Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY - QUAIL HOLLOW - 46-89B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Sanford Kern, Lloyd Walker, Rex Burns, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Board Member Jim Klataske arrived at 6:38. Member Jan Shepard was absent. Staff members included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Rick Richter, Paul Eckman, and Gail Ault. Board Members who attended the December 15, 1989 worksession included Chairman Kern, Members Burns, O'Dell, Strom, Carroll, Klataskc. Members Shepard and Walker were absent. Planning Director Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of the November 20, 1989 Planning and Zoning Board meeting; Item 2, #51-89 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BATTERY & RECYCLING PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3, 052-89 CALIFORNIA PLAZA PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 4, 057-861 SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, 5th Filing - Final; Item 5 #47-89B THE ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION - Preliminary; Item 6, #55-89,A FRONTAGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING; Item 7, #29-89,A COLORADO NATURE CENTER FOURTH ANNEXATION AND ZONING. Mr. Peterson -added Item 1, the Minutes, had been continued to the January 22, 1990 meeting. Item 4, Sunstone Village had an added condition that the Development Agreement be signed. The staff pulled Item 3, California Plaza, for discussion and Board Member Strom pulled Item 2, Rocky Mountain Battery, for discussion. Chairman Kern noted he would not be voting on Item 7, Nature Center Annexation, due to a perceived conflict of interest. Member O'Dell moved to approve Items 4,5, and 6. Member Strom seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Strom moved to approve Item 7, Member Burns seconded and motion carried 6-0. ROCKY MOUNTAIN BATTERY AND RECYCLING - #51-89 Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval. Member Strom indicated his concern centered on the best method to accomplish this proposal. He felt perhaps a rezoning was better than granting a variance. He believed to qualify for a variance the applicant must 1) prove hardship due to the current situation, and 2) show no adverse public effect will result. Member O'Dell questioned the difference in the process for the two methods, wondering why the PUD was pursued, and indicated a hardship was suffered because the applicant could not meet all point chart requirements. Mr. Shepard replied that recycling would be a use by right in the IG Zone. The PUD process was pursued because it offered site plan review, and the applicant felt the use was appropriate for the location as well as time considerations. • Member Strom indicated parking, not age, was his concern. He would prefer restricting the number of cars per unit and asked for a rundown on the parking space requirement which Ms. Albertson -Clark gave. Chairman Kern questioned the buffering intended and whether lighting would be intrusive. Mr. Hattman responded. Member Strom moved to approve the project with the conditions that final building elevations and utility plans be submitted for review and that the efficiency units be limited to a single resident. Member Klataske quested whether there would be a limitation on the board and care facility and Member Strom felt the residents would not be ambulatory and therefore there would be no problem. Member Walker felt the project met a housing need, the location was appropriate, and it met the LDGS criteria. The Board neither addressed economics or covenants and they should not be a part of the Board's decision. Member O'Dell supported the project. Member Carroll shared other Board members' views and felt it was difficult to mesh new projects with existing projects. Chairman Kern mirrored a number of previous comments and felt the project fulfilled in -fill requirements and was less intense than the previously approved project. The motion to approve was seconded by Member Carroll. The motion was approved 7-0. QUAIL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - Preliminary-46-111" b''`1 Shcrry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report. Member Burns excused himself due to a perceived conflict of interest. Eldon Ward, from Cityscape, indicated he was available to answer questions. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted the City was in the process of securing land for a park in the southeast corner of the proposal. Dan Jensen, owner, added the City would close on this 20 acres which was approved by City Council on January 2. Member Carroll asked if there would be off-street parking for the park. Ms. Albertson -Clark said typically Parks and Recreation submitted a parking proposal to the Planning Department. Member O'Dell asked the status of fencing along greenbelt areas and Member Klataske asked who maintained the landscaping between the fence and roadways. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded maintenance would be incorporated into adjacent lots. Dan Jensen noted it would be in the covenants for maintenance and that fences would be no more than four feet high to insure an "open Space" feeling. 0 Member Klataske moved to approve the project with the condition final landscape and fencing plans be reviewed by the Planning Department. Member Carroll had some questions regarding Overland Trail at the northern point of this property. Rick Richter, civil engineer for the City, explained Overland currently ends at the property line but will be extended and safety concerns regarding this construction will be met. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. It carried 6-0. QUAIL HOLLOW R-F SITE PLAN REVIEW - Preliminary - 46-87C Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff description. Eldon Ward, architect with Cityscape, gave project description and noted the project currently is 13 units on approximately 13 acres but negotiations underway may change this to 14 lots on approximately 14 acres. Member Klataske asked if the temporary accesses would make permanent scars. Chairman Kern was concerned with the location of the cut, the view the public would see and also asked about the scale shown in the cross-section renderings. Mr. Ward addressed the Board's concerns and indicated there would be enhanced landscaping. The developer had asked for a variance from City street standards to reduce the amount of earthwork necessary and the conditions recommended by staff did not pose a problem. Member O'Dell questioned the accuracy of the 5250 vs. 5200 elevation and learned the zoning code referred to 5250 feet. Member Strom had several questions regarding the topography and grades which were answered by Mr. Ward and Mr. Jensen. Mr. Strom indicated he supported the philosophy expressed by the developer and hoped for continued demonstration of these desires. Member Strom moved to approve the project with the 7 staff conditions related to 1) number of lots, 2) access problems, 3) City street standards, 4) final landscape plans and fencing requirements, 5) final grading plans, 6) final building elevations and 7) trail easement In the southern portion. Motion was seconded by Member O'Dell. Member Strom indicated he would support the street waiver if it preserved existing grades. Member O'Dell was disturbed by City Council arbitrarily changing the Board's recommendation for 5200 feet. Chairman Kern felt that area of town should be treated with care. The motion carried 6-0.