Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMS PARK - PDP - 12-00 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 17 Member Carpenter asked for a friendly amendment. She thought he had 4.5(D)(3)(b), points 1 and 2. She asked to add point 6. Member Gavaldon accepted the amendment. Gino Campana, applicant on the project, asked for a vote on the project not a continuance. Member Gavaldon rescinded his motion. Member Bernth recommended approval of the Rams Park PDP, File #12-00. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Gavaldon, Craig and Carpenter voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 16 acres and then tried to figure out how they were going to fit this criteria in and that was not the intent of this criteria. Member Bernth asked what the slope was in the detention area. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility responded that it was a five to one slope. Member Bernth commented that his frustration was that they see infill developments like this and it is what we should be encouraging. We look at a technicality like this and it is really a small difference. To a certain extent it is our own subjective judgement and he understands that. He thinks with the site that the applicant has done the best that they can. For the Board to argue over technicalities where they are 300 square feet short or what the slopes are on an area that could be used as greenscape — he just does not get it on an infill development. He gets frustrated that the Board makes it so difficult for infill development and in essence that is what they are trying to encourage. Member Bernth recommend approval of the Rams Park PDP. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Carpenter would not be supporting the motion. She understands that this is infill. She feels that it is a little bit too dense for the area and the greenspace needs to be bigger. We do have to go by the criteria that we have. A gathering area to her when it is on completely different sides of the building is not the intent of the size was on it. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion and agreed with Member Carpenter. Chairperson Colton commented that in terms of how we define a central gathering space, he is taking it from sidewalk to sidewalk all the way — this maybe stretching the definition. He felt that a modification might be requested to reduce the 10,000 s.f. requirement. Member Bernth rescinded his motion and asked for a continuance. Member Gavaldon moved to continue Rams Park PDP, #12-22 to the January 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Specifically to look at access to parks, central feature, gathering place, 4.19(E)(1)(b), the applicant is providing a 10,000 s.f. gathering space between the two most buildings. He cited the Code on Page 35, Article 4, the location shall be highly visible secure settings, etc., and the size of the park shall be 10,000 s.f. minimum. Then point 3 and 4. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 15 facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park." Member Craig asked if staff did not consider the retaining wall and slope a conflict. Planner Jones replied that the detention pond itself is not within a slope, it is the walls of the detention pond. The bottom of the pond is flat. Almost the entire pond is usable because it is not slopped. Member Craig asked if she were standing on the retaining wall how far down would she have to jump to get to the bottom. Mr. McCallum replied approximately 3 feet. Member Torgerson asked about how circulation was going to work. The eastern most access appears to be a one-way. Ms. Ripley replied entrance only, everything else is two-way traffic. Ms. Ripley also clarified that if you were on top of the retaining wall it would be three feet to the bottom, if you were on the sidewalk, it would be 2 feet lower than the sidewalk itself. Planner Jones reported that the area they showed on page 1 of the oversized drawing with the dotted line, the 11.170 s.f. — if you subtract out the area of the detention pond that is deemed unusable, it would 450 s.f. There would still be 10,000 s.f. The Board discussed the criteria for gathering places. Member Gavaldon was concerned because he felt that they were stretching the definition too far. Member Craig felt that it did not even meet the purpose of having a park or a central place. In so many other projects that we have had, they have real nice open areas, even sometimes their detention ponds are real nice open areas. This does not have it, even though it is required of them to have it. If we go with MMN, she does not feel that it is accomplishing 4.5(D)(3)(6). She considers it conflicting as far as pedestrians using it with a retaining wall there and the fact that the flat area is not right up against the sidewalk. It bothers her — such parks are highly visible, who is going to notice something that is tucked between two buildings. When she looks at the site plan it looks like a large area, but by the time they put in all the landscaping, it is a small area. She feels that this was not the intent of the gathering area or park. She felt that they have overfilled the 3.5 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 14 Planner Jones replied that is the decision that the Board would have to make. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that from what he has heard the 10-foot wide pedestrian easement is going to be eliminated. However, it is going to be continued along in the Rams Park PDP. Planner Jones stated that it is not in the exact same location throughout the site. In the Rams Park PDP, there is an easement that goes through the site, just as there is an easement that goes through the old PUD. Planner Jones stated that the existing walk is 6 feet and with the new project it will be built to 8 feet, but the easement width is the same. The new walk will be relocated so there is 5 feet separation between the curb and KFC and the new walk. In that 5 feet there will be a 4-foot high headlight screening fence. Member Bernth recommended approval of the Major Amendment to the West Elizabeth PUD file #12-00. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Gavaldon and Craig voting in the negative. The PDP will now be discussed. Member Craig asked about a retaining wall located along the street. Mark McCallum, Engineering Department responded that there is a retaining wall just west of the walk, it is about 1 foot above the sidewalk elevation and drops down into a little detention pond. If you are walking north into the gathering area there is a drop to the east and west of the walkway going up from the public sidewalk there will be a drop because there is a detention pond there. Member Craig asked in figuring of 11,176 square feet, what was all the area considered that made this a wonderful gathering area. Was the detention pond part of it? Planner Jones replied that the area is depicted in a dashed line. Member Craig stated that there are criteria that you cannot use a detention area as part of a gathering place. Planner Jones referred to Section 4.5(D)(3)(b), for privately owned parks that would qualify for the required 10,000 s.f. gathering space. Item 6 says, "when integrating the storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, design of such Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 13 Project: Rams Park Project Development Plan and Major Amendment to West Elizabeth P.U.D., Current Planning File, #12-00 Project Description: Request for approval of a four -building, 78-unit, multi -family development on 3.48 acres. The site is located north of King Soopers and north and west of Kentucky Fried Chicken on West Elizabeth. The site is zoned partially MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, and partially zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley and Associates gave the applicants presentation. Ms. Ripley reviewed the site and landscape plans for the Board. Member Craig asked about the correct dimensions of the public gathering area. Ms. Ripley replied it is 45 feet wide on the ends and in the middle it is 60 feet wide. Public Input None. Member Craig asked what criteria is used to the Major Amendment for abandonment and was the path part of that. Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained to the Board the criteria for making their findings. Member Craig stated that it concerns her that they have taken a public easement and put it across a parking area where there is cars coming from all directions, when before it was a very safe connection. She asked if it would fit that the public area or property would be diminished to the detriment of the public good. Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Roll Call: Meyer, Gavaldon, Torgerson, Craig, Carpenter, Bernth and Colton. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Olt, Wamhoff, Bracke, Herzig, Mapes, Moore, McCallum, Hayes, Williams and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the May 18 (continued), September 7, September 21 (continued) and October 5 (continued), 2000 Planning and Zoning Board hearings. 2. Resolution PZ00-27 — Easement Vacation. 3. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 4. Westchase, 2nd Filing, County Referral - Modifications of Standards. 5. Modification of Standard — Richie's Express Carwash. 6. Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Discussion Agenda: 7. Recommendation to City Council on the Canal Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan 8. #36-96E Mulberry-Lemay Crossings PUD, Filing Two — Final 9. #73-82U Provincetowne PUD, Filing Two — Final 10. #12-00 Rams Park — Project Development Plan Member Craig pulled item 4, Westchase 2nd Filing, County Referral for discussion. Member Gavaldon moved to approve Consent items 1 (September 7 only), 2, 3, 5 and 6. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.