Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/20/2005Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Judy Meyer Vice Chair: Dave Lingle Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 490-2172 Phone: (W) 223-1820 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Torgerson, Stockover, Carpenter, Craig, Lingle Schmidt and Meyer. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Bracke, Moore, Shepard, Barkeen, K Moore, Joy and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Lingle was voted in as Vice Chair 4-3. Member Meyer was voted in as Chair 7-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the October 21, November 18 (Continued) and December 2 (Continued), 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ05-01 Easement Vacation. Discussion Agenda: 3. #33-98B East Ridge Overall Development Plan 4. Recommendation to City Council for a Continuation of the Fall 2004 Land Use Code Update. 5. #45-04 Stoner/East Harmony Road Property — Request for Modification of Standard. (Continued) Director Gloss reported that under Other Business this evening staff has prepared a recommendation draft based on the Planning and Zoning Board's discussion regarding a recommendation on the Historic Preservation Review Process. That would be forwarded on to the City Council for their next hearing. Member Lingle moved for approval of the consent agenda Items 1 (October 21, 2004 only) and item number 2. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0 with Member Stockover abstaining from the minutes. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 2 Project: Eastridge Overall Development Plan, #33-98B Project Description: Request for an ODP for 152 acres at the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Vine Drive. The ODP includes a range of uses, including single family residential, multi -family residential, commercial mini - storage, future public park and neighborhood center. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. Planner Barkeen stated that he had handed out a revised site plan prior to the hearing. He stated that the project was primarily a residential project that is consistent with the land use and density requirements of the LMN zoning district. The LMN zone district has a density range of a minimum of 5 net units per acre and a maximum of 8 units per gross acre. The Overall Development Plan as it is proposed now is just over 5 units per acre, so it is consistent with the densities required within the LMN zone district. The ODP is broken down into several phases, primarily residential; there is a commercial mini storage parcel to the north of the project, adjacent to the rail road tracks, which is permitted within the LMN zone district within 500 feet of the railroad tracks. There is also a neighborhood center proposed at the corner of Timberline Road and a future collector street that will line up with the southern entrance to the Collins Aire Mobile Home Park. Planner Barkeen explained that to the south of the site is also a future east/west street, which is a future arterial known as International Boulevard. It already exists to the west of Timberline Road and that will be extended to the east at some time in the future. This property, as it develops will be able to gain access to this arterial in the future as it develops and the street is installed. There is an existing wetland on the site that has been incorporated into the Overall Development plan. Immediately north of that wetland is a future neighborhood park, which at this time is slated at about 10 acres in size. The Overall Development Plan is including a reservation of area in the event that the Timberline and Vine Drive intersection grade separated interchange is developed in the future. It is on the city's Master Street Plan and in order to accommodate that, Timberline Road would have to "swing" to the east a little to accommodate the grade separation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 3 Planner Barkeen reported that there is an existing hawk's nest on the site and it is located in existing mature cottonwood trees along the eastern portion of the property. Based on the revised Land Use Code language, there will be a 450 foot limit of disturbance that will apply for the first year of development after the approval of the Project Development Plan that the hawk's nest is located within. There is a timeframe between February and July that disturbance may not occur within the 450 foot buffer. After that first year, the development can then pursue or proceed based on the approved plans outside that initial date restriction on the property. Kent Bruxtford, Jim Sell Design, applicant on the project gave a history and overview of the project. He showed an aerial photograph showing the location of the project. Mr. Bruxtford stated that there were two agreements that were negotiated with neighbors to the south of their property. One was an agreement to grant an easement for release of detained stormwater and the second is an agreement to require the developer to buffer the single family residential uses from the current industrial uses to the south. Mr. Bruxtford reviewed the collector roads according the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the Witham ODP. He stated that during Phase one of the project they will have three points of access to Timberline Road. One off of a collector road and two to the south. There is an open space area that is approximately 28 acres in size and they expect a variety of uses in that open space area. The need for a city park in this area was called out in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and they have talked with the Parks Planning staff and with Current Planning and this seemed to be the site that was identified as the best location for that park. The wetland will be preserved according to discussions with the Natural Resources staff and there will be a mitigation plan. There was an addendum done to the TIS in July that addresses adequate public facilities at Lemay and Vine. Lucia Liley, 300 S. Howes Street representing the applicant spoke to the Board. She had a couple of comments that are more in the nature of clarifications that she wanted to put in front of the Board. She understands that there was some discussion at the worksession regarding the TIS and the reservation of intersection capacity for Vine and Lemay. She thought it would be worthwhile to talk about what was done in connection with those two things and this project and why. In 2001 the staff started working on a formal policy to certify TIS's and to reserve intersection capacity. It had come to a head at that point because developers had no assurance prior to that point in time that they could meet any of the adequate public facility standards of the city before they had to spend a lot of money going through the city's entitlement process. The issue was trying to get some level of certainty through an objective process so that you would know at an early point in time whether you had an APF issue or not and you would not wait until the end of the process to suddenly discover you can't meet APF standards and can't develop at all or your development would be significantly limited. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 4 Staff started working on a policy that would provide a process to do that in a way in which early on you could reserve intersection capacity. In 2002, that policy was adopted as part of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and that process allows the developer, if he chooses to do so, to present to the city a preliminary development plan level TIS and a request for certification and the reservation of capacity. That then goes to the city's traffic engineer who is the designated local entity engineer in the LCUAS Standards. The traffic engineer then reviews the findings, the study and if it is acceptable and meets the city's criteria, he will then issue a letter saying that the TIS has been certified and that intersection capacity shown in the TIS is reserved. The LUCAS Standards also provide that you can do that process; in fact normally it is done before a development plan is eJer filed, and they specifically permit that for the reasons already talked about. The only requirement is that within one year of the certification you have to submit a complete application for a development plan. If you don't do that, the reservation lapses. With regard to this project, because Vine and Lemay was a very crucial issue, the developer did just that, he had a PDP level TIS done; it was submitted to Mr. Bracke. Ms. Liley submitted a copy of the request being made, the TIS delivered and the response letter from Mr. Bracke stating that the TIS is certified,s findings certified and that the intersection capacity at Vine and Lemay is reserved per the findings of the TIS. The other item has to do with a comment that came up at worksession relating to an earlier request for a modification of buffer standards in connection with the hawks nest and a waiver that the applicant had subsequently filed with the city waiving any right it might have to use the approved modification standards in lieu of the city's most current and less restrictive standards. They just wanted the Board to understand that this issue of applying the most current city standards that are less restrictive than the modification standards was not something that was thought up at the 11th hour and through some clever lawyers trick, a waiver was suddenly produced to allow this to occur. Throughout the discussion with the staff, the entire discussion about the hawks nest and the appropriate buffers and the modification, the staff kept them advised that it was working on new standards that they envisioned might be less restrictive. They had every reason to believe that sometime in the near future, those standards would be proposed by the staff. They also had reason to believe that City Council was open to reconsidering them, but they did not have any idea where they might land or when. From the developer's standpoint, it was a question of timing. They discussed with the staff, proceeding with the modification, but requesting in that modification specifically that either the standards of the modification apply, if they were approved, or if the city adopted less restrictive standards would apply. That was stated Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 5 on the face of and in the modification request itself. That went to the staff, it went to the Administrative Hearing Officer and the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the request as submitted with that language. Everybody was fully aware from day one that this was done, and it was done to solve a timing problem, so that they at least could rely on the modification, but the hope was that if the standards changed in a timely way, that they could get the benefit of the less restrictive standards. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Craig thanked the applicant for addressing some of her issues that did come up at worksession. She was glad to see that there were more access points to phase one. She was still confused about what they have done at Vine and Lemay and did that mean that they still need to use the no left turn during peak hours and how was the city hoping to enforce that. Eric Bracke, Transportation Operations responded that they have given a lot of thought over the past years about the APF issue at Vine and Lemay. Staff is not sure about what was going to happen to Vine and Lemay. It would completely depend on a sales tax. There is no room to add geometry; there is no room to add anything. Traffic is going to continue to grow in the north regardless of projects approved or not. One of the solutions they came up with, and it has nothing to do with this development, or any development, it is completely an operational decision. In some areas around the country, when they have this type of problem, they prohibit left turns during certain times of the day. Most of the people that drive Vine and Lemay drive it every single day. They would post it prior to the intersection, at the intersection itself along the signal with the hours that the left turn would be prohibited. When the signs initially go up, they would work with the Police Department to enforce it strongly at the beginning and then on an intermittent basis. Without being able to build to capacity there and there is no guarantee that the road is going to be fixed, that is one way to keep traffic moving through that intersection on a short term basis. Member Craig was also worried about the intersection of Timberline and Vine. When she looks at some of the findings in the TIS at 2010 it would be an issue and by 2015, the only way it will work at a "Y level is if the geometry is changed, the same thing lacking at Lemay. Her initial fear is having no luck at being able to do anything at Lemay and is it appropriate that we go forward with something when we pretty much know that by 2015 there is a very good chance it won't be in. Having looked at the TIS, are we being realistic as far as this intersection working. Also even at 2010 it shows a signal and was that warranted by this development as it comes in with PDP's and who would pay for that signal, the applicant or the city. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Bracke replied that there was some room at that intersection to add some geometry. It currently operates fairly well under the four-way stop under most periods of the day. The afternoon peak hour produces a pretty good backup and the train obviously causes some problems. A signal would help and is close to meeting warrants now. It is an arterial/arterial intersection that would be paid for by the city under the street oversizing program and it would be a temporary signal. The long term solution to that is an overpass and with somewhat of an interchange that goes on the east side of the Plummer School and a series of signals in that area. That would also be a long term funding issue also. With the signal it will operate better than the four way stop and there is some room to add some geometry at that intersection. Member Craig asked about the pedestrian LOS and the bicycle LOS. When reading the TIS the conclusions were that this was in an area that it didn't really have to have off site improvements, but if you look to the south there is a lot going on in that area and she was curious about what would be required. Mr. Bracke replied that there seems to be some discrepancy about whether there is a school going in some place and where the school would be located. When they do come in with a PDP, staff is going to ask for several things and one is an answer directly to her question and there would be for a revision to the pedestrian and bicycle level of service so we get a clearer picture and also he would be requiring an update on the projections. Member Schmidt noticed in the traffic report that some of the changes at Lemay and Vine were going to be done in 2003 and is there some reason we have not done them yet, trying that left turn. Mr. Bracke replied that the projections were not happening like they thought. Wal-Mart did not have anywhere near the impact to that intersection as we thought it was going to have. He anticipates that within the next four or five years that we would end up having to do the changes especially if there is not project on the ballot or the ballot fails. Member Schmidt asked what would be developed in phase one. Mr. Bruxtford showed a slide of the overlay, the ODP has been placed on an aerial photo. He did not think he could answer that question. The amount of development in phase one has not been determined. He gave an indication of the areas that would be required to be developed in phase one. Member Lingle stated that in the staff report, mentioned in page 6, paragraph F, that phase one was to include development of parcels A through I, which with their revised Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 7 plan would then be A through G, but that is not what they are hearing from the applicant. He thought a modification was needed in the motion so that the finding was correct. Planner Barkeen stated that a revision could be made to the staff report and clarify what the phasing was going to be like. Member Schmidt's concern was that if all the housing was going to be done the park would not be developed for quite some time. Planner Barkeen responded that the park was going to be a phase one improvement. Member Craig asked if a phasing plan was required for an ODP. Planner Barkeen replied that a phasing plan was not required for an ODP, it was more just a master plan of the area and it is filled in as the preliminary development plans come on board. Member Craig asked about the wetland and having read the staff report, the water rights were going to be used to help irrigate some of the area within. Her concern was how this was going to affect the wetlands. Doug Moore, Natural Resources replied that staff is looking at modifying the wetlands and adding some mitigation. These are details that will be flushed out at the PDP and the current talk is that we might try and design some open water in the wetland pond and then that would be where they would turn around and use that for the irrigation of the park. It seems to make a lot of sense because we can end up with a better habitat outcome by adding a little bit of open water. The wetland is very dry because the agriculture has stopped. There is not a lot of quality and it is a wetland that is dying. By doing this development we are actually going to stack some of the stormwater on top of the wetland and that should really help create a much better wetland than we have now. Member Craig was bothered here that once we pass the first year of construction and the Swainson's Hawk shows up and he is there from February to July and then the nestlings fledge and they come in and do construction and come next February they come back to the nest. If what she reads is right, they are no longer protected. Mr. Moore reminded the Board that we still have the Federal Regulations which is the Migratory Species Act. If they come back, they cannot remove that tree during that nesting season because it is protected by the Federal Government. The intention of the developer has always been to preserve the tree. As we go into the PDP process he will try and work with the applicants to see about providing more air space, similar with what Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 8 we did not the Caribou Apartments project to where there is more area for the birds to get in and out. It is not something that he can require, but it is something that he will try to do on this project. Member Lingle moved for approval of the East Ridge Overall Development Plan, #33-9813 based on the finding of facts and conclusion beginning on page 7 of the staff report. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for a continuation of the Fall 2004 Land Use Code Update. Project Description: At the City Council meeting of December 7, 2004 during consideration of First Reading of the Fall 2004 biannual Land Use Code Update, Council voted to allow drive-in restaurants in the Neighborhood Commercial zone as a Type Two permitted use. In addition, Council asked that the draft design standards continue to be refined. On Second Reading, Council agreed with Staff that such design standards must first be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to City Council. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that what we were doing was considering adding design standards. The design standards are to accompany the inclusion of the drive-in restaurant into the Neighborhood Commercial Zone District. The inclusion came as a result of Council putting these land uses in the NC, but with a condition that the Planning and Zoning Board evaluate the Design Standards for these things. At the worksession there was a discussion and the Planning and Zoning Board gave staff direction and staff has responded. PUBLIC INPUT Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 9 Scott Beard, Owner and Operator of the local Sonic Drive In at Campus West also lives at 1712 Silvergate Road. He stated that he had emailed the Board earlier in the week a brief response to some the stuff that the Board discussed on Friday. Concerning 4.19(E)(4) the drive-in restaurants number A. There shall be an indoor dining component that features tables and chairs and not merely a walk up counter. He would ask that this requirement be eliminated from the Code. It only makes sense to leave this kind of decision to the business operator. It is in their best interest to catch as much business as possible and if that means indoor dining, then they should have that choice, but if it doesn't, they should not be forced to have indoor dining. No where else in the City Code is it required that any type of restaurant have indoor dining, neither in the drive-in coffee shops that have recently popped up, nor in any full service restaurant that is within the city limits. The code just refers to the amount of parking required to accommodate customers if there is indoor dining. He would also like to point to canopies. Although they have agreed in general to design standards that are here, they feel that it is somewhat unnecessary to write it into the Code. They feel that the current standards are sufficient to address any and all problems that might arise. As this section relates to any and all future canopies within the NC zone, not just drive-ins — he did not think that enough notice has been given to other businesses, not just drive-ins that might be looking to build canopies within the NC and or within the city. He would also like to state that menu housings, which are where people pull up and park and place their order next to their car, these are an essential part of their business and every effort will be made to minimize their effect on the surrounding business and neighborhoods. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Torgerson asked about the Runza that is located in Scotch Pines and has there been any complaints from neighbors or businesses about their operation. Planner Shepard replied that it was not similar. He visited the site and those are existing regular standard parking stalls. They happen to have a little menu board next to them. They don't have a canopy, he checked with zoning and they did not know they were there and we have not received any complaints. Member Craig stated that one of the reasons she has concerns with what we are adding to the Land Use Code is when it comes to Runza or some others, we have lots of them all over the city. They are really more neighborhood oriented. When we talked about this Sonic, it is going to bring in a lot of outside traffic, it is not going to be just a neighborhood draw and she thinks that might be the difference between this Sonic and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 10 the Runza that is already in over at Drake and Lemay. She thinks that the point of the neighborhood center is to service the neighborhood, not to haul in people from all over the city and bring in more traffic. That is what immediately what the neighbors will be complaining about. Member Schmidt asked for a response about the concern about other businesses being notified. Planner Shepard replied that in meeting with Don Shields of Whitham Gustafson architectural firm which handles about 90% of the auto -related fuel convenience store types of land development. His first reaction was that designers don't like to be told what to do, they just want to design. After a discussion he felt that most of the regulations were fair, he did not have a comment on some of them, but as a designer, he likes freedom. Member Schmidt said that the way she is understanding the changes that were made is that these requirements would not apply to the fuel islands, but it might to financial services and retail stores. Have we contacted anyone in those areas. Planner Shepard replied we did not. Again, this is in the NC zone only. Staff thinks that the principles and policies allows for us to do this. It would be difficult with the proliferation of banks that are being proposed, he did not even know who these banks anymore. No we have not contacted the banking industry or the retail industry. Member Schmidt commented on 4.19 (E)(4) and the discussion that was held. The person from Sonic indicated that a business should be able to decide for themselves if they need indoor or not. She thought their concern was that it might be cheaper to shut down the business for the winter months than provide that and they were hoping to keep the business open year round. That was the reason for that requirement. Member Meyer felt that making a decision for the business man is wrong. If someone can make enough money in eight or nine months then we should no be telling someone whether they should be open or not, or whether or not they should have indoor dining. She finds this highly prescriptive. Member Lingle appreciated staffs effort in working with the public to resolve some of the issues that relate to this particular use, he thinks it has been a good effort. He had a couple concerns about some of the wording. On page 4, Paragraph C where it talks about unusual forms or components, he would like to see the word "towers" stricken and leave the rest of it. Every building in Fort Collins in the last 10 years has a tower. He was not sure why we would prohibit them in a drive-in restaurant when they are allowed in everything else. Also, sub -paragraph C on the top of page 3 related to canopies. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 20, 2005 Page 11 was ambivalent about whether or not flat roofs are inherently poor in these kinds of things. He was not sure whether to support the overall document if that is still in there. Member Torgerson agreed and he thought there are plenty of beautiful flat roofed buildings within our town and flat roofed canopies can be designed. Planner Shepard replied that Section 3.5.3 now requires flat roofs to have cornices. Most flat roofs in Fort Collins now do at least have a cornice. He reminded the Board of the conversation that they have had at their Land Use Code meetings is that the proposed land use that they are looking at may have four canopies. Two in the middle and two outliers and a lot of the examples they looked at are banks and fuel canopies, which have one canopy. Not only is it the flatness, but the proliferation of them. Member Schmidt asked if someone were to design something, could they request a modification to the standard. Planner Shepard replied they would welcome it. Member Lingle moved to recommend approval of the Design Standards for Drive - In Restaurants in the NC zone with the one change to eliminate the word "towers" from sub -paragraph C on the top of page 4. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Carpenter absent due to illness. Other Business Member Schmidt moved that the Planning and Zoning Board accept the memorandum to City Council regarding the Land Use Code changes concerning the Historic Preservation. Member Lingle seconded the motion and offered a friendly amendment to reword one sentence. The first sentence in the third paragraph; he would like to delete the words "only highly significant resources, those relatively few remaining". That sentence would then read "less than three years ago staff revised the codes limiting historic preservation review to the historic structures that qualify as individually eligible for landmark status". Member Schmidt accepted the amendment. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Carpenter absent due to illness. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. These meeting minutes were approved by the P & Z Board March 17, 2005.