Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/27/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 27, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ken Waido, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Patti Schneeberger, and Georgiana Taylor. Chairman Strom started the meeting with a presentation to two former P & Z Board Members. The plaques which were presented to these former members represented the service that those past members gave to the City of Fort Collins and to the Planning and Zoning Board. Margaret Gorman served on the P & Z Board from August 1990 to July 1991. David Edwards served on the Board from August of 1985 to February of 1989 and is now a member of the City • Council. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision - Overall Development Plan, #35-86K; Item 2 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 6th Filing - Preliminary & Final, #35-86L; Item 3 - Kingston Woods PUD - Preliminary, #58-91; Item 4 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD, #28-89A; Item 5 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Mourning Subdivision, 2nd Replat, Lot 1 & 2 - Final, #13-91A; Item 6 - The English Ranch Subdivision, 1st Filing - Final, #75-86F; Item 7 - South Glen Subdivision, 1st Filing - Replat, #I10-79I; Item 8 - Spradiey-Barr - Enlargement of a Building Containing a Non Conforming Use, #63-91; Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-1 - Vacation of Utility Easement; Item 10 - Resolution PZ92-2 - Endorsing and Accepting the Framework for Environmental Action; Item 11- K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51-91A; Item 12 - Pinecone P.U.D. Rezoning, #60-91; Item 13 - Barnes Annexation and Zoning, #53-91A; Item 14 - Strobel Annexation and Zoning, #62-91A; and Item 15 - which was pulled for discussion by Member Cottier, Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 16 - Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91, A; Item 17 - Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56- 91B,C; Item 18 - Taco Bell Restaurant PUD - Final, #50-90A; Item 19 - CONTINUED (02/24/92) - Laurie Subdivision, PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #44-89E; and Item 20 - Woodridge PUD - Preliminary, #55-87E. P & Z NE NUTES January 27, 1992 Chairman Strom asked if there were any Consent items that the Staff or Board wished to pull for discussion. Member Cottier pulled Item 15 - Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92. Chairman Strom asked if there were any Consent items for which the audience wished to pull for discussion. There were no items pulled for discussion. Chairman Strom stated that two motions were to be taken due to a conflict -of -interest between Member Mataske and the Pinecone P.U.D. Rezoning. Member Klataske moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1-3, 6-11, 13 and 14. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 12. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 6-0. Member Klataske did not participate in approving Item 12. UTE FARM SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL #1-92- Chairman Strom asked Member Cottier if there was a specific point in which she wanted to address or if the topic needed to be open for general discussion. Member Cottier felt that a general discussion was not necessary and that her concern was the approval of accessory recreational uses to a golf course. In the event that the golf course were to never be established, Member Cottier suggested that a condition be attached to abandon the accessory uses of the project. Member Cottier also was concerned that something other than a 50 acre golf course would be approved for that parcel. 2 • P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 0 Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, felt that an absolute guarantee could not be put in place. The first phase to be built is a driving range, a nine hole pitch and putt golf course, chipping greens, putting greens, and a temporary club house with the intent that when the par 3 golf course is complete a permanent club house would be erected. Mr. Ward stated that they are working on an agreed phasing plan with the County Planning Staff. Mr. Ward stressed that the desire of the applicant was that if for some reason the golf course did not happen as planned, that they would not lose the better part of $2 million. Mr. Ward felt that the basic intent was to create an open space break between the two communities. Across from the project, Mr. Ward felt that the best thing that would be done would be to leave a 250 ft. wide strip along Highway 287. He also felt that the worst case scenario of leaving the golf course incomplete, would be a landscaped area, which is over 1,600 ft. wide. Mr. Ward stated that he felt it would be better to have a landscaped area than just a 250 ft. wide strip along the highway. Member Cottier stated that if the golf course did not happen that a 50 acre parcel is more likely to end up in a commercial type use, rather than a 100 acre open parcel. Member Cottier asked Mr. Ward if any alternative plans were discussed for that 50 acre parcel. Mr. Ward stated that the client has gone ahead and hired Dick Phelps, a world renown golf course architect, and that they are going ahead with plans for the golf course. Mr. Ward stated that the plan calls for having the driving range open this coming summer, which means the client would like to get the turf seeded in April. The client only had an option on the first 50 acres. If the client were to wait for all the practical matters to be worked out on the whole project, then the ability to get the driving range open this summer would be impossible. Member Cottier felt that the item was a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board to the County and she felt that a condition should be added to the approval of this project. Member Cottier moved to approve the Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92; noting that the proposed recreational uses are acceptable, with the condition that the uses be abandoned at such time if the northern 50 acres of the parcel were approved for something other than a golf course. The motion died for lack of second. Chairman Strom asked if there was an alternate motion or further discussion. 3 P & Z NENUTES January 27, 1992 Member O'Dell felt that the condition was a somewhat an unreasonable on their use of the land and that was not to say that they could not come up with some other project that was equally as good on the north 50 acres. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the Ute Farm Special Review - County Referral, #1-92, as outlined in the staff report.. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 6-1. Chairman Strom stated that the next item up for discussion was Item 16 - Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91A, and asked if this item should be considered with the Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56-91B,C or should they be treated separately. A member of the audience approached the podium to reconsider Item 11 - K-2 Annexation, #51- 91A. Chairman Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman if this type of request could be considered. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that this item passed with a unanimous vote on the Consent Agenda and that anyone could move to reconsider that matter. If the motion to reconsider passed then the main motion of that Annexation would be back on the table for discussion. Member O'Dell moved to reconsider Item 11 - K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51-91A. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. K-2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #51-91A Ms. Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the annexation and zoning. 4 0 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Mr. Peterson added an additional point of information to the description and recommendation. He stated that the City had recently acquired an electric right-of-way north of this property in the past few months. Chairman Strom asked if there were any Board questions for staff at that time. There were no questions. Chairman Strom asked for public input. Mr. Frank Just, Owner of Lot 1 in the K-2 Subdivision, represented all the land owners in the area. Mr. Just stated that he was opposed to the annexation and zoning of K-2. Some of the reasons Mr. Just presented included increased taxes, sales tax, and storm water control. Mr. Just stated that he managed the storm water control on his property for 17 years and that it would cost him $70 a month just for the City to manage the rain water on his property. Mr. Just received a letter that stated a 5 % increase on the managing of the water would be put in place, therefore, that total cost would increase to $798/year. Mr. Just rented out his property and discussed the annexation with that renter. The renter stated • that if the property is annexed and he would have to pay City sales tax on the items purchased, he would need to move to another piece of property that was still located in the County. Mr. Just stated that the economic value of the land then is lost to him and would probably end up in some banker's hands. Mr. Just was also opposed to the up zoning of the property to IL. He also pointed out that when the C. W. Building was originally built its main use was for metal fabrication. If the up zoning were to take place then he would not be able to use the building for which it was built for. Mr. Just then noted Ms. Whetstone's letter which stated, "Primary metal and related industries are not allowed for that particular zoning." Mr. Just felt that was one of the items for which that property should remain, due to its zoning by the County. Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Member O'Dell questioned the proposed zoning and stated that Mr. Just commented on metal fabrication. Member O'Dell asked what Mr. Just would need to do to go back to that use sometime in the future. Mr. Ken Waido, Chief Planner, stated that there are two processes that a proposed use can go through in this particular circumstance. The existing buildings and their uses would fall into a non -conforming use category. Any expansion to those uses or any change from those uses to another proposed use could come through the non -conforming use change part of the zoning 5 P & Z NIINUTES January 27, 1992 code, which requires a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. The second option is to submit a Planned Unit Development for review by the Board and propose a use through that process. Member O'Dell asked what one would need to do now in the County to make that change. Mr. Waido stated that he was not familiar with that, but he would guess that it would be a use - by -right. Mr. Peterson stated that there is one other option that could be considered. The option would be to not have a P.U.D. condition on that specific area. If a P.U.D. condition did not exist then that would open the properties up to an administrative review process for essentially light industrial type of uses. Member Walker stated that Mr. Just brought up several issues regarding the cost of the change to him in regards to taxes. Member Walker asked when something is annexed how does that change what the property owner has to deal with. Mr. Waido stated that when a property is annexed into the City, the County Assessor will put the City's Mill Levy on and remove the Poudre Fire Authority Mill Levy because the City is a part of the Poudre Fire Authority. When the Poudre Fire Authority Mill Levy is removed there would be one mill difference and the property tax actually goes down upon annexation into the City. The other taxes and fees mentioned by Mr. Just are correct. The purchases made by the property owners within the annexation would have to include City sales tax. Any business expansions would have to pay City use tax, and Storm Drainage fees would be applied. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the electric rates would probably go down with City electric. Mr. Peterson stated that the property is in the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin which the City has not established a fee structure for Storm Drainage and probably will not set one up for several years. Mr. Waido stated that in terms of utilities the only change that would take place upon annexation was electrical power. The properties, if they are on Elco Water or Boxelder Sanitation, would remain so or even upon development the property owners could utilize whichever utility service that they feel would best be served in the area. The owner would not have to use City water.. Chairman Strom asked if the property was zoned IL without the P.U.D. condition would they still have the option of coming in with a P.U.D. 0 0 0 . P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Mr. Peterson stated that was correct. Member O'Dell asked if the P.U.D. condition was not put on now would there be any opportunity in the future to add it. Mr. Peterson stated that there would be two opportunities, one being that the City could consider the rezoning of the property. The other option would be if the property owners requested a zone change. Member O'Dell was concerned about the property owner, but she felt we still need to look ahead in regards to development heading out in that direction that the City would want to have more control over what might happen. Mr. Peterson stated that as part of the City Council Work Program, the I-25 plan would be be started in 1993. The property studied would be a mile on either side of the interstate. Zoning would be one of the questions addressed. There would be, therefore, another opportunity within • 2 years to review that area again. Member Cottier asked if it would make any sense to zone it "T" at this time. Mr. Peterson stated that you cannot zone it "T" because the property was presently being used. If it was vacant farm land then that could be an option. Member Walker stated that the surrounding land shows an "IL" designation and is that with or without a P.U.D. condition. Ms. Whetstone stated that designation is with a condition. The existing zoning was actually Industrial in the County along the area of the Frontage Road. The rest of the area was zoned FA-1 (farming). Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the K-2 Annexation and Zoning, #51- 91A, with the P.U.D. condition. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member O'Dell stated that she would encourage Mr. Just and the other residents to get together with Ms. Whetstone or Mr. Peterson to discuss what impacts it will have on them prior to the Council consideration of approval. 7 P & Z AIWUTES January 27, 1992 The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. PICKETT SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. k56-91A. AND PICKETT T HRD ANNEXATION AND ZONING, N56-91B.0 Mr. Waido felt it was in the best interest to combine for discussion purposes items 16 and 17. Chairman Strom agreed and stated that two votes must be taken. Mr. Waido gave a description of the proposed projects. Staff recommended approval of both items of annexation and zoning. Member Walker stated that it seemed peculiar to have these two extremely small pieces of ground being annexed. He also questioned the circumstances regarding the annexation of the land. Mr. Waido stated that the circumstances go back to the conditions with which the Board placed on the approval of the Pheasant Ridge Subdivision. When the Board approved that subdivision there were four conditions. Two of them specifically were related to access to the property: the first condition dealing with access to the west from Spaulding Lane and the fourth condition related to having access to the northeast into Westview Road. In order to comply with the conditions that the Board put on for preliminary approval it was determined by the property owner and the developer that this was the method they would like to propose to address those conditions. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, spoke on behalf of Gary Nordic the applicant. Mr. Ward stated that the annexation was a technical solution to getting access to this property. The property controls the south half of the frontage at the end of Spaulding Lane, but the north half would have to clip the corner of the property to the north. Mr. Ward stated that the County objected to deeding the right-of-way due to the effect of a subdivided lot and would either need to go through an extensive replatting process through the County or it was suggested that since City streets were being dealt with and a condition that was placed by the Planning and Zoning Board, that we simply annex the right-of-way. Member Walker then clarified that both annexations would be used for street extensions for people to get into the properties. Mr. Ward stated that was correct according to the approved preliminary plan. 1i • P & Z NIINUTES January 27, 1992 Chairman Strom asked for public input. Mr. Jim Dixon, Lot 16 of Puebla Vista Estates, stated that the annexation of the property would place a street on both sides of his property and he was opposed to that. Mr. Dixon was not opposed to the subdivision itself, but he is opposed to where the street comes. Mr. Dixon would like to know about how far from his property the road would be placed and would there be any fencing or shrubbery put in to take away the impact of the traffic noise, and street lighting. Mr. Dale Moon, lives on Westview Road, stated that he was also opposed to putting the street through. Mr. Moon pointed out that when he moved there, the Homeowners Covenants prevented him from selling or giving a sliver the land to anyone for any kind of use and yet his neighbor across the street elected to give or sell a portion of his land to the developer which is in direct violation of the covenants. Mr. Moon would like to know what the reason was to annex this property, when a couple of months ago the Board approved the developer to proceed on through to the acreage. Mr. Mike Backlund, 2114 Westview Road, stated he was irritated that he did not receive any . notification of the meetings. Mr. Backlund wanted to know what the date was of the last update of the master plan. Mr. Backlund bought his house four yeas ago and at that time there was a dedicated easement that went virtually straight through. Mr. Backlund understood that the County approved the abolishment of this easement because they simply did not want the increased traffic dumping onto Lemay. Mr. Backlund stated that he was told that a traffic study was done, but he has yet to see the results. Mr. Backlund referred to the Board meeting minutes of July 22, 1991, which Mr. Nordic stated that the traffic study showed minimum impact on the entire area and would not affect the quality of life. Mr. Backlund also stated that there would be a 400% increase in traffic which he felt would not be of minimum impact for that area. Mr. Backlund found that the original master plan showed access to this site through the south. Mr. Backlund stated that at a neighborhood meeting Mr. Nordic made it very clear that the reason why he did not approach this access method was simply the matter of economics. In order for Mr. Nordic to approach this access he would have to build a bridge over the existing canal and with the number of homes he was proposing it just would not be economically feasible. Mr. Backlund also felt that the reason behind Mr. Nordic not using Spaulding Road is due to the existing trailer park and French's Cut Flowers, which is not as eye catching as going through their development. 0 P&ZMNUTES January 27, 1992 Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Chairman Strom referenced Mr. Dixon's point of the alignment of the street relative to his property. Mr. Ward stated that he did not have a copy of the plans, but a point of clarification was that the street right-of-way swings to the east and the property line between Puebla Vista and Pheasant Ridge was not as far to the west as shown on the map. The street angles over and clips through the north end of Pheasant Ridge without a double frontage to the lot in question, contrary to the way it was shown on the map. Chairman Strom then directed the question of covenants in Puebla Vista to Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman. Mr. Eckman felt it would not have been appropriate for the Board or any City Board to judge whether the covenants should permit or prohibit any particular land use. He stated that it would be for the courts to decide and not for a City Board or Commission. Chairman Strom stated that the annexation before the Board had no effect on enforcing covenants and any enforcement of those covenants would be between property owners. Mr. Carroll felt the question directed to the Board asked if they could state that the covenants would not apply, but he felt Mr. Moon thought that the Board would somehow do away with the covenants by approving this. Mr. Eckman stated that he did not feel that the Board would be able to do away with the covenants. He also felt that the covenants still stood and could be enforced. Chairman Strom stated to Mr. Backlund that he was sorry he was not informed of the previous meetings. Chairman Strom also noted to Mr. Backlund that the Board actually had a tremendous amount of information that was reviewed in the process of evaluating the development plan for this property. He stated that the Board was at the point now with an approved preliminary development plan of just strictly considering an annexation for two small pieces of ground. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the Pickett Second Annexation and Zoning, #56-91A. Member Klataske seconded the motion. 10 • P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Member Carroll stated that the Board did go into great detail on this project back in July. The residents of the community presented their points, the staff gave the Board the history of the project, City boundaries were taken into consideration, the applicant made a presentation, and at that time the Board made a decision. The question that was presented was not to reconsider the position that the Board took back in July, but to approve the annexation. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Member Cottier moved to recommend approval of the Pickett Third Annexation and Zoning, #56-91B,C. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Mr. Waido stated that Items 17 and 18 were scheduled for the first reading of the annexation . and zoning ordinances at City Council on February 18, 1992. 0 TACO BELL RESTAURANT PUD - FINAL. #50-90A Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval. Member Walker asked Mr. Shepard to review the details of the project. Mr. Shepard stated that the condition of approval relating to the hours of operation had been met with the exception of the Sunday evening closing time. The Board conditioned that the drive- thru and dining room both close at midnight. The applicant had requested that the drive-thru only stay open for one extra hour till 1 a.m. Mr. Shepard stated that staff recommended approval of this modification primarily based on the fact that the circulation out the drive-thru lane takes the customer out of the parking lot onto north bound College Avenue. The second condition was the condition of the temporary river rock. Mr. Shepard stated that there is a capital project going to take place around 1993 or 1994 that would effect the south side of the property. In order to document the condition, the applicant has agreed to place the following note on the landscape plan: "If, prior to the installation of non -living ground cover, it becomes evident that the intersection improvements will be delayed for two or more growing 11 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 seasons, (i.e. postponed beyond August of 1993), Taco Caliente agrees to install irrigated turf (bluegrass sod) in lieu of the temporary river rock." Condition number three is that the Board had asked that there be no window signage as it shows on the present structure. Mr. Shepard stated that the applicant met the condition with a note on the final site plan, which states: "At the time of Final P.U.D., the site plan and elevations shall indicate that there will be no temporary window signage. The etched glass window on the west elevation is an exception that may be allowed." Mr. Shepard noted to the board that the height of the perimeter fence had been raised and now equals the height of the menu board. The west monument sign had been upgraded so that the pedestal is now the brick which is to be salvaged off the garage. Mr. Shepard also pointed out that two signs will be put at the point of entry which will be on a hinge that state, "Welcome to Taco Bell`, then at midnight the sign will hinge down and read, "Drive-thru Open/Dining Room and Parking Lot Closed." Mr. Shepard stated that the final modification would be of the primary monument sign, which had been modified to include a two-line readerboard. The readerboard was intended to advertise temporary sale items that would otherwise be painted on the windows. Mr. Al Hauser, Architecture One, felt that Mr. Shepard summarized the conditions and the suggestions as they had addressed them and feels that nothing further could be added. Chairman Strom pointed out that a recommendation had been made that a variance be considered to the language on approval of a final P.U.D. separately and prior to the consideration of the item. Chairman Strom asked for public input. Mr. Robin Cuany, 1523 Remington Street, questioned the use of the term RH and the noise ordinances. Mr. Cuany asked what time noises are supposed to cease in residential areas. Mr. Cuany stated that if one allows the applicant to keep the restaurant open till 1 a.m. that it would not be appropriate to have that kind of noise in a residential area. Mr. Cuany stated that there was no objection to having a restaurant there, but that the residents would like to have quietness at night. The third point he brought up was the hour of opening and closing on a weekday. Chairman Strom asked for an itemization of the hours. 12 • P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 0 Mr. Shepard stated that the dining room starting with Sunday would close at 12 a.m., the drive- thru at 1 a.m.; Monday - Wednesday the dining room would close at 1 a.m., the drive-thru at 1 a.m.; Thursday the dining room would close at 2 a.m., the drive-thru at 2 a.m., and finally on Friday/Saturday the dining room would close at 12 a.m., and the drive-thru at 3 a.m. Mr. Shepard pointed out that he would get Mr. Cuany a copy of the schedule. Mr. Cuany stated that he did not find the late hours to be acceptable for a residential district. Mr. Eckman presented the noise ordinance in Section 20-23 that 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. maximum noise level aloud was 55 decibels and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. it was 50 decibels. Mr. Eckman stated that there was a process that the residents could bring to the Police Department to check and enforce the ordinance. Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Member Carroll asked Mr. Eckman if by approving the final that it would not override the noise ordinance. In other words if the restaurant or any use exceeds the decibel levels allowed that would still be subject to a violation. Mr. Eckman agreed. Member Walker wanted to know what the rationale for adding the extra hour on Sunday evening was. Mr. Les Nordhagen, Taco Caliente, Inc., stated that the hours of which the restaurant had been operating under had been in affect for 9-1/2 years when he took over the operation. Mr. Nordhagen commented that the hours on Friday and Saturday had been shortened which were the main concerns with the neighbors. Member O'Dell stated that she was now concerned with the closing hours of Monday thru Thursday. Member O'Dell wanted to address the flow of business on those days and if the patrons tend to be less rowdy or are the problems being caused by just switching it over to Thursday night instead. Mr. Nordhagen responded that the hours had been in place for at least 9-1/2 years and as far as he knew Monday thru Thursday was never an issue to the neighbors. 13 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the request for the variance from the strict application of the LDGS, Section F4, B-1; which required the final plan be in substantial compliance with all conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to allow the extension of the hours of operation of the drive-thru lane on Sunday evenings from midnight to I a.m. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman asked if Member O'Dell would include as part of the motion of finding as to the equal to or better than characteristic. Member O'Dell felt that because of the mitigation efforts with the parking lot, specifically the signs that will be posted that the parking lot and the dining room are closed. Also that at least one property owner adjacent has agreed that this is reasonable. Due to the configuration of the site in which people can not recirculate back into the parking lot after exiting the drive-thru area that this would meet the criteria that it is equal to or better than the proposed previous plan. Member Carroll accepted the second part of the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Member Walker asked staff if the hinge sign in the parking lot was noted on the plan. Mr. Shepard agreed that was noted on the plan and that it was also a schematic that the sign will not exceed 4 sq. ft. Member Walker then wanted to clarify that the dimensions of the perimeter fence height and the menu board were also spelled out on the plan. Mr. Shepard agreed. Member Cottier moved to recommend approval of the Taco Bell Restaurant P.U.D. - Final, k50-90A. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. 14 • P & Z MINUTES January 27,1992 WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM P.U.D.. PHASES TWO -FIVE. PRELIIVENARY - #55-87E Mr. Peterson started with the description of the project. Mr. Shepard then proceeded to finish the description of the project. Staff recommended approval. Member Walker asked if the Solar Ordinance would come into affect on this project. Mr. Shepard stated that this project was submitted prior to the Solar Ordinance final hearings, therefore, this project was not affected by that ordinance. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that planning in that area had been in progress for a long time, particularly over the past 20 months. Back in April of 1990, Cityscape began working seriously with Woodcraft Homes on the single family area, and in working out the geometrics of Harmony Road going through the site. In the process of amending the master plan and doing the final planning for the first phase of development, it was found that a very detailed storm drainage plan and utility plan was needed. Mr. Charles Bell, 4020 Royal Drive, asked if any of the streets would tie into the new streets. Mr. Bell was also concerned with heavy construction traffic through that area or was there any drainage that would go to the north. Mr. Shepard addressed the street connection potential. He stated that there are three streets in Imperial Estates in the Westfield Subdivision (Goodell, Lynda and Royal) and those streets were looked at as potential residential connections. Mr. Shepard stated that it was decided that those streets, however, would not serve as outlets for Woodridge. He felt that Woodridge would be Well served by Harmony and Seneca and would have access to Taft Hill Road. As far as construction traffic, GT Land Colorado, Inc., had not given any permission for construction traffic to use Royal Drive. Any construction traffic that would use any of those roads would be considered as trespassing. Mr. Ward addressed the drainage question with an answer of no, that there is no drainage that goes to the north. Chairman Strom closed the public input session. Chairman Strom asked if the green strip along the north end of the property would be a pedestrian easement for access to the school and park site. 15 P & Z MINUTES January 27, 1992 Mr. Shepard stated that it would be called a greenbelt access easement. It actually was the water line easement for the 60" water line that was put in 2 summers ago. It would act as a buffer between the two subdivisions but it would not be improved with a path. The path is located in the center of Woodridge through another drainage channel. Chairman Strom asked if that strip of property was publicly owned or was it an easement. Mr. Ward stated that at the present time it was privately owned, but would be a utility and access easement. Member O'Dell stated that the southwest corner had a triangular shape that was not part of Woodridge as does the northwest, why aren't they included and what is there now. Mr. Ward stated that the only thing included in Woodridge development is the single family development areas. GT Land retains ownership of the other pieces. The northwest comer of the master plan is for business services with an alternative of multi -family. The southwest corner is an old county land fill. All the EPA tests have be done and the site has been sealed .and monitored for about 10 years. That area would remain in its native state of Buffalo Grass. Member O'Dell asked if it would be forever. Mr. Ward stated that it has been offered to the City on numerous occasions. Member O'Dell then commented that the site is not buildable. Mr. Ward clarified that it may be conceivable that someone who did not need any kind of federal insurance, could purchase the property and build a house. For all intents and purposes it is just a permanent open space tract. Member Carroll moved to recommend approval of the Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) P.U.D., Phases Two -Five, Preliminary, k55-87E. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0. Chairman Strom concluded the discussion agenda and asked if there were any further items. 16 . P & Z NIINUTES January 27, 1992 Mr. Peterson announced that there is a Planning and Zoning Board Worksession on February 12, 1992, 4-6 p.m. in the 281 Conference Room. The second announcement Mr. Peterson made was in regard to the March Worksession for the Board at a 4-6 p.m. time period, probably the second Wednesday, however that was not confirmed yet. Finally, Mr. Peterson stated that there is an opportunity for two board members to go to the State APA Conference in Boulder on "Sense of Place", at the end of February. Chairman Strom also stated that there were a couple of positions to fill on the Neighborhood Compatibility Working Committee. Member Clements -Cooney volunteered for that committee and he asked if anyone else wished to do so. Member Walker replied he wished to do so. Mr. Peterson informed the Board that Taco Bell signed a development agreement on the P.U.D. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 17