Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/23/1982o 'r01 SEP 7 tsaz ,M � PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY. CLERK MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1982 Board Present: Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Tim Dow, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Curt Smith, Linda Gula, Phyllis Polly Legal Representative: Paul Eckman Meeting called to order 6:30 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW: 2. #31-82A Minerva Business Park PUD Phase One - Final - CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 3. #20-82A Harbor Walk Subdivision - Final - CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting y 7. #43-82 Holiday Inn PUD Master Plan - CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 8. #43-82A Holiday Inn PUD Phase One - Preliminary - CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 10. #45-82 Golden Meadows PUD 4th Filing -Preliminary - CONTINUED TO 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 11. #9-80E The Arena PUD Second Revision - Preliminary — CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 12. #9-80F The Arena PUD Phase Three - Final - CONTINUED to 9/27/82 P & Z Meeting 17. #40-82 Frank Exemption Request - County Referral - WITHDRAWN by Applicant 18. #54-82 INC Leasing Rezoning Request - County Referral - WITHDRAWN by Applicant CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Approval of minutes of July 26, 1982. Georg: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Item #1. Purvis: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. (Stoner not voting). Note: Ed Stoner arrived at 6:40 p.m. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 4. #113-80B Revision to the Land Development Guidance System A staff -initiated proposal to amend the "Density Chart" of the Land Development Guidance System. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: Discussion followed between staff and the Board concerning the impact of the changes on the Goals and Policies of the City; possible problems with retroactive applications; and past policies of the City. Dow: Commented this, is probably one of several modifications which the Board is going to see. Stated that some of these numbers merit further evaluation. Stoner: Moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Revisions to the Land Development Guidance System. Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1. (Georg voting no.) Georg: Commented that he thought the Board had moved too capriciously in the past and thought that the changes that the Board were making would be more effective by more calculatingly observing what the impact of these changes would be. 5. #49-82 Nix Out -of -City Water Service Request Request for out -of -City water service for 5.3-ac, located south of Bingham Hill Road, on the east side of Claymore Lake. Applicant: Jerry Nix, 2105 S. Shields, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Jerry Nix: Applicant. Presented a brief background of the site. Stated that he would be available to answer questions. Gilfillan: Stated that he could not support the request because of the dispute on the land ownership and felt that it should be tabled or denied. Eckman: Stated that the issues could be separated and that the Board could rule on the question of the water tap because the quest- ion of subdivisions and the appropriateness of development would be left up to the County. Dow: Questioned what other options the developer had for water service. Rupel: Stated that it would be strictly well service. Gilfillan: Moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Nix Out -of -City Water Service Request subject to the condition that a subdivision is approved and that they be willing to annex at the time. Purvis: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 6. #50-82 Foothills Subdivision Out -of -City Sewer Service Request Request for out -of -City sewer service for 16 units on 33-ac (proposed Foothills Subdivision), located west of Overland Trail, south of Prospect Street. Applicant: Alvin Miller, 4017 Spruce Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to an agree- ment committing to future annexation being executed. Alvin Miller: Applicant. Stated that the development that they had in mind was compatible with City -type development and stated that they did not really want to be in the City. Stated that he would be available to answer any questions. Gilfillan: Commented that because of the uniqueness of the area that if the applicant does not want to annex, that he still had no problem with the City providing sewer service to the area. Dow: Disagreed with that thinking. Ross: Questioned who would be maintaining the lines. Rupel: Responded that the City would be responsible. Georg: Moved to recommend to City Council to approve the Foothills Subdivision Out -of -City Sewer Service Request subject to an agreement committing to future annexation being executed. Crews: Second. Stoner: Expressed a concern about setting a precedent. Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Dow and Gilfillan voting no.) Note: Because the applicant had not arrived for Item #9 Amendment to Fairview PUD Phase Two, it was requested that the Board continue with the later items. 13. #33-82 Asamera PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 0.411-ac PUD for a gas station and store, located at the northwest corner of Horsetooth Road and Mason Street, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Asamera Oil (U.S.), Inc., c/o Architecture Plus, 318 E. Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval with the condition that the pump area and the parking area be landscaped as indicated on the plan submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board in July, 1982. Chuck Bowling: Applicant representing Asamera. Stated that after working with this project that it became apparent that the Board should consider addressing some type of variance system to address in -fill sites like this one. Addressed questions concerning landscaping and presented a letter received from Mr. Gene Vorce (Exhibit A). Stated that the landscaping close to the building that was originally planned would create problems in snow removal for Asamera. Stated that the reason that the landscaping was removed from the pump island area was because they cut the size of the island down and because gasoline spillage would tend to kill the landscaping. Virgil Singleton: Stated that they were very proud of the concept of this ser- vice station and were hoping to model future Asamera stations after this one. Addressed questions from the Board concerning how water would be provided for the landscaping and how the easements had been worked out for trash removal. • Exhibit A • University Electronics Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado Planning Department City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Gentlemen: I am the owner of the property immediately to the north of the proposed Asamera Oil Company P.U.D. I have examined the proposed P.U.D. and offer the following comments. First of all, it will be appreciated if the landscaping can be kept to a lower level on the east side and rear of their property so that my build- ing visability will not be unduly restricted. I am mainly concerned with the northeast corner of their property. Please keep in mind that I need some exposure, also. I also hereby give my permission to Asamera Oil Company to use my driveway to the rear of their property to allow access for service vehicles, such as trash trucks, to serve the proposed building. With these comments, I do approve the proposed plan and support the P.U.D. Sincerely, Gene Vorce President University Electronics Inc. Dana Lockwood: Architecture Plus. Commented on the land uses, planning objectives, and the variance requests. Note: Discussion ensued between staff, the Board, and the applicant concerning landscaping requirements, concrete paving alongside the pump islands, and differences between this project and other projects that had been denied in the past. Wayne Schrader: Schrader Oil Co. Expressed some concern about the principal behind Asamera Oil coming to the Board with the request for the three variances. Felt that there should be more consistency in what is told to one group of marketers and that it should be the same as for any other group of marketers and that it should be the same as for any other group of marketers. Stated that they had been told that there would be no more service stations in Fort Collins in major arterial streets with direct access and that they had been told there will be no more service stations on corner properties. Stated that they had attempted to propose service stations to the Planning staff and had been told they would not even write them up and present them to the P & Z Board. Curt Smith: Director of Planning and Development. Stated that in his discussions with Mr. Schrader in the past concerning gas station locations, that he did not recall telling him point blank that staff would not take an item to the Planning and Zoning Board. Stated that he had indicated to him that that was the type of item that staff would probably not support due to policies of putting service stations into locations, and that through that kind of conversation probably discouraged him pretty openly from making that kind of an application. Stated that he did not recall ever making a statement to anyone that staff would not take an item to the Planning and Zoning Board. Schrader: Stated that the major point he was trying to make was that there needed to be some consistency with these recommendations and that the guidelines need to be the same for each service station project. Georg: Stated that he felt that the Board recognized that there would be some variance requirements in order to handle in -fill development. Stated that the Board had probably granted at least one variance for most in -fill projects. Stated that he personally did not have any problems with these particular variance requests. Moved to approve the Asamera PUD - Preliminary subject to the condition that the parking area be landscaped as indicated on the plan submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board in July, 1982. GiIfi1Ian: Second.'' Vote: Motion carried 4-3. (Stoner, Dow, and Crews voting no.) Stoner: Stated that he felt that this was very similar to what was turned down at Taft and Elizabeth. Felt that this corner could be better used in some other manner. Felt that the Board should be more consistent in their recommendations. Dow: Felt also that the Board should view this type of proposal with some degree of consistency. 14. #180-78F Fountainhead PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 9.83-ac site consisting of 89,000 sf of office, 25,000 sf of retail, and 11,000 sf of restaurant uses, located on the southeast corner of College Avenue and proposed Boardwalk Drive, zoned H-B, Highway Busi- ness. Applicant; Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Arch iteacts/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Ross: Commented that the Board would like staff to have available as soon as possible the height review study for the area beyond Horsetooth. Dennis Donovan: Applicant. Osprey, Inc. Gave a brief history of the site. Felt that the project would very quickly result in its own identity. Discussed accessing, streetscapes, architectural controls, and the retention pond areas. Bob Lenz: Engineer. Parsons & Associates. Explained and pointed out on the site plan the detention areas. Dow: Expressed concern about making a decision on this item without having the guidelines of the height district. Eckman: Stated that approval with a height condition would be a great imposition on the applicant. Frank: Pointed out that the 1st Phase Final .had been approved which was for 55'. Purvis: Moved to approve Fountainhead PUD Phase Two - Preliminary. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 15. #180-78E Fountainhead PUD Phase One - Final Request for final approval of a 4.46-ac site consisting of 65,000 sf of office space, located on the southeast corner of College Avenue and proposed Boardwalk Drive, zoned H-B Highway Business. Applicant: Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Dennis Donovan: Applicant. Osprey, Inc. Stated that he would be available to answer questions. Purvis: Moved to approve Fountainhead PUD Phase One - Final. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 9. #72-79B Amendment to Fairview PUD Phase Two Request to amend the Fairview PUD located on Elizabeth Street west of City Park Avenue to include a Taco Bell drive -through restaurant, zoned B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: Taco Bell, c/o Robb & Brenner, Inc., P.O. Box 251, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Bill Brenner: Applicant. Robb & Brenner, Inc. Discussed concerns about potential backup problems at the order board and traffic impact on Elizabeth Street. Stated that they had had a traffic analysis report done and that the report supports the City staff position that an acceptable level of service onto an office site can be maintained. Stated that the report also showed that the actual movement on site is safer than it was under the existing plan. Stated that any franchise operation would look very closely at any site and would not put a facility where there would be an impact that would be negative to their business. Matt Delich: Traffic Engineer who authored the traffic analysis report. Responded to questions concerning the data in the traffic analysis report and explained the manner in which it was done. Stated that in the analysis the additional traffic does not bring the street to capacity. David Wood: Attorney for Wendy's. Stated that primarily they were opposed to the Taco Bell site because it increased the density of use in terms of parking load and the safety hazards created by the internal traffic flow. Discussed the traffic counts that had been done before the July P & Z meeting and compared the differences between it and the traffic analysis that Mr. Brenner's firm had done. Presented slides showing the impact of the traffic at the drive -up window and within the parking lot. Note: General discussion followed between the Board, staff, and the applicant concerning the stack -up spaces, overflow parking, the impact of college students on the area, and peak business hours. Doug Dannen: Wendy's representative. Discussed again the traffic flows and the impact of the college students on those flows. Stated that he felt that there was just not enough space for both fast-food restaurants. Charles Sisk: 1405 Partnership - owner of the property. Stated that their position was to encourage the Board to allow the Amendment to the PUD. David Wood: Commented that if the landowner had presented a proposal for a PUD to simultaneously construct a Wendy's and a Taco Bell on this size parcel of ground that there would be very little chance that it would have been approved. Felt that the landowner was developing this in a piecemeal manner. Gilfillan: Stated that he would feel much more comfortable with the project if they were not planning on having a drive -through window. Felt that in the future there may be a need for a left -turn lane. Georg: Stated that the biggest argument seemed to be about the loss of 7 or 8 parking spaces. Felt that the data presented seemed to indicate that 53 spaces were adequate for both restaurants and expressed support for the project. Ross: Felt that anytime that you retrofit a completion of a partial- ly completed PUD you would see better ways of doing it. Stated that the site was very tight and that the traffic was potentially a problem. Stoner: Felt that there would be a real problem with the traffic crossing itself twice. Gilfillan: Moved to approve the Amendment to Fairview PUD Phase Two as submitted. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Stoner and Purvis voting no.) Dow: Felt that his concerns about the impact on Elizabeth Street had been addressed. 16. #44-82 Redwood Village PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary PUD approval of 43-ac consisting of 235 DU, located on the southeast corner of Conifer Drive and Redwood Streets, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. John Dengler: Applicant. Gefroh and Associates. Stated he would be avail- able to answer any questions. Responded to comments concerning the planned expressway, the type of units planned, recreation- al facilities, and the price range of the units. Rupel: Commented that staff was looking for higher density in this area. Curt Smith: Commented that concerning the planned expressway, that berming and landscaping would help in reducing the impact on any of the properties directly adjacent to it. Stoner: Moved to approve Redwood Village PUD - Preliminary Georg: Second. Ross: Commented that he thought this project addressed a needed market in Fort Collins. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 19. #55-82 Beckley Special Review - County Referral Request for special review to permit a recreational use (water slide) in the C-Commercial zoning district, located on the east side of Highway 287, south of County Road 32. Applicant: Perry Beckley, P.O. Box 460, Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending denial, stating that the proposed use is not consistent with the policy of maintaining the separation between Fort Collins and Loveland via open space areas and uses. Perry Beckley: Applicant. Discussed the landscaping planned for the site, and felt that parking, traffic, and noise would not be a potential problems. Note: Discussion followed concerning what uses would be preferable in the rural non -farm use area, heating costs, and the number of days open per year. Loren Dilsaver: Developer of Collins Center. Discussed the potential uses of the acreage. Stoner: Stated that he could not envision any use in that area but commercial use and that you could not expect someone who owns that property to hold it vacant for the betterment of Fort Collins and Loveland people without paying for it. Simpson: Felt that this particular use seemed more compatible than some things that could go in there. Stated that she did support staff's concern about a rural non -farm area but that the problem was that there is already something there and this did not look like it would have that large of an impact to add to it. Georg: Stated that without a plan for the entire area that basically what was happening was that it was being "chipped away". Moved to recommend to the County denial of the Beckley Special Review because it is inconsistent with the rural non -farm area. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1. (Stoner voting no.) Meeting adjourned 10:40 p.m.