Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - FINAL - 44-89B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • May 7, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataskc, Bcrnic Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd Walker, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Tcd Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Gcorgiana Taylor. Board Members present at the May 4, 1990 workscssion included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataskc, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Alternate Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. A ENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom PCterSon reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the March 26, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Oakridge Master Plan Amendment, #13-82AV; Item 3 - Convenience Center at Oakridge PUD - Preliminary, #13-82AW; Item 4 - Oakridge West Master Plan Amendment, #23-87C; Item 5 - Supertots at Oakridge West, 2nd Filing - Preliminary, #23-87D; Item 6 - Office Park at Oakridge 13th - Preliminary, #13-82AX; Item 7 - Four Seasons 6th Filing PUD - Preliminary and Final, #112-79L; Item 8 - Checker Auto at the Market Place PUD - Preliminary and Final, #21-89D; Item 10 - Raintree Village Shopping Center - • Administrative Change, #146-791; Item 11 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD - Final, #44-89B; Item 12 - Springbrook PUD - Preliminary and Final, #7-90,A; Item 14 - Giant Video at Cimarron Plaza Administrative Change, #78-81 F. Member Carroll pulled Item #8, Checker Auto at the Market Place PUD from the consent agenda. Member Strom pulled Item #3, Convenience Center at Oakridge PUD and Item #5, Supertots at Oakridge West, 2nd filing from the consent agcnda. Jeff King, 4430 Moss Creek Drive pulled Item #7, Four Seasons 6th Filing from the consent agcnda. Member Shepard moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, and 6. Mernber Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. CONVENIENCE CENTER AT OAKRIDGE PUD - PRELIMINARY, #13-82AW Mark Smith, 5007 Saffron Court stated his concern was the gradual transition of McMurray and Keenland into major streets as people use the convenience center and want to cut over to Lemay Avenue. He stated he would like to avoid seeing a light on Harmony Road and that Keenland was a nice wide street and on McMurray, that it was a natural way for people to stop at the convenience store, hang a left and keep going through the residential area to get to Lemay. 11 better planning. He agreed there would be better methods of handling the dark conditions. It had been a very consistent policy of the City to have inward and downward directed lighting to address the needs. Additionally, he found In speaking with the neighbors in the area that as much as they tell him "I hope you are going to keep the trees lighted and by the way I found the glare pretty terrible whenever they ran by there". He objected to the slides that were taken that just blocked out the very bright lights on the base of the tree and thought that reflection from the tree to light an area was inappropriate. Additionally, while the summer reflectivity off the leaves was going to be small, relying on reflectivity off of snow was a straight way of getting glare. He stated that the light levels were incompatible with the surrounding and proposed development in the area and would be opposing. Motion for approval was denied 4-3 with members Shepard, Burns and O'Dell voting for the motion, SOUTH 'SHiEL.DS YETER11 ARX CLINIC PUD --final. #44 89R Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff Report recommending approval. Mr. Don Richmond, Richmond Associates Architects and Planners, stated the final plans were In agreement with the Master Plan approval. The only concern that did come up was neighbors to the west about potential noise. Dr. Bill Musslewhite, owner of Northshore Animal Hospital, stated that the clinic would be much larger than the one in Loveland. They tried to design it to fit into a residential area, added extra insulation for sound proofing, made the facility appear aesthically pleasing as possible and were hoping the extra efforts would be noticed by the board. Michael Ricker, 1108 Hepplewhite Court, stated his concerns were the noise conditions the facility would bring into the neighborhood and concerns about the sanitation. He would like to know the number of animals the doctor planned on boarding on the premises. He stated the terrain of the property sits upon a hill and slopes down and they sit at the base of it, there were a number of cottonwood trees behind them and would this project be taking the trees out and whether this was compatible to the type of homes in the neighborhood. Mark Sholtize, lives in the Applewood Estates area stated he drives Shields everyday and was concerned about the safety issue. The clinic would be approached from the south of a steep hill along what was now a fast road at 45 miles per hour. He did not think that people approaching from the south would have adequate time to react to people at the crest of the hill turning into the clinic. He was concerned about it being an accident waiting to happen if there was any significant amount of traffic there. He stated it was currently zoned for a low density residential which would not mean as much traffic turning into a residential area and this was a high density commercial use for that kind of zoning. Chuck Seastone, Loveland, stated he came on behalf of the clinic and that it was an instant replay only 10 years later. Being a neighbor of the clinic in Loveland he admittedly opposed the clinic and feels foolish about it now. As things turned out he could certainly understand the concerns of noise and sanitation as well as how it would blend into the neighborhood. He did not -16- 0 know about how the clinic would aesthically fit • noise problems and sanitation issues are totally situated within 200 feet easily of the Loveland been a problem with noise or odor pollution. into the neighborhood but the non existent. His house was Clinic and there had never Jerry Stcib, direct neighbor of Dr. Musslcwhitc in Loveland, was concerned when the proposal came into the Loveland area but as time went on the clinic did not add to any pollution at all of noise or odor. It was well kept, and as a neighbor they consider them to be one of the best in an area like it. They appreciate what he had done for them and had always enjoyed working with him. Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark to address some of the issues raised relating to the number of animals, the number of cars anticipated at the site and the cottonwoods located on the property. Ms. Clark replied in terms of the animals, the city staff's review primarily focused on the external aspects of the site design and, land use. They did not look closely, or are not charged with looking at interior space. The big concern with an animal hospital was to make sure there would be no outside associated activities, in other words, no outside animal runs or shelters located outside of the structure. It was the experience when you get into that situation you do have the potential to experience as an adjacent property owncr, problems with barking dogs. When the activity is confined to the inside of the building they were not concerned with numbers of animals. At the time of the preliminary plan review, they did have a traffic impact study that was prepared and did have an expected number of employees of 4 maximum and in terms of the amount of business, a total of 8 parking spaces • for customers bringing pets. From a planning and transportation perspective, this kind of land use was not a high intensity traffic generator. The trees on the site would remain and if there were any future development of the area, staff would be looking at existing vegetation being retained. The western portion of the site has been identified as an area that was environmentally sensitive so the City does have concerns on how the area develops. Member O'Dell asked what was planned across the street in the Clarendon Hills area and will it continue to be single family residences and will any of the streets ever connect out to Shields. Ms. Clark replied the area to the cast in Clarendon Hills is planned for a church location and the street pattern shows the streets that would connect with Shields, Hilldale and Clarendon Hills Drive. To her knowledge those would be the only access to Shields Street. 'Everything else, including the church would have to access off of the internal streets. Member Shepard asked what was proposed foF the western portion of the Master Plan. Ms. Clark replied that when the board reviewed and approved the Master Plan last fall, it had 9 single family homes and they were planned for lots that were somewhat smaller that, the existing lots. They have been talking with the applicant and had already had a neighborhood meeting several months ago to discuss a proposal to develop portions of the western property. At that time • the lot sizes had been increased somewhat and any plans in the future will go -17- back to the neighborhood for their input. The proposal would have single family lots consistent in size with what the Ridge has. Member Shepard moved for approval of the South Shields Vet Clinic PUD Final. Member Strom seconded the motion. Member Carroll stated one of the items they had to take into consideration in the All Development Criteria was social compatibility and would assure the neighborhood that the development in The Ridge was one of the things that staff and the Board considered. He pointed out that this particular final was only for the clinic in the very northeast tract and did not touch any of the lots in The Ridge. Therefore he did not see the contact between the vet clinic and the lots in The Ridge. Secondly, would like to assure the neighbors that when the plat comes in for the western section of the lot, criteria I would be looked at a great deal and thinks the other thing the board considered was noise. This was not a kennel but a clinic and the animals would be enclosed within walls. The doctor had asked for outside kennels or caging, staff would have taken a much different look at it. Member Strom stated if he felt the neighbors would have a noise problem he would not support it and thinks the location and the construction and the fact that this is an interior only facility should be more than enough protection. Chairman Kern stated that he agreed with the statements made by the Board and he thinks that Shields Street is a relatively high traffic area. This serves as an adequate buffer to the proposed future development. Motion for approval passed 7-0. SPRINGBROOK PUD - Prgllminary and Final 07 90A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval with the condition that all drainage issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the Storm Drainage Department prior to staff filing final plans. Dick Rutherford from Stewart and Associates stated they had answered their major concerns from last month by eliminating three single family residences and increasing the depths of the lots that were backing up to Drake Road. Member Walker commended the applicant for the change and appreciated the fact that they heard what the Board had to say and modified the plan appropriately. Member Burns moved for approval of Preliminary and Final of Springbrook PUD with the Staff condition. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member O'Dell stated that it was a much improved plan and it worked well. Motion was approved 7-0. -18-