Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/24/1992• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MPWTES August 24, 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, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Vice -Chair Lloyd Walker was absent. Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard. Ms. Albertson -Clark presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the July 27, August 3, and August 10, 1992 P&Z meetings; Item 2 - West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD - Preliminary, Case #51-88C; Item 3 - Marketplace, Lot 3, PUD - Fumal, Case #21-89E; Item 4 -1st Interstate Bank PUD Drive-Thru Facility - Final, Case #92-84H; Item 5 - Lone Star Restaurant - Referral of Administrative Change to Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza PUD, Lot 1, Case #154-78A. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that Item 6 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas, Case #38-92, and Item 7 - Timberline Court Apartments PUD - Preliminary, Case #32-83D, were continued to the September 28, 1992 P&Z Board meeting. . Ms. Albertson -Clark presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of. Item 8 - Silver Oaks PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #14-88E; Item 9 - Camera Corner PUD - Final, Case #34-92A, and; Item 10 - Paragon Point, Phase U, PUD - Preliminary, Case #48-91C. Ron King, a member of the audience, requested that Item 2 - West Elizabeth Plaza, KFC, PUD Preliminary be pulled for discussion. Chairman Strom requested that Item 4 - 1st Interstate Bank PUD Drive-Thru Facility Final be pulled for discussion. Member Cottier moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 4s r 1utl► Ron King, owner of 2200 W. Elizabeth, stated that his intent was to, in the future, develop that property under its planned designation. He asked the Board for consideration in access to his property and consideration for a variance of the size of his property. 40 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 2 Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project. He stated that staff was recommending approval and that there would be internal access to the west. He stated that Mr. King's property would in no way be diminished by the KFC project and that there would be a substantial buffer between this project and Mr. King's property. Paul Edstrom, with McGregor/Wathen Construction, was in attendance and represented the applicant. Member O'Dell asked for clarification of the internal access into the site. Mr. Shepard replied that it was noted on the PUD that there would be future access along the joint property line between KFC and the King parcel. This would be defined at a later date. Member Cottier asked if the future access could be tied into the drive-thru at KFC. Mr. Shepard stated that staff would like to see as few curbcuts on an arterial street as possible and as many properties consolidate their access as much as possible. There was no public input at this time. Member Cottier moved to approve KFC at West Elizabeth Plaza PUD Preliminary. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. 1ST INTERSTATE BANK DRIVE-THRU FACILITY FINAL ACE y92-84H Steve Olt gave a brief description of the proposed project. He stated that a letter had been distributed to the Board from Neenan Company regarding the monument signs and parking and a letter from Bob Dildine of Fountainhead Center regarding common access and parking of the proposed site had been distributed. Steve Steinbecker, Neenan & Company architect and applicant representative, briefly discussed what had previously been approved for parking, what is currently existing for parking, and gave an analysis of the square footage and allowable percentages and parking ratios. He presented a brief history of the proposed project and the proposed parking. Chairman Strom had concerns about the parking situation, future and existing. He stated that if all parties concerned were in agreement that what would be provided with the project was sufficient, what would trigger the additional parking in the future. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Steinbecker replied that the intent of the initial agreement was common area maintenance, shared parking and shared maintenance facilities for all the parties. He stated that there was no formal time frame agreement. He commented that most of the time the parking was not at capacity except for Monday nights for Cable's End. The relocation of the parking would meet the demand for Cable's End and Fountainhead office building. Member Cottier asked if staff was still proposing the condition regarding the two monument signs. Mr. Olt stated that if it was the pleasure of the Board to accept the two sign locations, then the site plan would be modified to reflect that on the final plan. Member Cottier stated that she would prefer to have the condition remain in the recommendation. Mr. Steinbecker stated that the two signs would be in -kind to the existing signage in design and scale. However, they were not clear on the colors and logos at this time. Chairman Strom asked if the two signs were separate from Fountainhead or was it an amendment to Fountainhead. Mr. Olt replied that these would be two separate, freestanding monument signs for First Interstate Bank only, in addition to the Fountainhead signage. Member Carroll moved approval of First Interstate Bank Drive-Thru Facility Preliminary and Final PUD with the following conditions: 1) The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (October 19, 1992) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said' planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minute" August 24, l"2 Page 4 provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article H, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute; and 2) Two monument signs will be allowed with the location of such to be reviewed through an administrative change to the PUD that must be approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Member Colder seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that he was concerned about the total number of parldng spaces, but, because of the fact that the various parties were worldng together on this and that there is space for additional parldng in the future, he was willing to support the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. FYI FATDI AaLOIUMLVAMWILM,. Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., represented the applicants He gave a history of the proposed site. There was no public input on this item. Member O'Dell encouraged the developer to figure out a way to have larger lots in this area or have additional buffering to help the transition from the existing county -rural type area to the residential area. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 5 Member O'Dell asked how the school district was going to accommodate all the students in this area. Mr. Shepard stated that they held a second neighborhood meeting at which time the school was nearing its 568 student planned capacity. However, within the capacity there are students that are attending in a "grandfather" privilege who live outside the boundary area. Those students will be matriculated out freeing up some capacity. It is anticipated that approximately 75 students would be generated at full build -out of this proposed project. This would take a 2-3 year time frame. Member O'Dell asked what the plans were for signals on Taft Hill north of this project. Mr. Shepard stated that there were no plans for additional signals between Horsetooth Road and Taft Hill and Drake at this time. Mike Herzig, City Civil Engineer, stated that this project does fall under the criteria in the City Code that would require a review of off -site improvements because there are incomplete arterial streets in between the development and the developed part of the city. He added that there is a capital project in the Choices 95 program to work on Drake Road between Shields and Taft Hill. Member O'Dell asked that if the developer were to propose a neighborhood convenience center, would the developer have to amend the ODP. Mr. Shepard stated that this was correct, that it would be a secondary use. Member Collier asked what the current designation was for Tract E. Mr. Shepard replied that the current designation was for a neighborhood convenience center which now contains approximately 2 acres of multi -family. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of designating the parcel as a primary use or secondary use. Mr. Shepard stated that the primary difference is that it creates a level of expectation. The history of this recommended condition was what the Board gave Oak Cottonwood Farm ODP in reference to the southwest corner of Harmony and Boardwalk where there was a request for a neighborhood convenience center ahead of a PUD. He stated that staff wished to be consistent Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 6 with that Board action. A secondary use takes away the vagueness of other uses that may be considered. The variance criteria would still have to be satisfied for the neighborhood center. Member O'Dell moved to approve Silver Oaks Amended Overall Development Plan with the condition that Tract E be redesignated to retail/commercial/office/business service as a primary use with neighborhood convenience center as a secondary use. Approval of neighborhood convenience center as a secondary would not be subject to an amended ODP. Member. Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. ul ;_ g "Ut5ll_ h__ 11 y1. rl Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the proposed project. She stated that she had distributed to the Board eleven proposed points of refinement presented by the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association at the July 27, 1992 P&Z Board meeting. She stated that Point 4 has been amended since the P&Z worksession to state that the existing signage would be retained at the site but there would be a limitation to any future exterior advertising that would be related to the home occupation. Member Carroll asked if these 11 points would be part of the final or should they be conditions. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that to keep the record straight, they phould be conditions which would be carried through and placed on the final site plan. Doug Donaldson, applicant and owner of Camera Corner, stated that he has a variance on the in -home business sign requirement. PUBLIC INPUT Emily Smith, 1000 W. Prospect and Vice -President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the proposed wording satisfies the association's intent to protect the residential character of Shields Street. Therefore, the association board endorses the restrictions and conditions as legally defined by staff and the City Attorney's office. Harold Worth, 1501 S. Shields, requested that the Camera Comer PUD be denied. He stated that regardless of how limited the PUD for this property may be, it is a conversion of the property to an on -going commercial use. Once that precedent is set, the neighborhood has lost the battle. There will be little grounds for denying further commercial intrusions on Shields Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 7 Street and Prospect Road. Traffic, pollution and noise have become worse. Properties have deteriorated and the numbers of vehicle traffic have increased. He requested that the Board carefully consider the eventual consequences of opening this critical neighborhood to further commercial development and deny this proposal. The public input was closed at this time. Member Clements -Cooney commented that the negative impact of the expansion of Shields Street will impact this property. She believed that this proposal would decrease livability. She believed that if the 11 proposed conditions were adopted a precedence would not be set for commercial in this neighborhood but would establish a middle ground for a piece of property that is negatively impacted by the needs of the expansion of Shields Street. Member Carroll commented that he believed the proposed plain was in conformance with the approved preliminary plan. Member Carroll moved approval of Camera Corner, Inc. PUD Final with the following conditions: 1) such business use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling with residential use included in the dwelling; 2) such business use shall not change the residential character of the existing building; 3) the total area used for business use shall not exceed one-half the floor area of the dwelling; 4) there shall be no exterior advertising other than identification of the business and such identification must conform to the City of Fort Collins Sign Code, as it relaters to Home Occupations. In this, instance, existing signage shall be retained; 5) there shall be no exterior (outside) sale of stocks, supplies, or products on the premises; 6) there shall be no storage on the premises of material or equipment used as a part of the business, other than in the dwelling or existing related structures; 7) there shall be no noise levels that exceed Section 20-22 of the City of Fort Collins Code (Unreasonable Noise), nor any vibration, smoke dust, odor, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property lines; 8) such business shall provide off-street parking to accommodate all needs created by the business, which in this instance, is ten (10) parking spaces; 9) the business use approved is limited to the sales nd service of photographic related products; 10) the area of the dwelling devoted to retail sales shall not exceed 600 square feet in size; and 11) the number of employees shall be limited to three (3), including the business owner and two additional employees. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that this was a great example of the neighborhood association working together with the proposal. Without their cooperation, the 11 restrictions would not have been derived and accepted by Mr. Donaldson. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 8 Chairman Strom expressed that he did not believe that this was a precedent. He stated that this was a unique property with a unique set of circumstances. He believed that the conditions would be effective in maintaining the property in the same context that it is currently in and will allow the owner a reasonable use of the property and help alleviate the adverse affects of some substantial improvements of that corner. The motion to approve passed 6-0 PARAGON POINT PHA II PRELIMINARYCASE #48-91C Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project. Steve Human, TST Engineers, was present to answer any questions from the Board. PUBLIC INPUT Walter Gates, 1431 Front Nine Drive and President of Southridge Greens Homeowners' Association, stated the neighborhood was pleased with the development of Paragon Point. He stated that one of the original concerns was the road from Lemay to Trilby. He believed that the traffic coming out of Southridge Greens and moving south along that road should be of concern. He believed that development of the extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard should be in conjunction with this project. The public input was closed at this time. 1 Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, stated that there were no new issues however, they have requested three variances on this proposal which consisted of narrower streets on the cul-de-sacs, lessening the overall density of three dwelling units per acre, and granting a variance from the requirement that 65 % of the lots be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east -west line. Member Collier asked what would happen if the developer wished to come before the Board with a final and the Fossil Creek stabilization study were not complete. Mr. Shepard replied that this has been discussed and if that happened, the item would be continued an additional month until the study is complete. Member O'Dell moved to approve Paragon Point Phase H Preliminary PUD with the following two variance requests and one condition: 1) The Post variance has to do with Planning and Zoning Board Mceting Mantes August 24, 1992 Page 9 minimum density and because of the natural constraints of the Fossil Creek floodplain and topography combined to create a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty in creating a sufficient number of lots to achieve three dwelling units per gross acre; 2) The variance regarding solar orientation - because of the topographical conditions it would be a hardship to demand that this plan meet the solar orientation ordinance; and 3) the condition is that the Fossil Creek Stabilization Study be completed and approved before final approval of this phase of Paragon Point. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that he was pleased with this project and was pleased that the growth was moving forward onto the ridge and that Southridge Greens Boulevard would be completed to Trilby Road. Chairman Strom asked for a synopsis of what it will take to improve Southridge Greens Boulevard to Trilby Road. Mr. Herzig stated that along with this phase of the development, they will be paving with a temporary paving on Trilby Road so that it will be a hard surface improvement. The ultimate improvement, as the whole development is building out, is by the developer paying money with each building permit to a fund that will pay for the ultimate improvement of Trilby Road. The ultimate improvement will require raising the road about six feet for purposes of the floodplain problems in this area. Chairman Strom commented that he was pleased that this was going forward and that the people in Southridge Greens are happy with the efforts being made in this area. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that staff was recommending that the Board consider modifying the condition of approval as an item of other business to require execution of the development agreement, final plans and final plat prior to the September 28, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board meeting for the following projects: Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Preliminary and Final; Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One Final, and; Potts PUD Final. Chairman Strom stated that he had been by the Fort Collins Truck Sales very recently and it appeared that they were in operation. Planning and Zoning Hoard Meeting Minutes August 24, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Shepard stated that if they were, they were in violation of City Code and that he would report this to the City Zoning Administrator. Member Carroll moved to approve the extensions of Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Preliminary and Final; Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One Final, and; Potts PUD Final. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to reconvene on August 31, 1992 for the remainder of the August agenda. 0 0 alizOW4 NrhltedurelC6Mtructton August 24, 1992 • Fort Collns P.O. Box 2127 2290 E. Pro3pect Ft, Collins, CO 80522 (303) 49M747 (303) 493-0869 FAX Mr. Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Planning Division 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Denver Eighteenth Slreet Atrium 1621 18th Sheet, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 296-=3 (303) 296-MU FAX Re: F.LB. drive-ihra P.U.H. Dear Steve: Colorado Springs P.O. Box 182 Colorado Springs, CO 8MI-0182 (719) 633d713 (719) 633-9508 FAX This letter is intended to clarify certain aspects of the P.U.D, as previously submitted and discussed, for Monday's "Consent Agenda". 1) Two monument site signs are requested for the project at this time. It is understood and agreed that the client will be required to submit for and satisfy an administrative review, prior to final signage installation. A) The requested locations are to be at the northwest and southeast corners of the said parcels. B) The First Interstate Bank »& change its name, by January of 1993. This is the reason for the specific delay of a request for signage. C) A schematic design is submitted for preliminary review. The design represents a similar concept, to be repeated, with that already existing at the College Avenue "Fountainhead" location. A maximum of 40 square feet in face area and 8 feet high is proposed. D) Our client feels the two signage locations are necessary due to the single Boardwalk access point and remoteness of the drive-thru facility from the intersection. 2) The parking count on the site plan was inaccurate. The total parking count will be 60 spaces, only 6 of which are actually required for our office use of 1,500 square feet. There will be an additional 50 spaces for stacking lanes of the drive-thru facility use or 110 total spaces. T'bis allows 54 parking spaces for shared -use with adjacent retail, office and restaurant facilities. Assuming the 15% shared parking ratio requirement approved with the Phase I P.Ub., (or 38 spaces), this provides an excess of 16 spaces to the overall Fountainhead development. G0.110U4 Mr. Stave Olt -2- August 24, 1M This represents a significant asset to the parking situation for the entire development, at our clients expense. Realize that the previous P.U.D. uses Proposed were for from 16,000 to 21,000 square feet office buildings. We feel this Is a win -win use for this parcel and the remaining existing development. 3) The site lighting layout and number will be modified to reflect a change from 30' poles to 22' maximum height, to match the costing development. 4) The development agreement and final utility/RUD. plans will be signed within the 2 month required buieframe and resubmitted to the city for recording. I hope these items clarify any concerns you or staff may have. Please contact me with any other comments or questions. We feel that these modifications and clarifications should allow the project to remain on the consent agenda. S,JS/dl Ob-C4-9e uo;uurM • rountainhcad Center � q gf, Umft Q LMIL RY CO, u/ ' 57A.Ie Pe- 1 c J p Pf Zaca c 57.e ,r 2690Joyce Street Golden, Colorado 80401 (303)278-8736 7%X :?; ' / -=/ -,g 3 T8 POI