Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE/MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM - AMENDED MASTER PLAN - 55-87A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 22, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chairman Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Chairman Jim Klataske was absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Ken Waido, and Georgiana Taylor. 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 February 25, and April 1, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - Knickers (Louden Creek Golf Course) - Preliminary, #10-91; Item 3 - Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm - Amended Master Plan, #55-87A; Item 4 - Pineview PUD, Tract C - 2 Year Extension - #76-81D; Item 5 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, First Filing - #11-91A; Item 6 - Buderus Annexation and Zoning, Second Filing - #11-91A. Staff pulled item 3, Arapahoe/Mountainridge Farm, Amended Master Plan for discussion. Member O'Dell moved to approve consent items 1,2,4,5, and 6. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6-0. ARAPAHOE/MOUNTAINRIDGE FARM - AMENDED MASTER PLAN CASE #55-87A Ted Shepard, project planner gave the staff report on the project Eldon Ward, applicant, Cityscape Urban Design, stated rather that make a presentation he would respond to the Board's questions. Member O'Dell stated that at their worksession on Friday, when they looked at this, several Board members expressed concern about the proposed location of the neighborhood convenience center. Her main concern was that slot of kids that go to Webber Jr. High and the elementary school will want to go to the convenience center and that would entail crossing an arterial, Harmony Road. She would like to see it closer to the schools or at least on the other side of Harmony Road. Mr. Ward responded that on the old master plan, it was on the other side of Harmony Road. The reasons that it moved across the street, working with the staff over the past couple of years on the exact alignment of Harmony Road, Seneca and working around the existing Fort Collins/Loveland Water District line that runs through there and also parcel 1-C a number of types of uses that they have looked at in there, which are things like patio homes or possibly some retirement housing. They have typically had people who want 9 or 10 acres for that kind of a program. With the realignment of Harmony Road, if the convenience center remained on the other side of the street they were down to about 6 1/2 or 7 acres. It was also the common wish of Woodcraft homes who was going to be doing a large portion of the single family and GT Land, Arapahoe Farm Inc. that they keep 10 acres on the other side. That was the logic in moving it over there. They looked at it in terms of how access would work and it was always awkward at the corner of an arterial on a collector, particularly when you are trying to avoid the back fences of single family, which is a major difficulty on a major street, much less the corner of two. They also had about a 3 and 1/2 acres difficult triangular area there and from the site planning point of view it did not seem to make sense to shift that over. They had also have gotten some input from people who have had the opposite logic that they just as soon have it a little further from the Jr. High as to not make it so attractive to the kids in that age group. With the considerations they had to deal with, they showed it on the southwest side of Harmony. Member Strom stated his concern had to do with the access. Looking at the parcel and the configuration of the parcel, they had given away the property line that runs into that intersection. He was concerned with the fact that it appears to him that they have with the median on Harmony, they have a right-in/right-out on Harmony and all they have on Seneca was a stretch of maybe 50 to 75 feet maximum which is too close to an arterial to put a curb cut in for Seneca access. Mr. Ward replied that the graphic was an amendment to the old plan that was done before the final geometry was done on Harmony and Seneca. Actually in working out that geometry they made sure that they had a little over 200 feet of frontage on Senecca from Harmony south. When he talked to Mr. Shepard on Friday afternoon, after the access question came up, he went back and looked at some of the things they had done for access. He did pull out a little concept that they had done of the convenience center on how access would work, it has not been formally submitted but would share that with them if they Board was interested. They have met with the traffic department on that and they have the alignment of Seneca and Harmony as such that the main full movement access would be off of Seneca about 200 feet south of Harmony Road and then a right-in/right-out off of Harmony into the center. Member Strom stated he was concerned that there was something of that nature in the file or a note on a plan something to the effect that they were going to deal with that issue. Mr. Ward replied that if was not specifically noted on the plan but we could add a note but that was part of the discussion with staff when they were finalizing the geometry of Harmony and Senecca. Member Cottier asked if there was any thought to putting the convenience center at the southern tip of parcel 1-B. Taking it out of that single family area instead of 1-F, because that would solve the problem of kids having to cross Harmony to get there and regardless of how people hope it is further away so kids won't go there, the kids will go there. Mr. Ward replied there would be a crossing guard at Seneca and Harmony with there discussions with the school district. Mr. Ward also replied they had looked at that but that corner does lend itself a little better to single family lot lay out because it is more squarish and less pointed. They have a preliminary plan in the process and Woodcraft homes is looking at beginning their first cul-de-sac in that area, and when you do detailed plans the single family worked a little better. If they determine that they need to move the convenience center to the other side of Harmony Road, it would be easier to work it into 1-C rather that 1-B. Jan Godshalk, 1692 S. Julianna, Loveland stated they were having a house built in Regency Park and wanted to recommend to the Board that they specify on the multi -family area that they specify patio homes rather than condos or apartments which would add to the traffic congestion in that area. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Ward to reply to Ms. Godshalks concern about the patio homes, she saw on the site plan that it was proposed to be ten dwelling units per acre. Mr. Ward replied that 10 was the maximum. Member O'Dell asked where in the scheme of things did he see the timing for that to be built. Mr. Ward replied that if any thing happens there in the next three years it would be patio home, retirement housing, four to six unit per acre type of project. They have not seen anything that would make them think a high density multi family market would be viable there in the next three years or so. It is a large project and is hard to tell how long it will take to build out. Staff has expressed concerns about the extent that they were lowering the density and not keeping a bigger mix of housing types in the area. The owner always wants to keep that flexibility also. He thought that the preference to do a patio home, retirement housing type of project there but not knowing the timing and with the desire to keep the ability for a bigger mix of units. They left the alternative for 10 units per acre. Member O'Dell asked what kind of buffering there would be between Regency Park, would 't be green space, fences? Mr. Ward replied that it would be a combination of both. It would be proportionate to the density that goes onto 1-C. Member Strom asked for the sketch to be entered into the record. His concern with the convenience center was mainly with access and not boxing ourselves in in the future. If we have the potential for the access according to City standards, he did not particularly have a problem with that location. Member O'Dell wanted to reiterate her concern that even if you have the convenience store farther away from the school because they arc still going to go there and having several elementary school children it is a really attractive place to go. Kids go to school early, kids stay late after school and there was not always going to be a crossing guard there so she was not sure if the Board was to go so far as to tell you to move it but warned to be cautious and hoped he would take that into consideration. Mr. Ward suggested that obviously they wanted to get the master plan approved and because of the Woodcraft Homes plans to move ahead with their project was for them to approve the amendment to the master plan and they could go back to the owners and all the parties involved and revisit that question and report back to them again next month with the preliminary plan if further amendment was valid or perhaps they might be a little bit more prepared to explain why it isn't. Member O'Dell asked if anyone had talked to the principals at Webber Jr High or Johnson Elementary about this issue. Mr. Ward replied no they have not. Mr. Shepard replied that he had not either. Mr. Ward replied that there was not a representative from the school district at the meeting either. Mr. Ward replied they had met with Carol Agee about getting students to and from the elementary school but they had not spoken directly with anyone at the Jr. High. Member Carrol asked if they could approve the master plan with the exception of parcels 1-F and 1-C. Mr. Peterson replied that they could do that, they would just be facing an application in a month or so to finalize the issue. He did not see any reason they could not do it. Member Strom stated that they were more or less in agreement that it was appropriate that there be a convenience center parcel at this intersection. One way to go would be that they could approve it with the particular corner of the intersection to be designated as a convenience center to be resolved in the near future. Ken Waido, planner, stated that their will be a neighborhood shopping center in this section eventually. The neighborhood shopping center, if it develops anything like the existing neighborhood shopping centers, will have a grocery store other types of shops and probably some fast food restaurants. In total, that shopping center will be far more attractive for the students to visit than a convenience center would be because a neighborhood shopping center will probable contain some fast food restaurants. The convenience center would be attractive to students in that way and whether they live on either side of Harmony Road they will get - the convenience center. Overall the neighborhood shopping center would be a much grea::r draw for the students in the area. Mr. Ward stated that one of the positive aspects of the Guidance System was to make the decisions when you have a real plan to decide upon. What if we were to just label the other side of the street as an alternative site with language on the plan that the chosen location would be determined in conjunction with a number, of things including the Jr. High School demand and he was assuming that, if it was the Boards desire, that it would be a better location on the other side of the street that the fact was it hurt them on the point chart. Now they were within 3/4 mile of the neighborhood center and if it has a convenience center then they have a problem on the point chart. He could label the other side of the street as an alternative location and put a requirement on the master plan that the final location determined, consider the factors that the Board has brought up tonight. They were kind of dealing in a vacuum until they had a specific set of users in a convenience center anyway as far as which side of the street it should be on. Member O'Dell stated that on the issue of patio homes versus multi family homes, she felt fine about the density mix that they had determined as 10 dwelling units per acre. She also felt confident that when a specific plan comes to them that they would look at buffering and set backs depending on the density that was proposed at that time. Member Cottier stated that the suggestion of showing an alternative location for the convenience center was good. According to all of their guidelines for convenience centers, this was an appropriate location for it. They were not saying take it away, but the concern was safety in crossing Harmony Road. She thought Mr. Waido's point was good but the neighborhood center that was a half a mile there probably isn't going to happen for a long time. Probably long after the convenience center is in. Member Cottier moved for approval of the amended master plan with the notation suggested by Mr. Ward that an alternative site for the convenience center be shown on parcel 1-C. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Mr. Shepard asked if they wanted the applicant to come back next month and address this issue Member Cottier stated she would Include that in the motion. Motion passed 6-0. EAST SIDE/WEST SIDE REZONINGS #37-90 Member Cottier abstained from participating in this item dge/to a conflict of interest. Ken Waido stated that tw�items were still on the table for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. They deal with the Riverside Shopping Center area of the East Side Neighborhood Area Plan which is shown on the map as essentially the whole Riverside Avenue frontage from Mountain Avenue on the north to just south of East Myrtle on the south. What was colored on the map was the areas that were suggested to be looked at and potentially rezoned to limited business within the East Side Neighborhood Plan. It consists of 58 properties, 57 of them are zoned C-Commercial and one property at the end of East Oak is currently zoned R-H, High Density Residential. The second item was the property at 426-428 Maple which is on this map as part of the West Side Neighborhood. Everything in color was currently zoned C-Commercial. At the present time it is recommend for various zonings according to the West Side Neighborhood Plan. On February 25th the Board did reach consensus and vote to recommend 5 components of the East Side/West Side Neighborhood Rezoning project to the City Council in terms of review of those 5 components, the first one was the creation of three new zoning districts, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C- B and the placement of new zoning distikict boundaries within the neighborhood; the rezoning of the Riverside Shopping Center area to General Business; amendments to the R-M and R-H residential zoning districts; amendments to the B-L and B-G zoning districts; and expanded coverage of the R-C, River Corridor Zone. Riverside Avenue has been an issue since the rezonings were first brought to the public back in June of 1990. Staff developed several options for the Boards consideration in looking at the original recommendation for Limited Business as contained in the East Side Plan. That zone was first suggested in the Plan because it does limit uses that would be allowed in the area. It could eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for land use confliciwithin the neighborhood and the second reason was that the B-L zone contained screening and landscaping requirements that were currently absent in the C-Commcrcial zone. In staffs review of that, it seems the second reason was just as important as the first. That there was a desire on behalf of the neighborhood to see something done in term of better landscape treatments, making the arFa more aesthetically pleasing. The options for considerati� n, Staff has added a new sixth option, there are seven total. 1. Leave it zoned commercial. 2. Rezone it to Limited usiness. 3. Leave it zoned C, but place a PUD condition on it. 4. Leave it zoned C, but require certain uses to go through some type of special review or PUD review processes. 5. Rezone it to Limited Business but add certain Commercial uses into the B-L. zone. 6. Leave it zoned C-Commercial but require screening such as the types of screening requirements that exist within the Limited Business zone. Walls and landscaping to be placed