Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/04/19910 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES • February 4,1991 The continuation of the January 28, 1991 Planning and Zoning Board meeting began at 6:35 p.m. Board members present included Chairman Jim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker and Jan Cottier. Members absent included Bernie Strom and Margaret Gorman. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. Planning Director Tom Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item I - #35- 86H, Clarendon Hills Subdivision Fourth Filing, Final; Item 2 - #35-86I, Clarendon Hills Subdivision Fifth Filing, Final; Item 3 - 09-82AC, Center Greens at Southridge Greens PUD, Final; Item 4 - #52- 85B, Foothills Auto Plaza PUD, Final, and; Item 5 - #14-83D, Moreland PUD, Amended Final. Ted Shepard gave a description of the Clarendon Hills Subdivision Fourth Filing stating that the acreage should be 22.9 acres instead 29 acres because approximately 6 acres were deleted from the church site. He also gave a description of Clarendon Hills Subdivision Fifth Filing. He stated that the preliminary for both of these items were before the Board in October 1990 where conditions were attached pertaining to the delineation in the treatment of both the Burns Tributary and Fossil Creek. Those conditions, one condition per filing, have been satisfied. Erosion buffer areas have been established and reviewed by the Storm Drainage Department and the Department of Natural Resources and modifications have been acceptable by them. He stated that staff recommended approval of both . Clarendon Hills filings. Mr. Shepard presented slides of the proposed sites. He stated that one of the lots had been deleted in the fifth filing due to the erosion buffer area and the floodplain. There are now I I Tots south of Hilldale Drive versus 16 so a tract can be reserved for consideration by the Parks and Recreation Department for a potential neighborhood park. Member Walker asked what Tract C was for in the Fourth Filing. He ask if the area along the north part of Tract F was for erosion control. Mr. Shepard stated that Tract C in the Fourth Filing was for a detention pond for storm water which does go into the church site. He stated that the area along the north part of Tract F in the Fifth Filing was for the delineation area for the Burns Tributary. Member Carroll asked if the entire issue of the condition placed on these items in October should be reviewed again by the Board or should the Board limit their discussion*to the final condition of erosion control. Mr. Eckman stated that the entire issue may be reviewed again by the Board. If the discussion were limited to the one issue, then the Board would unduly limit themselves in their ability to consider the subdivision. He did caution the Board that this was not a PUD so the review would be limited in the sense that the Board would not have the breadth of review in the subdivision approach that they would have in the PUD approach. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc., represented the applicant. He stated that Gary Nordick, the developer, and Dennis Donovan, developer, were present to answer any questions the Board may have. 1 Member Carroll asked if there was any difference in the Fourth and Fifth Filings being presented now and what was presented in October with the exception of the tract reserved for future purposes. Mr. Ward stated that, besides the impact of the drainage tract, some of the lots were shortened to allow for the drainage tract. Otherwise, nothing else had changed. The fifth lot on the north side of Hilldale was eliminated because of the floodplain not being where it was under the old conservation easement approach. Member Walker asked what process the City would follow to review the possibility of a neighborhood park. Mr. Shepard stated that the process was underway and being developed and reviewed by the Parks Planning Division of the Parks and Recreation Department. He stated that there were two potential park sites within the square mile section that were being considered. The proposal has been before the Parks and Recreation Board for a preliminary review where they requested more information. The Parks and Recreation staff should report to the Parks and Recreation Board in about 2 or 3 months. Steve Webb, 5501 Saratoga Circle, stated that most of the concerns of the neighborhoods have been resolved but issues have evolved into a problem between the will of the people, the neighbors and the developer, and City Hall. After the Board's preliminary review, there were several meetings with Mr. Nordick, the neighbors, and the Parks and Recreation staff. There were two major concerns by the neighbors: 1) That there appeared to be no provision for a neighborhood park in the area, and; 2) that the density, particularly in the southern part of the development, was much more dense than originally planned. He believed that the park was more of a compromise solution that satisfied the developer and the residents of Clarendon Hills. In its location, it was truly a neighborhood park away from arterials, and fit into the neighborhood for use by people in that section of land, and blended in with the easements along Fossil Creek and the Burns Tributary. The location helped solve some of the density problems because it buffered the acreage areas from the higher density housing that was platted along Shields Street and the higher density housing north of Hilldale. The second meeting where they decided upon the park at this location caused the neighborhood to drop the appeal. He quoted a letter from Mike Powers, the Director of CLRS: "Do not assume that the City will purchase a park from Mr. Nordick or anyone else and take whatever steps you feel are appropriate and necessary to protect your interest....." The neighborhood met with Mr. Powers after receiving this letter and Mr. Powers reiterated for the neighborhood not to plan their actions as if there were going to be a park in that area. The neighborhood believed that they were back to square one and reacted like there would not be a park in that area. He presented slides of the area as it presently exists. He asked the Board to withhold approval of the Fourth and Fifth Filings until there was assurance that a park would be approved in that area or that the Board approve the Fourth and Fifth Filing contingent upon the approval for a park. Jerry Krygier, 5325 Clarendon Hills Drive, stated that discussions were held with Mr. Nordick, Ted Shepard and the Parks staff. He briefly discussed the dropped appeal. He stated that they now have more information than they did in October, such as the criteria for approval and the change in density. He stated that when the master plan and the density increases were considered, a neighborhood meeting would not be held unless these were compared and also depended upon the zoning. The neighborhood had discussed the park site with Parks and Recreation Department and received no assurance from them that there would be a park in their neighborhood. They received a genuine interest from Mr. Nordick for this neighborhood to have a park. He urged the Board to allow enough time for the neighborhood to discuss the possibility of a park with the developer. He stated that at the October meeting, presentations were made by the neighborhood then the developer but there was no chance for a rebuttal from the neighborhood after the developer's presentation. He believed that the neighborhood should have the opportunity at this meeting to make comments based on the information presented by the developer. 2 Mr. Ward stated that he could not figure out what misinformation was presented to the Board in •October. He stated that the approved 1986 Master Plan had an overall density of 2 units per acre and the net residential acreage was 2.2 units per acre, of which those remain the same. He believed that Mr. Nordick had bent over backwards to create a solution to appease everyone. He believed that the real issue of the neighborhood was a park and not the density. There was a unanimous agreement at the neighborhood meetings that if Mr. Nordick would provide a written offer to the City, the appeal on the density issue would be dropped. He stated that he was disappointed that they would have to reinvent the wheel on this subject. He stated that they have done everything that was promised to all concerned and had done exactly what was requested by the majority of the neighborhood that attended the subsequent meetings. Member Walker asked if there was a time frame upon the developer's part to get this resolved Mr. Ward stated -that there was a time frame and that the developer was well within the legal requirements of the subdivision. They had the option of not including the park as a separate tract but they were genuinely interested in having a park and acted upon good faith. He believed it was unfair to delay this project further to see if something that was not a part of the preliminary approval would happen. Member O'Dell asked what the 1986 Master Plan really stated and what the Clarendon Hills residents understood when they purchased their lots. Mr. Shepard showed a slide of the 1986 Master Plan. He stated that the plan was reviewed under a subdivision regulation versus the PUD process. He stated that Tract K did not correspond with the Fifth Filing because it went further north. Tract J, which was part of the Fourth Filing, was 15 acres and .8 dwelling units per acre, twelve units. Member Walker asked Mr. Eckman that if the City chose not to purchase this area for a park site, would there be a commitment to subdivide the land. Mr. Eckman replied that the City could paint themselves into a corner by approving this development with a park site than if the park site didn't develop into a park, the then -owner of the property could seek to develop it in their own way. Since this was a standard subdivision area, this would have to be analyzed based upon the standard subdivision provisions of the code. If it met those provisions, the Board would be compelled to approve it if it passed the code at that time. But similarly what was presented tonight was a standard subdivision and if it meets the criteria of the code, the Board would not have any grounds to deny it. Chairman Klataske asked that if the Parks Department decided not to designate this as a park site, could those lots be reconfigured to make larger lots but the density stay the same. Mr. Ward replied that, in the preliminary, those were the larger lots in the Fifth Filing in that area. The drainage tract was defined and would be in existence regardless of what happened. The intent would be to basically put it back into the lot sizes as they were on the preliminary. They would be slightly larger because of the change in the cul-de-sac design. He stated that the replat would not include eliminating any of the lots proposed tonight. This would divide Tract C into about five lots, which would be one lot less than the preliminary approval. Member O'Dell asked if the Parks Board, when making their decision in a few months, would consider other sites in this area. 3 Mr. Shepard replied that the Parks Board was seriously looking at two sites, one in the Voc-Tech area and the other in Tract C of the Fifth Filing. Member O'Dell asked what were the boundaries of the section. Mr. Shepard replied that the boundaries go from Harmony Road on the north, Fossil Creek Drive on the. south, College Avenue on the east and Shields Street on the west. This was a one square mile section. He stated that there were some county subdivisions in this area which were built out and have never had parkland fees generated. Member O'Dell asked if the Voc-Tech site would be considered more seriously because the land would be cheaper or because it would be more accessible. Mr. Shepard stated that he could not speculate on this and that it was a decision to be made by the Parks and Recreation Board, of which they need to wait to review the analysis. Member O'Dell asked if the Clarendon Hills neighborhood could have some influence -in any way on that decision. Mr. Shepard stated that they were already very successful in working with the Parks and Recreation Board. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Eckman if the City had ever approved a subdivision or PUD with a possible park included. Mr. Eckman stated that he could not recall any circumstances like that. He commented that the City Code did not require any specific master plan to be approved in a standard subdivision. The preliminary and final plan process required a submission of the plat. That plat should show the location of everything and the lot sizes. The code provided for design standards to be reviewed that were much less detailed than what was in a PUD but they dealt with whether or not steep and unstable land in areas that had inadequate drainage were being included and subdivided. The code prohibited this. The code required that any land subject to flooding or any natural drainage of channels should not be platted. This requirement was in Section 29-656 through 659. Outstanding natural and cultural features were required to be preserved according to the code. There were also requirements for streets and alleys, minimum lot sizes, and park requirements. The code also stated that reservations of sites for flood control purposes and other municipal purposes should be mutually agreed upon between the subdivider and the Planning and Zoning Board. He believed that the neighborhood should work with the Parks and Recreation Board and the Planning and Zoning Board to see that their wishes are voiced at their level. Mr. Peterson stated that the decision on whether or not the City would acquire a park site would be made by City Council, who was the final approving authority. The Parks and Recreation Board in this community was only a recommendation board. He added that the items that Member O'Dell mentioned were the type of criteria that the Parks and Recreation Board and staff would review before they make their recommendation. Cost would be a factor. This was a unique situation in that this particular square mile did not generate a lot of park fees. The parkland acquisition and development was going to be a subsidy situation because, not having the full dollars that are normally received in a square mile, dollars would have to be pulled from other developing neighborhoods to provide adequate cost. He stated that this was a subdivision and not a PUD. PUDs provide more flexibility in considering a number of issues that staff had heard from the neighborhood in October and now. Staff did not believe that the Board had the flexibility they have under PUDs as with subdivisions. These factors need to be weighed in the Board's decision. 4 Member Walker moved to approve Clarendon ' Hills Subdivision Fourth Filing Final. Member Cottier . seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved to approve Clarendon Hills Subdivision Fifth Filing Final. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that, in reviewing the Fifth Filing, the possibility of a park in this area indicated that there has been a process between the developer and the neighborhood to address some of the concerns. He stated that he felt comfortable with this project and that if a park were not to go in this site, he would still be satisfied with subdividing that tract. He believed that this was a density issue that he could not support based on city policy because if Tract C were subdivided, there would be no city policy being violated. There was a natural barrier so the lots to the east of Tract C would be buffered. He also felt that by approving this, the Board was setting a situation in saying that they were allowing this park to develop if this was the choice of the Parks Board and City Council, but also stating that it should be recognized if it wasn't developed as a park. Member O'Dell commented that when the master plan was approved in 1986, the Board- deviated from the City -recommended 3 dwelling units per acre because it was adjacent to an already established county neighborhood and subdivision. She stated that because the overall density had remained the same, she believed it was reasonable to have a higher density adjacent to a major arterial and that, with Fossil Creek and Burns Tributary, there was a natural boundary. Member Carroll commented that he felt there was not a significant deviation from the master plan. He stated that he was not premising his vote to approve the motion on the basis that he was hoping that this would be a park. He stated he would not regret his decision if Tract C never became a park. Member Cottier commented that the density that was up for approval with the proposed final was in keeping with the 1986 master plan. After all the explanations that the 1986 master plan stated, it seemed that the 1986 plan had 83 lots and this proposal was only 70 lots. If the park does not go in, there would still be only 76 lots. She believed that the density was in keeping with the expectations of the 1986 master plan. She urged the neighborhood to keep after City Council and the Parks Board as the process for a park was undertaken. Chairman Klataske commented that he concurred with the other Board members' comments. He felt that a condition that this area become a park should not be placed on this project and that City Council and the Parks Board would choose the best site for all citizens in Fort Collins, not just in this area. He believed that the density was still below city standards even if it were to be subdivided. Motion to approve passed 5-0. CENTER GREENS AT SOUTHRIDGE GREENS PUD FINAL Case #9-82AC Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project. He added that he presented the Board with a memo regarding an easement to be granted prior to the filing of the final documents. This was a condition that was in full agreement with the applicant. Member O'Dell asked why this item was on the Discussion Agenda. Mr. Shepard stated that, at the time the agenda was put together in early January, staff thought that the easement situation would generate a lot of interest. That interest has dwindled and all parties are in agreement. From staff's perspective, there was no controversy and the item should have been placed on the Consent Agenda. 0 5 Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated that he and Bill Albrecht, Albrecht Companies, were present for any questions. Member Walker moved to approve Center Greens at Southridge Greens PUD, Final with the condition presented by staff. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. FOOTHILLS AUTO PLAZA PUD. FINAL. Case #52-85B MORELAND PUD, AMENDED FINAL. Case #14-83D Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed projects. Jerry Cash, owner and applicant of Foothills Auto Plaza, stated that they had addressed the issues that were of concern to the Board. Member Carroll asked if Mr. Cash had a position on parking automobiles on the landscaped area. Mr. Cash stated that he has not done that on the Moreland area because that was not the way it was designed and it also was a sprinkled area, which could be very costly if the sprinklers were to be broken by a vehicle being parked on them. The same philosophy would apply with the Foothills Auto Plaza. Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Cash if he would consider, as a condition, that the automobiles would not be displayed on a vertical rack to show the undercarriage. Mr. Cash stated that his position was that display racks do not need to be in the PUD. His intention was not to use the vertical and angled display racks. He stated that these racks do draw your attention to the vehicles but he considered them a safety issue and would not personally or have any of his employees drive a vehicle onto a vertical and angled rack. Member Walker asked Mr. Eckman what restrictions there were in a PUD on vehicle racks. Mr. Eckman stated that Criteria #33 stated: "Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration?" He stated that Criteria #36 stated: "Is the street and parking system designed to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of site configuration?" Member O'Dell asked if, in the past, when a new kind of sign or means of advertising has appeared, what has the City done when it does not conform to the All Development Criteria? Has this been dealt with by passing a City ordinance against them or dealt with it on a site -by -site basis. She asked what would be reasonable in this kind of case. Mr. Eckman replied that if you come across new development techniques that have not been reviewed before and they fit the criteria, you would deal with them on a case -by -case basis. He suggested that if you come across a new case that was not addressed by the criteria, then the Code would have to be amended to address those kind of issues. If display racks do not fit within the present criteria in the LDGS, then the LDGS would have to be amended to regulate the issue. On the other hand, if these criteria, especially the ones pertaining to aesthetics, do address that, there is no need to expand the code. Mr. Shepard stated that, in regards to new ways of advertising, the readerboards under project signs and illuminated awnings have become more involved. The City had not attempted to re -review the Zoning Code and viewed it in a comprehensive basis. He felt that maybe this should be done but the City had been discouraged into doing this because it was a lengthy process. It was easier to come before E C� the Board on a site -by -site basis. Staff has tried to discourage illuminated awnings. Staff will never be able to arrive at a list from A to Z for aesthetics and place it in the Zoning Code so staff relies on site -by -site basis. Member O'Dell asked if it was up to the Board to determine whether the horizontal/vertical racks meet Criteria 036. Mr. Shepard stated yes, based on the Board's condition at the preliminary PUD. Member Cottier stated she was concerned about no delineation of the internal access drive and the edges of the drive. Mr. Shepard stated that on the Moreland PUD, the issue was whether or not the internal access drive would be sufficiently delineated to accomplish its purpose to move traffic off of College Avenue and circulate in the entire block of Furr's Cafeteria, Mann Theater complex, the state office building, Foothills Auto Plaza and Moreland PUD. The concern at preliminary was that it could be used to display vehicles and inhibit traffic flow. Traffic would be allowed to move through and no parking would be allowed. It would be delineated by directional arrows and by double yellow striping on both sides, as well as yellow striping on the pavement that says "No Parking - Fire Lane." Mr. Peterson stated that Poudre Fire Authority inspects fire lane parking on a regular basis to make sure that they have adequate, access. Member Carroll asked if there was anything that would prevent a future owner of this property from parking cars on the grass. Mr. Shepard replied that it would be a violation of the PUD. Mr. Eckman stated that another criteria regarding the display rack is #42, which stated: "Does the landscape plan for treatment of vehicular use area which contributes to their usage and visual appearance?" Mr. Shepard presented some slides of various display vehicles mounted on both horizontal and angled racks in and out of the city limits. Member Walker commented that the undercarriage of a car would fit into the low visual interest criteria. He believed that the way the criteria read was that if you have an area of low visual interest, a display rack should be landscaped. Placing a rack behind a bush would be absurd. He stated that he did not have problems with the horizontal racks but the angled racks create an area of low visual interest and disrupt the aesthetic qualities. Member O'Dell concurred with Member Walker but had concerns that, in the future, the horizontal racks could potentially be 20 feet high. She felt that the Board needed to deal with the issue of horizontal racks as they currently exist on a site. Mr. Cash stated that the height of the racks are approximately 36 inches from the ground to the bottom of the tires. Member Carroll moved to approve Foothills Auto Plaza PUD Final with the condition that no angled auto display racks be allowed nor any horizontal display racks be allowed on which the driving surface is over 40 inches. 7 Member Cottier suggested an amendment to the motion by adding a condition that the display rack be landscaped and bermed to the surface that the tires rest on and shrubs be placed around the rack so it would not be visible from College Avenue. Member Carroll thanked Member Cottier for the suggestion but stated that his motion would stand. He stated that if this was done, the landscaping of the entire area would be changed in order to make it aesthetic. He added that he was hesitant to require that without another landscape plan to see if it would work since a grade would have to be added to the berm. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Cottier commented that she would not support the motion. She stated that there were legitimate concerns raised at the preliminary review and the condition regarding the rack seemed to be supportable by the LDGS criteria. She believed that this was not a case of treating this dealer different from other dealers because the recent PUD with other dealers did not deal with College frontage. She believed that display racks were a new feature that the Board should be making comments about. Member O'Dell concurred with Member Cottier and with Member Carroll in that the Board would be redesigning the thing that could affect draining by stating that the rack needed to have berming. She believed that a shrub bed or something such as that should ,be placed in front of the rack and acceptable and would soften the mechanical part of the rack and would not get in the way of the display of the vehicle and may achieve the same look. Member Carroll commented that the vertical and angled display racks were deniable under the criteria and that they did not contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration. He had concerns about staffs comment that the Board could take the action of withdrawing the condition on the basis that it was unfair and vague. He stated that he has chosen to compromise in that the horizontal rack was not disturbing in the fashion that the vertical rack did. He believed that Member O'Dell's comments were well taken in that some shrubby in front of the rack would add to the aesthetics under Criteria #36. He amended his motion to add the condition that on the final landscape plan some shrubbery that are not greater than 40 inches in height should be provided. Member Walker stated that he had mixed feelings on the amendment. He stated that he had no problem with adding shrubbery around the rack but did not see that the shrubbery added much to it. The amendment to the motion was not accepted by the second. Chairman Klataske asked if signage, such as a banner, around the bottom of the rack would fall under the sign code. Mr. Eckman stated that a banner would not make it as a sign unless it was a Chrysler banner or a banner that carried the same color scheme as the rest of the building. If it was integrated into the sign of the building, then it would be a sign. But if it was just color, that would not constitute a sign. The motion to approve passed 3-2 with Members Cottier and O'Dell in the negative. Member O'Dell questioned if it would be appropriate for the Board to make the same kind of motion since nothing was said about display racks in 1988 when it first came before the Board. Mr. Shepard stated that the way staff interpreted Moreland PUD was that no display racks were presented or considered. If a display rack were to appear on the site, staffs interpretation was that it would be a violation of the PUD. 8 Mr. Peterson stated that if Mr. Cash wished to put in a display rack, he would have to either come back before the Board to amend the PUD or go through the administrative change process. Member Cottier asked if, in this case where the two PUDs were one site and the Board was allowing one display rack, would it make a difference as to where the rack was placed, either on the northern or southern part of the property. Mr. Shepard stated that this would be to the discretion of the Board. Chairman Klataske asked if there was a limit as to how many display racks were allowed. Mr. Shepard stated that he interpreted the Board's approval as one display rack no higher than 40 inches and parallel to the ground. Member Walker stated that Moreland PUD was not asking for racks one way or another. He asked how a rack was being in violation of the PUD. Mr. Peterson stated that it would be within the Board's realm to add a condition with the Moreland PUD to clarify the number of display racks. Member Carroll stated that in his motion there was no limitation to the number of display racks. Member Walker moved to approve Moreland PUD Amended Final with the condition that no angled racks or racks above 40 inches be allowed on this site. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 3-2 with Members Cottier and O'Dell in the negative. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peterson stated that items on the February agenda will consist of the Harmony Corridor Plan, solar access and energy conservation, the LDGS Audit, and the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood Plan. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 0 9 . .................... ........ . ........ . XATION .......... I City Limits: 1-31-91 . . . . . . . . . .