Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROHRBACKER PUD - FINAL - 41-89C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 22, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waldo, Joe Frank, Linda Ripley and Georgiana Taylor. Board Members present at the October 19, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Margaret Gorman and Lloyd Walker. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the September 24, and September 26 meetings; Item 2 - Southridge Greens PUD - Amended Master Plan, #9-82AA; Item 3 - Center Greens at Southridge Greens PUD - Preliminary, #9-82AB; Item 4 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 4th Filing - Preliminary, *35-86H; Item 5 - Clarendon Hills Subdivision, 5th Filing - Preliminary, #35-86I; Item 6 - PZ90-14 Vacation of Easement, #43-90; Item 7 - PZ90-15 Vacation of Easement. Director Peterson pulled items 4 and 5, Clarendon Hills Subdivision, Filings 4 and 5 for discussion. Member Cottier moved to approve consent agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION FILINGS 4TH AND STH - PRELIMINARY, #35-86H and 35-86I Tcd Shepard gave the staff reports recommending approval with conditions. Eldon Ward, planning consultant for Clarendon Hills stated that he would rather wait for a presentation until they hear what the concerns were and respond to those. Member Walker asked if the density and the type of housing proposed changed from the existing master plan. Mr. Ward replied that the existing master plan approved in 1986 had a total of 83 units in the same area where they were proposing 76. Area by area it varied slightly, for example, in the fifth filing south of Hildale Drive the original master plan showed eleven units, their plan has seventeen. There was an intermediate master plan that showed 20. They were not exact to the number in each area, what was in the existing master plan but they are slightly less overall. Jerry Krygier, 5325 Clarendon Hills Drive stated they had just moved in a couple of weeks ago and it came to his attention last weekend that there was the two proposals and he had not heard up with the softening of the architectural style for all of the buildings along the open space between them. The lot line, to his way of thinking, did not encroach on the lot line itself, the visual space and the useable space by the existing Silverplume Homeowners in his opinion was ample to provide for a very effective layout. Member O'DelI stated as the person that made the motion last time, she believed that everyone did try to work out the differences. She believed that the issues that she was concerned about, particularly about the property lines of the existing condominium development, had been resolved by the applicant extending those property lines and turning over some of that property to the existing condominium development. This plan meets the criteria of the LDGS so she would support the motion. Member Cottier stated she would support the motion also. She thought what they had ended up with was something that was superior to what was proposed last month with respect to dealing with the common area between the two developments. At some point in the future, she would hope that there was still room to consider combining the homeowners association and having this proposed development participate in the pool and tennis courts and if that could happen, she thought that it would be perceived that all the open space was there for both projects. Member Carroll stated he would be supporting the motion as well. Last month he opposed the motion that was made. Not because it was not a good idea, because he thought they had exceeded their ability to do so. He is happy that the groups have got together and resolved what he considered to be alot of the problems with the common belt. He thought the drainage issues have been answered to his satisfaction. They do have a report from the Storm Drainage Utility. If there were drainage problems caused by this development, there was a very good chance that the new development would be responsible to correct those problems. He did agree that building 7 did meet the All development criteria and was acceptable to him. Motion was approved 6-1 with Gorman voting no. Rohrbacker PUD - Final. #41-89C Members Gorman and Carroll abstained from voting on this project due to conflict of interest. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval and that the applicant had met all the conditions of preliminary approval. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs Wayne Specht, stated there had been no substantive changes in the final plan except to address the three conditions the board imposed at the hearing. The three conditions related to stacking, enhancement of the screening at the entrance and then some re -analysis of water coming onto the site. The no stacking prohibition has been included in the development agreement and on the site plan and virtually eliminates that visibility issue that came up repeatedly in the past. That is visibility of stored autos from Lemay and Mulberry and the adjoining properties, but given the 8 foot solid wood fence and the no stacking, basically removes the visibility issue. The second condition had to do with enhancing screening of the east Magnolia entrance. In addition to the interior fencing within the interior on the north edge of lot 3, they were going to add interior fencing on the other side which would be the southwest corner of the building on lot one down to the right of way and that was to screen stored autos from the East Magnolia residents on the south side. They were doing it on both sides so it would be effectively screened from properties on the north and south side of Magnolia who might be looking onto the Rohrbacker site. Secondly, the entrance to the site had been narrowed from its previous 54 foot wide open entrance to a 20 foot wide entrance with ! 0 • a solid wooden fence. They had discussed it previously and it has now been incorporated into the site plan. Everything basically would be enclosed except for the 20 foot entrance. Thirdly, they had shifted and enlarged the landscaping at the entrance. They had added to the existing landscaping there and also on the interior of the site. If you look at the entrance area, there were two chinese elms existing on each side of the entrance and they proposed adding two deciduous trees plus all of the range of shrubbery that was proposed on the preliminary. On the interior of the site to further enhance the interior and to break up the interior fencing which is now going to go along the north edge of lot 3, they were proposing adding upright evergreens to the three or four existing chinese elms, so there would be a mix of deciduous and evergreen to break up the interior fencing which would screen the stored autos. They believe the combination of the new interior fencing on both sides and the narrowed wooden gate and the new and existing landscaping would provide an effective screen for those Magnolia Street properties which might be looking onto the site. The fencing is a new chain link fence being proposed with flexible slats that are woven into the chainlink fence. It is used around town and is very common. There was a comment made at the July hearing from someone about possibly water coming from the north and she thought Ms. O'Dell added that as a condition to review that issue. The proposed berming they were using to insure that they were dealing with the question with either storm drainage water or irrigation waters which might pickup pollutants on the site and carry them off -site. There are, of course, on this site, two types of waters they were dealing with, both irrigation and storm drainage. They were proposing on this plan two different types of berming. They were proposing a 12" earthen berm that would run along the west boundary of the site all along lot 4 and a part of lot 2 and then they were proposing a 9" filter berm which would be on the down stream side, which would run along the eastern edge of lot three and a part of lot 1. If you look at the three different reports on storm drainage, it basically proposes to deal with the storm drainage issue, the 9" filter berm. That's the recommendation to avoid any potential problem from storm drainage waters which might flow on the site into the stored automobile areas and pickup even any minimal drainage or fluids from those cars which would carry them off site. Both the County and the City concurred that given the fact that these automobiles must be drained before they are stored, they must be drained inside with concrete flooring, they were talking very minimum potential here, probably no different than a City parking lot. The 9" filter berm was being proposed to cover that eventuality, if in fact there ever were storm drainage waters, they would be filtered through this filter berm so they would be carried off -site and this had all been reviewed and approved with the City's Storm Drainage Department. If you look at irrigation waters, the October update submitted by their engineer, talked specifically about that issue of water coming from the north that might be irrigation water. If there is any irrigation water which may come, it was going to be coming from the Fisher fields which are to the west and northwest of the site. The applicants do not and can not decide if there is ever going to be this water or how much or when, because obviously that is controlled by irrigation coming from Mr. Fisher and his irrigation plan and how well he manages that. Any uncontrolled field irrigation is going to be a temporary situation which will be totally eliminated when the Fisher property is developed. There is a legitimate issue and that is would any of these potential irrigation waters flow across the site in such a way that they would flow through the stored automobile areas and pickup any minimal fluids or drainage that might be coming from those and carry it off -site. The inquiries have been directed toward that concern. If you look at the west boundary, their engineers have determined that there was potential for irrigation waters to come from the west and they do not know if that has ever happened or likely. If you go out and look at the property, the field to the west of the Rohrbacker site, the rows are north/south, not east/west. So only if the rows were changed or if irrigation water topped the road would you have irrigation water coming from the west onto the property. Just in the event that might happen, they have proposed the 12" earthen berm which would divert any of the irrigation waters and prevent them from going into the stored automobile area. There also was a potential identified of irrigation waters to come from the north, and that might be a more likely area for them to be coming from. They will not flow because of the elevation of the property and the topography, into the automobile storage areas and they were not dealing with any kind of a water quality or polluting issue. They feel the combination of the filter and earth berms on the western side insure that water quality whether it comes from storm drainage waters or irrigation waters was not going to be an issue with this particular proposal. Harold Fisher, owner of the property to the west, stated his objection was that in that general area, there arc seven junk yards. He had heard remarks considering the Harmony Corridor that they did not want it to look like 14 and here we are adding more problems to Highway 14 and it is adjacent to a very nice piece of property that he has and it sure will not help the value of his ground. Member Cottier moved for approval of the Rohrbacker PUD Final. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Walker stated that he did not like the preliminary and still did not think this was a good overall plan and he was not in favor of it. Chairman Klataske stated that even though this may be the best designed salvage yard that Fort Collins would have if approved, he still did not feel that it was doing anything to add to the quality of the neighborhood out there and did not feel it was in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. Motion was approved 3-2 with Walker and Klataske voting no. Harmony Corridor Planning Effort. #29-90 -11 - Harmony Corridor Design Standards a Linda Riplcy, Senior Planner stated the request was to recommend to City Council the adoption of Design Standards and Guidelines to be used by the City in the review of development proposals in the Harmony Corridor. The Board at their October meeting adopted the Harmony Corridor Plan and recommended to City Council its incorporation into the City Comprehensive Plan. That plan directs the City to develop and adopts design standards and guidelines to implement the Harmony Oaks concept promoted in that plan. The basic components of the Harmony Oaks concept were wide setbacks, naturalistic berming, meandering trail system, rows of Oak trees, wildflowers and low key signage. The intent of the proposed design standards and guidelines of tonight agenda were to implement that design concept. They were intended to be used as the design aid for developers proposing projects in the corridor and also as an evaluation tool by City Staff and the Board in reviewing those projects. The standards and guidelines apply only to projects being reviewed under the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. They do not apply to properties which have uses by right. In addition the Design Guidelines will be used by City Staff to guide the design of public sector projects in the corridor. There have been four relatively minor changes made to the Design Standards and Guidelines document since the Board reviewed it at the October ist meeting. The first change is on page 3 which was simply a reference to the fact that these standards and guidelines only apply to projects being evaluated in accordance with the Land Development