Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/21/1981I Board Present Staff Present: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES December 21, 1981 Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Tim Dow, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson Ken Waido, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mauri Rupel, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Meeting called to order 6:35 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes of November 23, 1981 Stoner: Moved -to approve the minutes of November 23, 1981. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. (Ross not present). Note: Gary Ross arrived at 6:40 p.m. Gilfillan: Announced that Gary Ross had a conflict of interest with Item #2 Lindenwood Fourth PUD and would not be taking part in the discussion or vote. COUNTY REFERRALS 2. #87-81 Lindenwood Fourth PUD - County Referral A request for 95 single-family and patio home units on 38.06 acres, located at the northwest corner of Lindenmeier Lake, zoned R-pResidential. 80p26cant: Willard E. Holz, 1812 Elm Court, Fort Collins, CO Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. 12/21/81 P & Z,Board Meeting vage 2 Les Kaplan: Representative for the Applicant. Gave a history of the project and explained the efforts that were made to work with the Linden - wood Homeowner's Association. Stated that the higher quality, lower density, and exclusive residential image of Lindenwood and the neighboring areas should be appreciated as an asset to Larimer County and Fort Collins and, as such, protected. Maintained that the proposed PUD plan had the potential for continuing the standards identified with Lindenwood, while at the same time, accommodating the dramatically different market conditions, changed land -use determinants, and numerous addition- al City and County requirements from the time of the original platting of Lindenwood. Discussed the patio home concept, densities, the potential for annexations, drainage plans, proposed street improvements, and landscape plans. Gilfillan: Announced that the Board would not be taking a position to inter- pret the covenants of Lindenwood, also stated that the position of the Board was that the applicant had met the requirements of filing the petition. Ron Alexander: Representative of the Board of Directors of the Lindenwood Home- owners Association. Stated that the applicant was violating the covenants of Lindenwood. Expressed opposition to the petition. Tom Boardman: Lindenwood Resident. Presented the negative effects of the proposed replat. Presented statistical information on sites per acre, number of units per filing, gross area in acres per filing, recreational impact, green area, and jetty accesses. Mel Schamberger: Lindenwood Resident. Addressed the inappropriateness of the planning for this application. Felt that the quality of life would be undermined with this particular development and urged the denial of the project. Yank Banowetz: Lindenwood Resident. Stated that he was appearing as a property - owner, not as an attorney. Questioned the correctness of the petition and felt that this Board should consider the covenants in the overall scheme of things in the development. Discussed past proposals by Willard Holz for the area; the impacts on school enrollments; and the replatting of adjacent areas. Urged the denial of the project. Ralph Lauffer: Lindenwod Resident. Felt that the developer intended to capital- ize on the Lindenwood name and atmosphere. Stated that the new area being developed should have some other name than Lindenwood. Stated his opposition to this new development as being its inconsistency with the surrounding area. Meg Parmer: Lindenwood Resident. Pointed out that the petition had only seven signatures left on it and felt it should be rejected. Stated that she thought they were protected by the covenants as homeowners, and felt that their rights were being taken away by the Board not recognizing the covenants. Board Meeting Page .3 Bob Phillips: Lindenwood Resident. Felt that it was inconceivable that the Planning Board would not consider the covenants. Ruggiero: Stated that the covenants could be considered for their planning information or basis but it is not the job of the Board to determine the enforceability or the legitimacy of the covenants. The property owners could seek a Court of Law to enforce the covenants. Pete Montagriff: Lindenwood Resident. Questioned the buffering of the patio homes from the existing homes. Joan Salzman: Resident of the Country Club Area. Questioned how the water would be supplied, how the by-pass would be handled, and how annexation would affect residents with horses and other animals. Note: General discussion between Board members ensued concerning the buffering between high and low density areas; densities; depth of green area between Lindenwood One and the patio home area; the covenants governing the recreational use of the lake; the landscaping plans required at this time; traffic concerns, and ditch company easements. Gerald Olsen: Lindenwood Resident. Felt that the density per lot size in the patio home area, excluding the ditch company's right-of-way would be considerably higher. Felt that the figure of 3.36 per lot size should be challenged. George Thornton: Lindenwood Resident. Stated that he chose the Lindenwood area to live because of the density and the amenities offered in the area. Stated that allowing the proposal to go through, would be neglecting and ignoring the real feelings of the people in that neighborhood. Waido: Addressed questions concerning the Lemay Extension; school enrollments; water supplies; proposed shopping centers, and annexation procedures. Rupel: Addressed the traffic questions presented. Stoner: Felt that much of the discussion presented seemed to be immater- ial. Stated that comments having to do with the exclusivity of the area especially bothered him. Felt that the Board should be responsive to public input. Moved to deny approval for Lindenwood Fourth Pud. P & Z Board Meeting Page,,4 . • Simpson: Second. Commented that she could respect the individual homeowner's desire for his own personal uniqueness. Felt that this particu- lar proposal seemed a little incompatible with the area. rest of the Georg: Felt that many issues had been brought up that had no relevance to design. Much of the opposition brought forth at this meeting was the same as what was presented at last month's meeting. Felt that the discussion should have had to do with the design level. Felt that the design level for the master plan had been adequately addressed. Gilfillan: Felt that because the piece of land was essentially landlocked, it would not be conducive for high density and it was not compat- ible for high density development. Purvis: Stated that she was sympathetic with the homeowners over the enforcement of the covenants, however, the Board is restricted to focusing on the overall plan. Felt that staff had reported favorably and positively on many of the issues that were addressed; including the adequacy of the schools, the roads, and the water problems in the area. Felt that it was unreasonable and unrealistic to require single-family residences in this area due to economic demands. Felt that the design itself for mixed housing did seem compatible with this area in that the density is relatively low. Vote: Motion carried for denial 4-3. (Purvis, Georg, & Dow voting no.) Waido: Stated that even with denial by this Board that this item would still go to the County Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL 3. Criteria for Amending the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Boundary At the Planning and Zoning Board's request, the Planning Division staff has prepared criteria which could be used to evaluate Urban Growth Area boundary amendment requests. Applicant: City of Fort Collins, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Waido: Gave a staff report. Note: Board members discussed problems with the criteria and further defining some areaossible s. Waido: Responded that the problem with further defining specific criteria was that you can never be all inclusive. IZ/ZI/81 P & Z.Board Meeting • . Page" 5 • Ross: Stated that he would like to see some sort of format in which.a reasonable request could be airred. Dow: Questioned how the boundary line was established. Felt that if You were looking at a substantial change in circumstances as one the of criteria, then it would only be fair to look at the circumstances as they existed and the reason for the line to be where it is. Waido: Described the boundary in terms of goals and objectives, and policies that were to be achieved at the time the boundary was established. Purvis: Questioned what would happen now in terms of public input for these criteria. Waido: Responded that if the Board felt comfortable with what has been prepared, then we would invite the County Planning Commission to hold another joint meeting with this Board. When a consensus had been reached by both Boards, this would be brought back as an agenda item and a public hearing would be held at that time. Stated that it was up to both Boards as to how they want to do the public input. Jerry Nix: Broker for Mountain States Property. Representative for many people who have requested a change in the UGA boundary. Quest- ioned if the statistics and facts, the at time that the line was established, were properly reviewed and interpretted. Felt that the public input should be addressed. Stated that these criteria are just general and don't mean anything. Felt that more statistical information, facts, and perhaps a vista study, needed to be done todstart delineating some of the important things. Simpson: Stated that when the UGA boundary was established there was a great deal of public advertising. The citizens that did have property had an opportunity to participate. Stated that one of the problems that propertyowners have is that they don't start participating until they need to do something with their land. Felt that the criteria should be kept general and tested and then maybe some pertinent criteria could be added. Georg: Stated that the City does have Land Use Policies. Felt that many of the needs of the general sector can be addressed by looking at the Land Use Policies ---they are very specific in some areas. Stated for the record that he felt that the staff had prepared adequately, had prepared the material that the Board had directed them to prepare, and would hope that this issue does not come up again. Ron Ruff: Landowner. Stated that the the UGA boundary ough his property --part of his land is in and part is out. F ltrth t the line works well for the people inside. Stated that there are many problems with irrigation ditches, laterals, and storm water. Questioned how the line had been moved from Harmony Road to 1/2 mile south of there. P & Z Board Meeting • Page..6 Jim Hesse: Landowner. Felt that more consideration for storm drainage should have been made in establishing the line. Questioned which of the criteria would be used in handling the problems of irrigation and storm drainage. Waido: Stated that criteria 2A would handle it. Jerry Dusbabek: Landowner. Felt that when the line was established that gerrymandering took place. Felt that many landowners were excluded and that the City and taxpayers would benefit from public hearings and a change in the boundary. Ross: Stated that the reason for this item was to receive from staff proposed criteria for proposed amendments to the boundary. This meeting was not intended for a public hearing. Felt that many of these questions needed to be addressed. Note: It was the consensus of the Board to meet with the County Planning Commission to come up with a consistent set of criteria and move from that meeting to a public hearing. Based upon input from the public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the City Council. DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. #88-81 Underhill PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of 220 condominium and townhome units and one existing house on 20.7-acres, located on West Prospect Road, west of The Bridges PUD, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential, and R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Dr. Robert Smith, c/o WJM Associates, 1007 Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Rupel: Addressed problems based on the preliminary plan. Stated that there were some calculations on storm drainage that his department was not comfortable with. Stated that the developer understands the problem and will work them out. Bill MC Caffery: Applicant. Gave a project report and explained the plan. Ad- dressed problems concerning in -.fill projects, utilities, compat- ibility, and density. P & Z Board Meeting Pages 7 � • Note: General discussion ensued- between Board members concerning vent stacks, roof materials, carports, landscaping, ground water problems, phasing, and densities. Kent Andrews: Area Resident. Expressed concerns about the inconsistent den- sity, no buffer zone, and incompatible phasing. Urged the Board to deny the project. Sanford Thayer: Area Resident. Discussed the storm drainage and discharge area. Felt that this area was not suitable for development and that we are creating problems not solving problems. Felt that this area was incompatible from a technical point of view and it was also incompatible from an aesthetic point of view. Stoner: Questioned the storm drainage problems and the flooding that had occurred in that area. Rupel: Responded that that area is prone to flooding. Stated that since Horsetooth Reservoir has been in existence the flooding has not been significant. Said that the developer intends to not develop in the lower area until such time as the City completes it's importation canal ---which is still in limbo. Stated that his department does not have the answer for the lower area, there is a very serious potential there at the present time. McCaffery: Explained how the phasing would take place. Responded to quest- ions about Mercer Canal, buffering, landscaping, the passive/solar application, and density. Nona Thayer: Area Resident. Expressed an interest in the overall density of the project. Felt that compatibility was minimally addressed by the point system. Expressed concern about the utilization of the open space in terms of how it buffers adjacent dwellings. Urged denial of this proposal as it was presented. Sanford Thayer: Contended that if you consider the phasing of the development and the postponement of the lower area because of it's technical infeasibility due to storm drainage, that you are going to lose the open space and that the points ought to be recounted on what can reasonably be built within the time constraints. Ross: Felt that this was a valid point especially when it is a limiting factor that the applicant has no control over. Waido: Commented that many techniques can be used to achieve compati- bility between uses---land-use, site planning-, landscaping, and orientation techniques can be used to mitigate potentially incompatible land uses. The staff felt that the combination of things in this proposal was adequate so that mitigation was met. The Board may disagree and invoke Absolute Criteri A #2 - Compatibility. P & Z Board Meeting a Paga 8 . • Bob Lucas: Consultant for the Developer. Stated that there is no solar project of this nature which addresses the issues of energy conservation to the extent that this does. Felt that this is a very aesthetically pleasing project. Stated that a large open space is planned for the corner of Taft and Prospect. Addie Kano: Area Resident. Stated her major concern as being the added traffic onto Prospect. Felt that there are fire hazards because of the dense traffic. Simpson: Expressed concern about the large acreage and single-family against the townhouses even with the buffering. Stated her major concern as being a project proposed with so much problem with the lower half. Would like to see it as a complete package and worked out, rather than developing part and saying that someday maybe it would be finished. Georg: Felt that there are definite problems but many of the problems would be addressed at the time of final. Felt that the main issue was the density and the buffer area. Questioned if the transition area was done as well as it could have been done. Gilfillan: Expressed concern about the phasing and the ingress and egress. Purvis: Expressed agreement with Dennis Geor 's comments in regard to landscaping the on west side adjacent topLot Lot10 Dow: Moved to approve Underhill PUD -'Preliminary. Gilfillan: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. (Stoner abstaining.) Georg: Requested that this item not be put on the Consent Agenda when it comes back for final approval. 5. #89-81 South College Shops PUD Amendment - Preliminary and Final Joe Frank: Kurt Reed: Request for approval of a preliminary and final amendment to an existing PUD for the addition of 4,620 sf of office space located at K-Mart Plaza, 2413 South College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Mervyn Jacobson, c/o Kurt Reed, KDR, Inc., 215 West Oak, Suite 720, Ft. Collins, CO 80521. Gave a staff report recommending approval Representative for the Applicant. Would be available to answer questions. F a c uoara meeting Page 9 GiIfil.Ian: 0 Moved to approve South College Shops PUD Amendment - Preliminary and Final. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned 10:45 p.m. Note: This is a summary of the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Tapes of the meeting are available to the public. Upon request, copies of the tapes can be made. P & Z Board Meeting Pag6 10 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION Date: December 18, 1981 Time: 12:00 Noon Place: CIC Room - New City Hall Agenda: Work Session for regular P & Z meeting of December 21, 1981 Board Present: Ed Stoner, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Barbara Purvis, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Ingrid Simpson Board Absent: Gary Ross