment to Tract C. Mr. Peterson clarified that this application was for Tract C only, which was the only thing the Board would be considering in terms of the Overall Development Plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the future commercial transition and that they would be reviewing the intensity of development and the physical impact that the residential would have via the commercial property. Member Cottier asked if lots 3 and 8 were solar -oriented. Ms. Whetstone replied that lots 10 and 8 on Block I were between 32 and 36 degrees from the true east/west, therefore they were deleted. She stated that Lot 1 was added because it has the south boundary with the street and the definition of a solar -oriented lot. She stated that there were 12 lots that were solar -oriented. Member O'Dell moved approval of Horsetooth Commons Tract C Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. • Member Walker commented that the Overall Development Plan was approved which had a concept that they considered to be acceptable planning. Now this tract, and only this tract, was being modified which he found to be difficult to accept. He had a concern that if an Overall Development Plan was being changed, then the concept was being changed at the total site. He suggested that this be mentioned to the owners of the commercial property. Member Cottier concurred with Member Walker and believed that the responsibility for buffering to make the single family area workable was inappropriately being shifted to the commercial property. She did believe that it was appropriate to place the single family properties there but also believed that this project should not depend upon the commercial owners to put in the buffering. The motion to approve passed 5-1 with Member Walker in the negative. Member Cottier moved to approve Kingston Woods 2nd Filing PUD Preliminary with a variance to the solar ordinance on the basis that the plan submitted be equal to or better than what could have been done if the requisite number of lots were solar -oriented and with the condition that the Kingston Woods project place a sign that there will be commercial across the street. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney asked that, if this plan had expired, would this property still be commercial. Mr. Peterson replied that the odds that this comer property would be commercial are very good although they • may not be as intense because of the nature of the market. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 11 1 • City Limits: 1-31-9E J E 0 Planning end Zoning Board Meeting August 31, 1992 Page S Mr. Bieker replied that they have separated, for school purposes, the front parking lot area on a east side of the school from the bus loop. The private drive would provide access to the recreation fields andicourts and the park site. They have attempted to integrate access and parking to all the fields and courts, not gnly for school functions, but for community use. Parking will not be allowed on the street itself. He added that in the front of the school, there will be specific parking for bicycles. Member Walker had concerns about the parking around the fields and courts. Mr. Bieker stated that there was a limitation of how many cars could be parked in that area. The school is the primary function of this area and they have considered this for the parking. Member Walker asked that, if this area were to be used on the week -ends for the community, how does the City view use of the parking area by people other than school members. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that the Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed this layout and felt confident that the parking spaces that are off of the bus loop and main parking area east of the school will provide a good deal of parking for the softball diamonds, as well as for the basketball courts at the south end. She stated that, with respect to the soccer fields, cars may park on Corbett Drive which is typical at any soccer field throughout the city during the soccer season. She stated that unless it becomes a problem, it would not be signed. She stated that the Parks and Recreation Department suggested that the football field be placed on the school property, which has been done, because this is a facility that is not used by City leagues. Chairman Strom asked if access for the park would be provided in the south and west portion of the property. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that for the eastern portion of the park, vehicular and pedestrian access would be provided from the school site. When the elementary school is reviewed, then pedestrian access would be reviewed. Staff would also work with developers of future developments to the south and west as development plans are submitted in terms of vehicular and pedestrian access. She added that the access on Corbett Drive is planned as the primary access from area streets into the site, however, the need for a traffic signal at Corbett and Harmony Road has been anticipated. The Colorado Department of Highways has stated that this would not be signalized in the near future because warrants are not expected to be met with traffic only from the school and the psychiatric hospital. The future street extension, approximately 1,000 feet from the school site to County Road 9, is something that the City will work on with the Poudre R-1 School District. She stated that it was the City's position, as well as the school district's, that when the school is opened, there does need to be a traffic signal providing access to the school, whether it be at Corbett Drive or County Road 9. This issue has been up for discussion and it appears that at this point the signal would be installed at County Road 9. Pedestrian crosswalks will also be discussed. Member Cottier asked if the two softball fields to the south, the basketball court and tennis courts, were identified with the school and part of the city park. Mr. Bieker replied that the applicant has been working with the Parks and Recreation Department on this issue. These fields and courts are on city park land, however, the play fields have been reconfigured to meet the needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. The park site is not ready to be developed because the neighborhood Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 31, 1992 Page 6 is not established. The school district does have an immediate need so the applicant will be building these facilities. He stated that the City would maintain these fields and courts. If it does not work out that the park is needed, the applicant would still build these fields and courts. There was no public input for this item. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Wildwood Farm PUD Amended Overall Development Plan. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Member O'Dell moved to advise the Poudre R-1 School Board that the design, location and character of the Wildwood Farm 1994 Junior High is appropriate and conforms to the elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. Member Collier seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.