Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/19/1983PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 1983 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Fort Collins was called to order by Chairman David Gilfillan at 6:32 p.m., December 19, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the New Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins. Board Members present included: David Gilfillan, Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Sharon Brown, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson and Randy Larsen. Staff present included: Linda Hopkins, Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ken Waido, Bonnie Tripoli and Kayla Ballard. Legal representative was Ken Frazier. Mauri Rupel reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. These items were: November 21, 1983 minutes; Stanton Meadows PUD Master Plan - County Referral (#93-83); and The Landings PUD, 3rd Replat, 4th Filing Subdivision - Final (#40-79E). Chairman Gilfillan asked for public input. There was no response. Member Dow moved to approve the consent agenda. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. 515 SOUTH HOWES R-H CONVERSION (#87-83) Cathy Chianese gave staff summary recommending approval. David Cismoski, owner and partitioner of 515 S. Howes, spoke briefly explain- ing the business that would be going into 515 S. Howes and the residential use that would be used in the upstairs of 515 S. Howes. Member Brown inquired about the use of the shop at the back of the property. Cismoski responded by stating that it is divided in two, one which the current owner has a hobby area and the other is used for storage. The owner can keep his shop and the other part will be used for storage in the business or will be used for parking, such as a garage area. Member Brown asked about having a full time resident manager there at all times. Cismoski answered that with all the children he has, there will be a resident manager for some time to come. Member Ross asked what is the depth from the shop to the alley. Cismoski replied by saying there is at least 20 feet, enough for parking for vehicles that will come off the alley and could drive to the shop area. The vehicles could park behind the shop area without going into the garage area itself. There are provisions for five parking spaces behind the shop without using the shop -garage area. Member Ross asked if Cismoski foresees any problems regarding the backing out into the alley. Cismoski answered that there shouldn't be a problem because the parking depth of the next parking lot allows you to go into that lot without hitting any vehicles. Also the alley is wide enough so you could make a swing without entering it. Member Ross asked what the width of the alley is. Cismokki replied that it is 20 feet. Member Brown was concerned about the pedestrian walkway. Cismoski responded that the pedestrian traffic would be very small. People that would come to see them would be clients that they work with. People would be informed to park in back where there is a sidewalk that goes along the garage area and right into the back where there is a handicap ramp. Member Ross asked how many employees Cismoski anticipates. Cismoski answered with two and one-half. The size and location of the building would not allow any more than that. Member Ross was concerned about the parking being taken up by the student residents. Cismoski responded that there are a number of parking spaces in the front of the building and the carport area. Chairman Gilfillan asked Chianese if there was a variance in this. Chianese responded that it is strictly an R-H conversion. Member Ross made a motion to approve 515 S. Howes Conversion as presented. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. STARK GROUP HOME (#88-83) Chianese gave staff summary recommending approval subject to the condition that it be limited to no more than six adults and 2 full time residents. Richard Stark, applicant, spoke about their intentions of the group home, such as providing their meals, any necessary transportation and 24 hour care. He also stated that there would be a visiting nurse about once a week to check if the people are being taken care of properly. Member Simpson inquired about the criteria which would be set up for the elderly people. Stark replied that this would be for people that would not require constant nursing care. This is more of a room and board situation. Member Dow was concerned about the curb cut on Prospect. He asked if Stark would have any opposition with closing that curb cut. Stark answered that the people who will live there will not be allowed to have their own cars. There is parking there now for four cars. Member Dow asked how far it is from the driveway at Prospect down to the bottom portion of the driveway. In other words, the whole opening. Stark responded that it was 10 feet from the curb of Prospect to the north side of that driveway. Member Dow asked if you closed off a portion of the driveway for 10-15 feet immediately south of Prospect to square up that driveway to channel traffic, would that eliminate the problem of blocking the driveway when a car is trying to get onto Prospect. Stark stated that a complete new driveway would have to be built. If curb was blocked off, you would have to exit and enter from Sheeley as opposed to entering from Prospect and exiting from Sheeley. Member Ross asked what the square footage of the house is now. Mrs. Stark replied that it is 2914 square feet. Member Ross asked if this included the garage conversion. Mrs. Stark replied that it has been done. Member Dow stated that he would like to condition the approval of the project on closing the curb cut onto Prospect. Member Crews asked if Stark considered the swimming pool a hazard for the people that will be living there. Stark said they plan to either cover the pool or do away with it. Member Brown asked what kind of fencing is on the perimeter of the property. Stark stated that there is a five foot fence all around the property. It is a brick fence. Member Ross felt that the closure of Prospect can be done without messing up the overall plan, but is the gain worthwhile. Chianese stated that when the application first came in, the first request was to close the curb cut on Prospect. In talking with the applicant, the conclusion was that the curb cut would have very limited use. The only people using that curb cut would be the two living there. Staff felt that it would be desirable to close it but did not feel strongly enough to require that it be closed. Member Ross asked how easy it would be to change the use. Chianese said that any change in the nature of the group home must come back before the Board and the staff. If it were to become a group home for any other user, it would have to be reviewed again and parking would have to be required. Member Ross asked what would happen if it went out of the group home back into a single family residence. Chianese replied that it would not have to come back to the staff or Board for review. Member Dow moved for approval of the Stark Group Home subject to the condition that no more than six adults and two full time residents reside there and to the condition that the curb cut on West Prospect driveway be closed and staff check that the driveway going onto Sheeley Drive is not accessible to traffic coming immediately off of Prospect. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. GOLDEN MEADOWS 4th FILING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ()I45-82B) Chianese gave staff summary recommending approval. Chris Elliot, spokesman for Medema Homes, spoke briefly about the compati- bility of the neighborhood. Chairman Gilfillan asked why the change in the density from the other time it was brought before the City in the preliminary stage. Elliot replied that there has been three proposals on the project, one being the present proposal. He felt that the units that were platted were not suitable in retrospect. The decision was to try to utilize the property for the "Discovery" series townhomes. After meeting with homeowners, they withdrew that proposal and then waited to see what market conditions were. A new series was developed, which is compatible, in terms of price and size, to what is out there now. Therefore, they came back a third time. Member Simpson asked if these homes are similar to Willow Park. Elliot responded that these homes are larger and more expensive than Willow Park homes. Member Ross asked if Tract A was a detention area. Elliot stated that it is. Member Brown inquired if any of this has been set aside for a park. Elliot replied that staff has assessed that and decided that there was enough park within the immediate vicinity. They are proposing a detention area, which could be useable for a park area. Member Georg made a motion to approve Golden Meadows 4th Filing, Preliminary and Final. Member Simpson seconded. Motion carried 7-0. ROCKWILLOW PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL (#77-80B) Chianese gave staff summary recommending approval. Bill Bartran, representing Nortran, owners of the property, spoke briefly about the project. He discussed utilities, the surrounding development, and the conveniences of the area in terms of buses, shopping, and schools. He stated that the units will be small and will be electically heated. He also said the project will be funded with private money, that there will be no revenue bonds, no tax increment financing. Chairman Gilfillan stated that the previous application showed 51 single family units and this request has brought it up to 84. Also, the previous commercial building was 2200 square feet and this one is being taken up to 7000 square feet. Bartran responded that the original commercial site was in a different owner- ship than it is currently in. The building on the corner was to be remodeled. He felt this was not being put to the best use so it will be demolished and will start over. Gilfillan commented that he felt the density was very high. Bartran talked about the cost of housing and how the project was geared to the particular pocketbook of the people who will be renting there. Gilfillan inquired about the dwelling units per acre. Jim Gefroh, architect for this project, responded that the dwelling units per acre is 19.76 with the commercial area. Without the commercial area, you would have 23.72 units per acre. The net area for residential is 3.04 acres. He also stated that the units are smaller than the 51 units that were approved before. He then proceeded to describe the buildings, the elevations and the building impact from various aspects. Member Larsen asked about the loft on top of the two and one half stories. Gefroh stated that the loft would be within the second floor. Member Larsen asked if it was 40 feet from north of the walkouts to the ridge of the roof. Gefroh replied that it is 36 feet from rear to the peak. Member Larsen asked that if you are north on Lemay coming down Spring Creek and looking up, how far below the buildings would you be at that point. Gefroh responded by stating that the area is 41 feet from the flowline to the edge of the building. A portion of the building is 30-35 feet wide. The main mass of the building is an additional 20 feet back from Lemay. Member Larsen inquired as to how far apart the buildings are. Gefroh replied that they are 15-18 feet. Member Georg asked what the sizes of the footprints are of A and B. Rupel answered with 100' X 62' on one and 54' X 72' on the other. Member Georg asked for clarification on the closeness of the buildings. Gefroh stated that the 12 foot is where the two buildings are beginning to approach each other. At another point they tend to be 25-28 feet apart. Member Georg asked about berming along Lemay Avenue. Gefroh answered by stating that they don't show any berming along Lemay but have called for tree planting along Lemay. Member Georg asked about the number of curb cuts along East Stuart. Gefroh replied that there are two curb cuts. One a little over 200 feet back from the intersection and another a little over 200 feet further east on the site. Member Crews was concerned about the elevation difference between the north side of the parking lot and Stuart Street. Gefroh responded by saying there is about a 7 feet difference then corrected himself by stating it is 412 feet instead of 7 feet. Member Crews asked what the plans are for the cottonwood trees along the west side of the site. Gefroh stated that they proposed to retain all the existing trees along the west side. Bartran spoke about the tree that is behind the house. In the trunk of that tree is a rock. The tree is in bad shape. It will be going. Member Simpson inquired about the reasoning for the 21 parking spaces when there will be 8-12 employees. Bartran replied that he has had experience in the condo and apartment market in relation to parking needs and when those needs are high or not. He feels it has a good duel use of space. When people are at work is when the spaces will be used for the medical and vica versa. Chianese brought up that she had received phone calls about this project. Two specific people that live on Seminole Drive could not attend the meeting but wanted their names read into the record as opposing the issue. Their reason for opposition was the increase density. They felt that along with the increased density came increased traffic and they were concerned with the impact on the school. These people are Correne Jensen, 1804 Seminole Drive and Samuel Bellone, 1808 Seminole Drive. Dave Younger, 1212 Brummel Court, spoke in opposition of the project. His reason for opposing the project is because of the density and the intersection of Stuart and Lemay. He is also concerned about the scale of the buildings. He feels the mass of site would be inappropriate for the surrounding area. Andy Miscio spoke in favor of Rockwillow. He feels the area is very compatible to a higher density use. He feels there is a need in Fort Collins for the smaller units and for the apartment -oriented use as opposed to the apart- ment -condominium use. Member Georg made a motion for denial of Rockwillow based on density. Member Brown seconded. Motion for denial carried 7-0. NATIONAL CHILD CARE CENTER PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL (#90-83) Member Larsen did not participate in any discussion or vote due to a potential conflict. Chianese gave staff summary recommending approval. Bob Mooney, of Larsen & Associates and architect, discussed briefly the neighborhood meeting, the material of the building, parking, the church having the use of the center on Sundays and evenings and shared maintenance. He also touched upon the accesses of the center, landscaping, and the drop off area. Member Ross asked about the fencing. Mooney replied by giving the dimensions of the playground area fencing. Member Brown inquired about signage on the property or building. Mooney answered by saying there will be a sign in the front of the building and on the building in front. Member Dow asked about the policies relative to these kinds of uses on major arterials and did the staff have any reluctance because of that. Chianese responded by stating that when the project was submitted, staff thought it would be preferrable to take access from the subdivision. After the neighborhood meeting, staff felt that access from Stuart and limited access from Lemay would serve the site better. Member Dow also asked if there would be some efforts made with the clients of the center to show them how they can go through the church parking lot without causing congestion on Lemay. Mooney stated that they will educate the clients on the access. Member Dow was concerned about the deceleration lane northbound. He asked if there would be an acceleration lane coming out onto Lemay northbound. Chianese answered by saying no, it is just going into the facility. Member Georg questioned the width of the driveway going through the church and the distance from Lemay to the driveway that goes through the church. Mooney stated 24 feet and 140 feet, respectively. Member Georg asked how many trips, given the center is fully occupied, do we expect to be taking in cars going through the church parking lot. Mooney replied that it would be hard to say, but guessing, there would pro- bably be around 200, including staff.This is one trip in and one trip out. Member Ross made a motion to approve National Child Care Center PUD - Prelimi- nary and Final. Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 6-1 with Member Georg voting no based on the access possibly being the cause of congestion on Lemay. PROSPECT II PUD - PRELIMINARY (#82-79B) Member Larsen rejoined the Board. Joe Frank gave a staff summary recommending approval subject to two condi- tions. These were 1) participation of applicants in special improvement district which would improve Prospect Road and 2) the direct impact of the project upon Prospect Road requiring no more than 64 dwelling units may be constructed before Prospect is improved to four travel lanes between Heatheridge Road and Shields Street. John Dengler, Dengler and Associates and the planner, spoke on the appearance of the buildings in Denver that are similar to the units in Prospect II, the traffic impact at Heatheridge and Prospect and the intersection of Stuart and Shields and the proposed traffic light. He also discussed the width of Prospect and that the owners would like to initiate the improvement of Prospect. They would, however, like to be allowed to do the first phase without the improvements so they can get started immediately. He added that if the developer gets to the point that they want to build beyond the 64 units, they have agreed to go ahead and do the improvements on the south side of Prospect between Heatheridge and Shields, as requested by staff. Chairman Gilfillan commented that, if the developer would agree that the improvement of Prospect would be completed no later than two years after the first building permit is issued. Dengler stated that the developers are proposing to build the first half of the project. They realize once they have exceeded the 64 unit point, they will have to front the improvements along Prospect. If they do that, they will get a repay from the district and had no problem with the two year restriction. Member Dow questioned Dengler about what is meant by the developer being required to participate in the costs and according to the time and improve- ments of the future SID of West Prospect. Frank answered by stating that it is 1) just to participate in it and 2) is that staff wanted to be sure that the improvement of the portion of their property on Prospect is improved at the same time that the improvements would be to the SID. Dengler added that the developers are going to try and get the district to include properties to the west of their property. Member Dow asked about curb, gutter and sidewalk along West Prospect. Frank responded that curb, gutter and sidewalk, at least on the portion of the property that is on Prospect, will be put in. Rupel clarified that we were not talking about curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side of the project. Member Ross asked if the lakes would be deep enough that they would not get overrun with weeds. Bill Blackwell, Engineering Professionals, stated that this will be addressed at final. Member Ross asked if he was anticipating if the lakes would be deep enough to hold water and would not be just a large shallow thing. Blackwell responded with yes, right now they are deep water ponds all year round. They will be improving the outlet structures of the lakes to give them better control of the water surface elevation and with the irrigation that will be taking place on the sight, they expect there will be greater ground water infiltration into them. Josephine Gilbert, homeowner at Heatheridge Lakes, spoke in opposition of project due to the width of Prospect. She feels it is dangerous to add this many units to an already congested area. Chairman Gilfillan stated that a more aggressive stance should be taken to force developers to improve. He also feels the traffic light in late '84 early '85 will help with the congestion of Heatheridge. Member Georg made a motion to approve Prospect II PUD Preliminary subject to the conditions written by staff and a 2 year minimum of improvement completion date starting from the issuance of the first building permit. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Member Dow made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Member Ross seconded.