Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/20/1987PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD April 20, 1987 Meeting Minutes The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colo- rado. Board members present at the April 17 worksession included Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Laurie O'Dell, Tim Dow and Dave Edwards. Absent from the worksession were Linda Lang, Sandy Kern and Bernie Strom. Board members present at the April 20 hearing included Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Tim Dow and Bernie Strom. Linda Lang was absent from the meeting. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig and Kayla Ballard. I,egal representative was Steve Roy. Tom Peterson gave the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of the March 23, 1987 meeting; Item 2, #79-79D Palmer House Florist Addition PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3, #13-82AA Oak Ridge PUD - Amended Mas- ter Plan; Item 4, #13-82W Oak Ridge Village PUD, Filing 3, 4, and 5 - Pre- liminary; Item 5, #13-82U Oak Ridge Business Park PUD, 7th Filing - Final; Item 6, #62-82M, Charleston at Fairbrooke PUD - Amended Preliminary; Item 7, #65-82N, Fairbrooke III Subdivision - Preliminary; Item 8, #53-85D, Cen- ter for Advanced Technology, Second Filing - Final; Item 9, #9-82Q, South - ridge Greens, Mail Creek Village, 1st Replat - Preliminary and Final; and Item 12, #14-84, 1209 N. College PUD - One Year Extension of Preliminary Approval. Mr. Peterson stated that Item 10, #3-84F, Upland's Prospect Business Park PUD - Glass Warehouse Facility - Preliminary and Final has been withdrawn and Item 11, #1-86D, Sand Creek Village PUD, Tract 1 Replat - Final has been continued to the May Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12. Member O'Dell seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. THE PULSE PUD - CAR WASH AND CONVENIENCE STORE PHASE - PRELIMINARY - #2-87A Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed 1.27 acre parcel. David Huber, owner and partner of the property, stated he had concerns regarding the staff reports and conditions of March and April. He stated the 8 bay car wash has been reduced to 5 bays and they eliminated the fast food restaurant pad. The traffic peak hours were reduced by 46% by reducing the hours of operation and reducing the number of gas pumps from 8 to 4. The design character was changed to appear more like the surrounding resi- dential area. 14 April 20, 1987 P&Z M ting Minutes • Page 2 Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., added that there were 2 out of 10 condi- tions last month that pertain to the area. First, other uses were to be reviewed or to enhance mitigation measures and neighborhood concerns. The overall project is already an intense mixed use, is compatible and blends into the area. All uses contribute to The Pulse Club or use to economic strength. He discussed the location of the neighborhood from other car washes in a mile radius. It was found that there was a void in this area for a car wash. There are 642 single family homes, 922 townhomes and 1,131 apartments in this area,, existing and planned. The people in this area have to drive out of the area for car wash and gas service. If other uses are not incorporated, how do they mitigate the uses proposed? Steps have been taken to enhance the mitigation methods as requested by the Board. These steps were: elimination of 4 gas pumps out of 8; elimination of the canopy over the gas pumps; increased the setbacks from Stuart Street from 19 feet to 28 feet and the ROW setbacks; intensifying the evergreen setback and added a landscape island in the center; added an amount of greenspace that separates the convenient store to the street area; and reduced the hours of operation on the store (6 AM to 11 PM) and the car wash (7 AM to 10 PM). He felt these changes met the criteria and that they have minimized the impact. Mr. Gefroh continued that another condition that was imposed was to recon- sider the flat roof on the convenience store. They have changed the design to a sloped roof with the same materials and slope as the bank to the f north. They have eliminated the canopys over the gas pump area. He also addressed Criteria 2 and 3, development being compatible to the immediate area relative to architectural design. He stated that this proposal is com- patible and The Pulse is incorporated as a buffer to the car wash and convenient store area. Mr. Gefroh further stated that in Criteria #3 mitigation methods be used to effectively plan the development. Six criteria under #3 to be met are: 1) open space, of which this proposal has adequate open space setbacks; 2) landscaping, of which there is plenty provided for this proposal; 3) orien- tation, of which the building has been turned inward and the pumps have been pulled to the inside; 4) barriers, of which they have incorporated earthen berms; 5) architectural compatibility, which they have designed to be more compatible with the project and single family across Spring Creek floodway; and 6) circulation, which has been mitigated from a traffic standpoint by the fact that there really is no impact. He feels the staff is in error in regards to Criteria 2 and 3 because they have taken steps to mitigate the project. Member O'Dell responded to Mr. Gefroh's perception of staff's discrepancy of the two staff reports. The Board responded to staff, the applicant and the neighborhood and arrived at a compromise. Staff took this into consid- eration and is now responding to the Board's concerns and requests. Mr. Gefroh stated that the staff rewrote the report, after pulling it so it could be continued, and no decisions were made to eliminate any uses or how far to go from a mitigation standpoint. April 20, 1987 P&Z M ing Minutes • Page 3 o Member Dow asked Mr. Gefroh how he arrived at the reduction and justifica- tion of the traffic report. Matt Delich, traffic consultant, stated the reduction in the hours corre- sponds to the reduction of traffic. The trip generation was based on the number of gas pumps. The reduction in pumps reduces the number of trips generated. The daily values used were taken from the ITE Manual. The peak hour rate for the store and gas pumps are basically non-existent. The 7-11 at Harmony/Boardwalk and-Shields/Mulberry intersections trip generations were taken into consideration. One is high and one is low. Averaging out these rates is how he arrived at these values in reconfiguration at the Pulse site. Member O'Dell asked if half of the convenient store business happens between 11 PM and 6 AM. According to the report, this is how it appears to be because of the reduction in daily trips from 1366 to 705 trips. Mr. Delich replied that the values used are taken from the ITE Manual daily rates for convenient stores and gas pumps. The values used are from the peak hour rate, not daily rate. Member Brown asked Mr. Delich if he assumed that of the 54 trips of the hourly rate, all these trips were going to the store and to the gas pumps. C Mr. Delich replied that he counted this himself and distinguished which were going to the store and which were going to the pumps. There was no double counting. Mr. Shepard added that the staff did proceed based on the Board's requests. This is how staff based their denial recommendation. Mr. Harold Worth, Vice -President of Prospect/Shields Association, stated that the neighborhood made numerous compromises on the PUD as a whole. How- ever, they are not willing to compromise on this aspect of the overall plan. The neighborhood is opposed to the convenient store and car wash in the Pulse development. The change in design and operation fail to address their most basic objections of compatibility with the neighborhood. These features are unneeded in the area. There are plenty of these facilities within a mile of the site. These features are also inconsistent with the quality aspiration as a whole. He urged the Board to accept the recommend- ation of staff and deny this portion of the Pulse application. Member Dow asked Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, to comment on the traffic impact figures. Rick Ensdorff stated that the peak hour impacts are reviewed by the city. The previous proposal was adequate with the given improvements of widening Shields, limited right -in right -out. The total store traffic would be reduced by 15% of daily traffic between the hours of 11 PM and 6 AM. April 20, 1987 P&Z M rig Minutes • Page 4 Member Dow asked if the traffic would be local traffic going by the major arterial anyway or would it introduce additional trips because the site is there. Rick Ensdorff stated that approximately 40% would be passer-by traffic and the rest would be specific trips from the neighborhood. Member Edwards asked for clarification of the difference between the 2 staff recommendations regarding the amount of acreage and the uses. Mr. Shepard stated there was a compromise between the Planning and Zoning Board and the applicant to keep the overall project in a forward progress. It was deemed fair that the bulk of the project be approved on a prelimi- nary basis but land uses that were the most objectionable be deleted. The issue that came out of the hearing was land use versus mitigation. Member Strom asked if there was something other than the car wash that was being considered under Auto Related and Roadside Commercial. Mr. Shepard replied no, there was not. Member Strom stated that it received 68% on the point chart then and now and the traffic and landscaping is mitigated. Mr. Shepard stated staff was given the direction that they re-evaluate the land uses on this parcel, under the new criteria, based on objectionable characteristics. Member Kern stated that this portion received 68% on the point chart and is good in placement but the points brought out the isolation. He had concerns on this portion that the convenient store does not serve the neighborhood and the placement on Shields is not appropriate. He understands the appli- cant feels this is a necessary part of provisions for economic viability. On the other hand, the planning aspect must be looked at relative to the general area. Member Dow stated that staff tried to evaluate the project and measure it against the conditions placed on the project. Member Dow moved to approve the proposal as presented based on the lack of neighborhood compatibility and has the project was designed in view of the Board's conditions. After reviewing last month's minutes and staff reports, particularly in the case of the convenient store, car wash and gas pumps, these were eliminated as currently designed. The reductions made and the design changes presented do meet the intent of the motion and the criteria. Therefore, to turn this down is to say this can not be done. This is not consistent with the IDGS. The second reason for the motion is the character issue which is compatible with the neighborhood. The traffic reduction is supported by the City Traf- fic Engineer. Member Strom seconded the motion. April 20, 1987 P&Z Ming Minutes • Page 5 Member Kern asked about the traffic levels in the future for Shields Street and that area. That area is quite clogged and overused. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the traffic levels being used are acceptable lev- els. There are proposed capital projects to widen Shields Street but these have not been approved by Council at this time. These improvements will turn Shields Street into an arterial width with 2 lanes in each direction. The impact being proposed fits in with the total expected to happen from that site. There is only one access into the arterial street system so there will be no direct impact on the surrounding residential area. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Gefroh if this proposal is a portion of a phase or to be built out at one time. Mr. Gefroh replied that this is a part of the overall Preliminary PUD that was reviewed in March. That PUD encompassed 21 acres. The first phase con- struction project will be the Pulse Club, the improvements to Shields Street and all of West Stuart, and all of the parking and access points needed for the club to function. Another condition was that more informa- tion was needed on parking needs for the club. The first phase also includes all the buildings that are under contract now that would be built along with the Pulse Club. The neighborhood requested that the entire par- cel be reviewed as a PUD and a single PUD so there would be no questions. C Member Edwards commented that he could not support the motion based on the procedural problem not due to the project itself. The Board was asked to review a 21 acre site of mixed use last month with conditions. Now they are being asked to review a 1 acre preliminary site. By reviewing this project they are foregoing some of the precepts of the LDGS. He stated he would like to see more justification of how this site interacts with the overall project and how the entire site interacts with the neighborhood and commu- nity. Member O'Dell concurred with member Edwards' concerns. She stated she had concerns with the parking inadequacies and could not support the motion. Member Strom stated that he understood the concerns of the other Board mem- bers but the rest of the site was approved with conditions. The reason this little piece was taken out of the overall project is because it needed to be re-evaluated in terms of intensity and type of use. Member Brown stated she agreed with Member Edwards but commented that the intensity and type of use has not changed that dramatically for this pro- posal. She stated she could not support the motion. Member Kern commented that maybe this should be viewed as whether highway business should be used on this site. Member Crews commented he could not support the motion because of the dense population in the area and the intensity of the use is too great. April 20, 1987 P&Z Ming Minutes • Page 6 C C Member Dow stated that the density of the area is a factor for approval. Member Edwards stated that the sensitivity of the area is an issue and that this is an infill project. The LDGS is weak in the area of infill develop- ment. This needs to be reviewed as an impact to the surrounding area. Motion to approve as presented was defeated 5-2, with Members Dow and Strom voting yes. Member O'Dell moved to approve denial of the Pulse PUD Car Wash and Conve- nient Store Phase Preliminary based on conditions that were stated at the March Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion to approve denial passed 5-2 with Members Dow and Strom voting no. COLLINDALE '87 PUD - FINAL - #209-79N Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Bill Bartran, Bartran Homes, addressed the streetscape requirements, berm- ing, tree additions and private access drives with full curb returns. He compared the 7-11 store curb cut at Boardwalk and Harmony with this proposed curb cut. A 15 foot radius will be placed on either side of the intersec- tion. Mr. Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval. Rick Ensdorff reviewed his memo addressing traffic issues that were raised at the preliminary hearing for this project. He stated that the traffic moni- toring on Lockwood and Springwood Drives would continue. The speed has been reduced. Studies have also been made for Centennial Street. He also addressed the convenience store issue stating that 40% of the traffic from the store would be passer-by traffic with the remaining originating in the neighborhood. Member Dow moved to approve Collindale '87 PUD Final. Member Brown seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0. SPRING CREEK FARMS THIRD PUD - MASTER PLAN - #75-86C SPRING CREEK FARMS THIRD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT - #75-86D Ted Shepard gave a description for both proposed projects. Bill Bartran, Bartran Homes, stated the master plan was designed to handle the single family configuration adjoining them on the west and southwest. There is higher density to the east and there will be no Homeowners' Asso- ciation. Member Brown asked if the traffic flow was shown on the Master Plan. April 20, 1987 P&Z Ming Minutes • Page 7 CMr. Bartran replied that they are required to have a collector street which will be Kingsley Drive and will exit on County Road 9. It will not extend completely to Harmony Road. There is an existing collector street going through Fox Meadows which will curve to the west. A future park site will line up with Kingsley Drive on the east. Future questions he will be rais- ing will be in regards to off -site requirements to be made early in the development process and, since there will be no Homeowners Association, the standard procedures for the detention areas, which will parallel Horsetooth Road, will be landscaped to city standards. Mr. Shepard responded to Mr. Bartran's questions by stating that the devel- opment would be better if the demands are met up front. Staff is working on this issue at this time. As for the detention area, it will be taken over by the City Storm Water Utility department. The plantings and landscaping will be closely reviewed by the City Arborist so equipment can be brought in and the area maintained. Member Brown asked if this area will be taken over by the city through an easement or will it be dedicated. Mr. Shepard replied that it would be through dedication because the city will not maintain it unless they own the property. Member Brown asked if the city bears the cost of the maintenance. CMr. Shepard replied that the developer is responsible for ground cover, maturity and watering for about two years. After that time, the city comes in for long term maintenance. Mr. Bill Warren, 3109 Michelle Lane, stated he had concerns regarding the traffic generation of the convenience store. He stated the nature of life will change because of the development. He did not foresee the density pro- posed. If this proposal occurs, he would like some measures taken to miti- gate his property to keep it isolated. He did however, credit Mr. Bartran and his company for their quality of development. If another detention area is created, he would support the placement of that detention area be across the street from his property. Member Kern stated that Mr. Warren's concerns are addressed in the Planning and Zoning packet. Member Kern moved to approve Spring Creek Farm Third Master Plan. Member Strom seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Edwards moved to approve Spring Creek Farms Third Filing One Preli- minary with the proposed condition of staff. Member O'Dell seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. 6 April 20, 1987 P&Z ing Minutes • Page 8 CHORSETOOTH COMMONS CCNVENIENCE CENTER - AMENDED PRELIMINARY PUD - #96-81F Ted Shepard gave a description of the project. Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects/Planners, briefly discussed the location, phas- ing of the PUD, parking and curb cuts of the development. Mr. Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval. He stated the convenience store is not to be constructed immediately but sometime within the next 2 years. He discussed the signage stating that staff and the applicant have entered into restrictive covenants that there be no window signage. All of the conditions of the preliminary PUD have been met. Member Kern asked about the date of completion and why the location of a convenience store is appropriate in this area and not at the Pulse site. Mr. Zdenek replied that this area is not as intense as the Pulse site. Also there is more of a market demand at this location. Howard Zollner, Richmond Drive resident, stated there is heavy traffic on Horsetooth Road. The intersection of Richmond Drive and Horsetooth gets difficult at times during business hours. If this project occurs, the traf- fic demands would increase at this intersection. C Rick Ensdorff pointed out the access points on Shields Street, Horsetooth Road and Richmond Drive. He stated this would be acceptable short term and long term accesses for this site. Member Crews questioned the future signalization for this area. Mr. Ensdorff responded that the collector streets will be signalized where warranted. Shields Street and Richmond Drive would warrant signalization sooner than other intersections in the area. Mr. Zollner asked what the distance is between the intersection of Horse- tooth/Shields and Richmond Drive. Mr. Ensdorff replied that it is about 600 feet. He added that Horsetooth Road is planned to be widened to an arterial. He stated the convenience store would not use this road to enter the site. Mr. Zollner questioned the need for another convenience store on every cor- ner in this area. He felt there is no need for another store. Pat Marlatt, Richmond Drive resident, stated there was no need for another convenience store in this area. She added there are major grocery stores very nearby. Anna Mae Zollner, Richmond Drive resident, suggested that the Board con- sider the impact this project would have on the residential area and to consider that this would be an attractive nuisance for students that attend Rocky Mountain High School. April 20, 1987 P&Z M ing Minutes Page 9 • Member Brown asked Mr. Zdenek about the setbacks of the retail building on the north side of the site and how close this building is from the side- walk. Mr. Zdenek responded that it is 20 feet from the flowline. A condition of approval is that this issue be addressed and the building be adjusted. Member Kern commented that he sympathizes with Mr. and Mrs. Zollner. He questioned what the level of traffic will be on Horsetooth Road if this development does or does not occurs. Staff should consider ahead of time the appropriate use for this site and the traffic impact. Member Brown commented that this site is appropriate for a convenience store considering the future street improvements. Member Edwards moved to approve Horsetooth Commons Convenience Center Amended Preliminary PUD with staff conditions. Member Dow seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. SOUTHRIDGE GREENS, FAIRPQAY FIVE, TRACTS D & F REPLAT - - #9-82R Debbie deBesche gave a description of the proposed project. Bill Albrecht, Albrecht Homes, briefly discussed the proposed project stat- ing the streets proposed as 28 feet wide is appropriate for reasons of design, aesthetics, parking, safety, economic and present widths of streets in Southridge Greens area. Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, elaborated on the issues Mr. Albrecht discussed. There is no through traffic through the site. The lot design minimizes the lots that face one another. The two green areas pull the fairway areas of the golf course into this site. There will be 46 single family homes each with 2 car garages. 20-30% will have the option of having 3 car garages. He discussed the access between streets and driveways of the homes. A traffic study was prepared by Vaught/Frye with the assistance of the City Traffic department. Lower density areas should not need wider streets. The street would be 28 feet wide with parking on one side. He added that other streets in this area have 28 foot streets. He briefly dis- cussed other existing streets that are 28 feet and 36 feet in width for comparison purposes. Member Dow asked if there are restrictive covenants that address parking oversized vehicles on these streets. April 20, 1987 P&Z Ming Minutes • .Page 10 R Mr. Vaught replied that there will be covenants that disallow parking over- sized vehicles on the streets. Member Kern questioned the distance a home would be from the street. Mr. Vaught stated the garages project out from the living area. The minimum setback is 20 feet from the garage. The typical setback from the living area of the house would be 35 - 40 feet. Member Kern asked staff why a 28 foot street is undesirable. Ms. deBesche stated the recommendation was based on city policies. These policies are being reviewed. Member Kern felt a restriction should be placed on street width because of safety reasons. Otherwise he has no problem with a 28 foot wide street. Member Brown commented that wider streets are safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Peterson explained how the variance requirements were derived. Everyone was involved that had an interest in streets. The 28 foot wide street for the cul-de-sac and 36 foot wide loop street are both appropriate for this area. CMember Edwards asked what the feeders accessing Front Nine Drive are in terms of width. Ms. deBesche responded that they are 36 feet narrowing down to 28 feet at the bridge point and then widening to 36 feet again at the end of the bridge. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, explained that the city standards is to provide 2 moving lanes on every street. A local street is 36 feet. The 28 foot street has been adopted to be used in areas where there is parking on one side with 2 lanes of traffic. Front Nine Drive was approved in 1980 with 28 foot streets. At that time, better standards were needed as to when 28 foot streets can be used. People like to park in front of their homes so a restriction was incorporated into the standards that nothing but a 36 foot street would be allowed where homes face each other. Parking enforce- ment was not desired with parking on one side. For this project, cul-de- sacs are acceptable at 28 feet wide. Engineering does assume 8 foot parking spaces and not 6 foot. The driveway locations do need to be reviewed. Member Edwards asked what the difference is between this application and Front Nine Drive and Hummel Lane and Front Nine Drive to the south. A April 20, 1987 P&Z ing Minutes Page 11 MW • C Mr. Herzig replied that Front Nine Drive was designed as a 28 foot wide street with parking on both sides. Standards are being reviewed to see if 2 lanes should be provided. This is an issue of one lane versus 2 lanes. These should be self-regulating areas and not enforced by the Police Department. Mr. Peterson stated that the 36 foot wide street on the loop is appropriate and this is what is being recommended by staff. Mr. Vaught commented that the homes that face each other are on the cul-de- sacs. 36 foot streets are not justified for cul-de-sacs. The restriction being placed by Staff could be more trouble than it is worth. Member Dow asked if the applicant had any problems with conditions 1 and 2. Mr. Vaught replied that these conditions could be resolved between now and the final submittal. Member Dow asked the applicant if he had problems with conditions 4 and 5. Mr. Vaught replied that he did have a problem with condition 4. He stated they would rather see the additional pavement on the streets rather than on the lots. On condition 5, they are opposing city standard -size cul-de-sacs. Ms. deBesche gave the staff report recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) that final submittal lots which do not meet 660 foot fire access requirements be restricted from obtaining building permits until a second point of access is installed; 2) that at final submittal, fencing type and material be provided; 3) that final submittal reflect Fairway Five Drive, Fairway Six Court south of Fairway Five Drive, and Front Nine Drive, as 36 foot wide streets; 4) that all lots running a 28 foot wide street must provide 3 off-street parking spaces not including the garages; 5) that the cul-de-sacs on 28 foot streets must be full-sized; and 6) that the applicant must provide a specific driveway location plan at final for lots running a 28 foot wide streets. Member Strom had a concern that only four of the five criteria are being met in terms of the homes facing each other and the parking requirements. Member Edwards asked if this was an absolute criteria. Mr. Herzig explained that these were developed for residential areas but that it doesn't apply here. Member Dow stated that parking enforcement could be addressed in covenants for the area. Mr. Herzig stated parking problems could be enforced on a complaint basis as it has in the past. April 20, 1987 P&Z Ming Minutes • -Page 12 •V r CMember Dow moved to approve South Ridge Greens Fairway Five Tracts D & F Replat Preliminary with conditions 1, 2, 5 and 6 as stated in the Staff Report and that the applicant submit as part of the final proposed covenants that would be binding on this area that would address the special conditions for the 28 foot streets including limitation of on -street park- ing to one side to be enforced by the Homeowners Association that would address parking of oversized vehicles on the street. Member Kern seconded and commented that these conditions have been sub- stantially met and that it represents a conservative feeling on the part of staff relative to these widths of streets rather than a felt need. Member Brown stated she could not support the motion due to planning policy being made public policy in this type of setting when the facts are not present to substantiate whether it is reasonable or safe. Motion to approve passed 6-1 with Member Brown voting no. with no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 10:04 P.M. C