Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAK/COTTONWOOD FARM AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 54-87AL - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES� 0 � ( PLANN(NG AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 24, 1997 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Chairperson: Gwen Bell Vice-Chair: Glen Colton 3201 Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 221-3415 Phone: (H) 225-2760 (VV) 679- The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Bell. Roll Call: Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Chapman, Colton, Bell. Members Byrne and Davidson were absent. Staff Present: Olt, Shepard, Ludwig, Lawrie, Blandford, Wamhoff, Herzig, Stanford, Bracke, Jones, Schlueter, Duvall, Bl�nchard and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. Those agendas consisted of: 1, 2. #5-97 3. #6-97 4. #42-89F 5. #40-94D 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. #22-94A #47-95A #9-97 12. #49-87F 13: #5-87B Minufes of the May 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. (Continued) Sterling House PUD - Preliminary and Final Doerr PUD and Subdivision - Preliminary and Final Harmony School Shops PUD, 1st Filing - Final Lincoln East PUD, Diamond Shamrock Convenience Store - Preliminary Dellenbach Auto Storage PUD - Amended Final Shenandoah PUD, First Filing - Final Resolution PZ97-5 Easement Vacation (Continued) Resolution PZ97-6 Easement Vacation Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Burlington Northern at Mcclelland Drive - Enclave Annexation 8� Zoning Link N Greens, 4th, Enclave Annexation and Zoning West Drake Road, 2nd, Enclave Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 14. #36-96 Mulberry Lemay Crossing - Overall Development Plan 15. #32-95C Amendment to the Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan 16. #32-95B Registry Ridge PUD, Phase I- Final 17. #41-95B Dry Creek, Phase I- Referral of a Minor Subdivision Plat � Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 2 _ 18. #54-87AL 19. #54-87AM - 20. #46-88G - 21. #40-91 B 22. 23. 24. 25. #51-91 B #29-96 #3-94H #3-94G • Oak/Cottonrnrood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Miramont Self Storage Pud - Preliminary Park South PUD, Third Replat - Final Timberline Enclave Annexation and Zoning (To be heard April 14th) K-2 Enclave Annexation and Zoning (To be heard April 14th) Four Seasons Condominiums PUD - Preliminary (Continued) Willow Springs PUD, 5th Filing, Country Store - Preliminary Willow Springs North PUD - Preliminary Member Colton pulled for discussion agenda item #10, Modifications of Conditions of Final ApprovaL Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon noted the variances on items 3 ar�d 5. Member Chapman seconded. The motion was approved 5-0. Member. Gavaldon moved to move items 15, 16 and 20 to the Consent Agenda including approval of a variance on item 20. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Colton commented on Registry Ridge stating that the agreements worked out by the neighbors and the developer were a big improvement on this site. Member Colton asked about the completion of the bike trail and would like to see it completed with this project. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services replied he was not sure when that section would be done, but if they are working on it, they will try to keep the road open during the construction period. The motion was approved 5-0. • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 17 • OAK COTTONWOOD FARM AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. #54-87AL. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project recommendeing denial based on the Findings of Fact/Conclusion of the staff report. Member Chapman asked about the property immediately north of this site, and what was the zoning. Planner Ludwig replied that on Parcel V on the existing Overall Development Plan is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. Parcel U, which is north and to the west also calls for RL zoning. Parcel T, allows uses in the RM, Medium Density Residential Zoning District. Member Weitkunat asked Planner Ludwig to define Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses. • Planner Ludwig replied that it was a point chart in the LDGS that has uses identified under that, which storage falls under. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward spoke of the staff recommendation. He stated that this proposal meets all of the criteria. Staff did not have a problem with city standards, the point charts and all the criteria except staff's intrepetation of ineeting the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ward stated that in 1992, the Board determined that Auto Related and Roadside Commercial uses are inappropriate in this area. He stated that mini-storage was never disucssed at the 1992 meeting and Parcel V was not discussed. Mr. Ward referred the Board to the minutes of that meeting that were provided in their packet. He stated that the issues raised at that meeting dealt with underground storage, traffic, proximity to the church and groundwater concerns related to underground fuel storage. He felt that this project should not be disqualified on the basis of a prior review for a convenience store and that this use is not comparable to the review that took place in 1992 on a different parcel. He felt that it is very misleading to say that the Board's decision on Parcel S in 1992 automatically pre-determines the Board's decision on Parcel V in 1997. Mr. Ward felt that the list of specific items in the Goals and Objectives, Land Use Policies Plan and Harmony Corridor Plan are also difficult to support. He felt that the • proposed use did not have a significant negative impact upon the residential area. He stated that the neighbors have stuck with this process and attended a series of • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 18 neighbohood meetings and the neighbors that asked for the buffer of transition in the first place have decided that this is not intrusive and it is a buffer, and the impacts are not significant. He felt they meet Goal #4. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding "guiding growth" in the Goals and Objectives. He stated that that goal specifically says to "encourage urban development in areas immediately adjacent to existing devefopment". He stated that they meet that goal. He stated that the Harmony Corridor Plan overrides any previously approved ODP, and that the Harmony Corridor Plan designates 100% of the area colored in the graphic as a Mixed-Use Activity Center and also as an existing Regional Shopping Center. He stated that the Harmony Corridor "demands" that this ODP be amended, and that Parcel V is part of this Mixed-Use Activity Center. It was not deleted to be single family development. There have been a number of city actions since this ODP, that have superceeded the RL designation on this site. � Mr. Ward feels that he can show that this development would not be intrusive or disruptive. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding Land llse Policy #3a. He displayed • a context diagram showing the proposed site and the existing residential neighborhoods. He showed that this site is easily accessible and where the pedestrian linkages would be. He stated that this project does make good utilization of the land and does it in an appropriate manner. He would be hard pressed to try to find a way to defend that they don't meet that policy. Mr. Ward commented on the staff finding regarding Land Use Policy #74. He stated that this site was designed as a transitional land use and includes a linear greenbelt and it does block the impacts of the surrounding area. It enhances the concept of mixed-use developmenta Mr. Ward commented on staff's contention that they violate Land Use Policy #4 of the Harmony Corridor Plan. He stated that the Harmony Corridor states that this project is a part of a Regional Shopping Center. Mr. Ward felt that given all the findings that staff made, they do infact meet the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Fort Collins and the reasons staff gave for denial are not valid. Mr. Ward stated that the neighborhood feels that this is an appropriate buffer to their residential area. He stated that part of the neighborhood has worked on the architectural details, the landscaping, the entry deisgn, and the streetscape design. • Alan 1Nestfall, Vice President of SecurCare Self Storage gave a background of self � storage units and why they chose this site. CJ • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 19 PUBLIC INPUT: • Harold Swope, President of the Fainrvay Estates Homeowner's Association spoke on behalf of the neighborhood. He stated that they were in support of this proposal. Mr. Swope stated he has a legal document that was signed by the City, by the property owner, GT Land, and by the Board of Director's of Fairway Estates that places restrictive covenants on parcels of land that are west of Harmony Market. The intent was to buffer Fairway Estates (at that time they were the only residential area in the immediate vicinity) from the heavy commercial use to the east. Mr. Swope reported that the covenants very clearly state that the uses in these parcels in this development does cover a portion of one of these parcels, that the uses were limited to RL density uses or other uses to be approved by the property owner and by the Board of Director's of Fairway Estates. They have met that condition by meeting with the developers and they very much approved of this alternate use that does not fit into the RL density. _ • Mr. Swope stated that they approved of this auto un-related use on this parcel and felt that this use was not intrusive or disruptive to the neighborhood. They felt this use would be a good buffer from intrusiveness of the Harmony Market area. Gus Winfield, lives in Fairway Estates supported the project. He stated it did not seem to be an auto-related use, was aesthetically pleasing and has low traffic and lights. Mark Thomas, lives in Fairway Estates stated that it was important to note that they did meet with the developers on numerous occassions and they do support this transitional use. Mr. Thomas stated this project was not intrusive and supports this project. Vic Burnhardt, homeowner in Miramont close to the proposed site stated that this developer has in the past produced a very quality project, although he questions whether this is the appropriate place for a mini-warehouse. He did not feel that this was the norm to put mini-storage next to residential homes over $200,000. He stated that he would like to see residential homes there. He felt the homes next to the stoarage units would decrease. Mr. Burnhardt stated for the record that he was opposed to this project. Christina White, resident of the Miramont Subdivision stated that their neighborhood has had several meeting regarding the proposed site. At their yearly Association meeting it was decided that we needed to have an additional meeting to determine , what the facts were about the proposed mini storage units. She stated not all the residents were excited about that and they invisioned a very industrial type looking � Planning and Zoning Board IUlinutes March 24, 1997 Page 20 facility. Their neighborhood developed a task force to investigate what types of things they could do to the mini-storage area to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible and make it fit into their community. They came up with some ideas and the developer was willing to accommodate their suggestions. She felt it would be a quiet development with good buffering to their neighborhood. Ms. White supported the project and felt this was the best option for them at this time. Charlie Lanter, lives approximately 1 block and a half from the proposed mini-storage site. He stated his main concern was the effect on the property values. He stated that in reviewing the project site plan and landscape plan he felt that with all the buffering it would be hard to tell it is a mini-storage area. He felt that property values will not be affected at all. Raz Stewart, lives accross the street from the proposed project felt this project was not going to effect property values and would be an asset to their neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED � Member Gavaldon asked if a change was made to this parcel, would it not create a • domino effect on the remaining parcels. Planner Ludwig replied that they could propose changes, just as they are on this parcel. Member Gavaldon asked if the surrounding neighborhoods had input on what the current zoning is on the property. Planner Ludwig replied they did. Member Gavaldon asked about the agreement that Mr. Swope was in possession of and asked if that document was a binding document. Assistant City Attorney Duvall replied he has not reviewed the document. He stated that the document is probably covenants that are recorded against the property. He stated that it is not involved in this planning process, it is an agreement that is binding on the property owner in relationship to the Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association. That is a civil matter between the two of them in terms of enforcability in those kinds of isses. It does not effect the Board in making their decision tonight. • Member Gavaldon asked Planner Ludwig to comment on what uses can be used on � Parcel U. ,' • • • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 21 Planner Ludwig replied that uses allowed in the RL Zoning District could be used. Member Chapman asked if the Church be able to put a church school on Parcel U. Planner Ludwig replied they would subject to a review by the Planning Board. Member Colton asked what the church felt about this use. Mr. Ward replied they had been to some meetings and the church has been heavily involved in the planning for this area. He stated that their specific plans for Parcel U is pla�elds for the schoold (currently located in the church) and a detention ponds. Member Gavaldon asked about a walkway north of Parcel V and would it be able to be accessed by the neighbors to the west still. Planner Ludwig replied that it runs along the west of W and V from Boardwalk into the existing vacated right-of-way. It would still be used by the neighborhood. • Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Weitkunat stated that the reason for recommending approval is because of Policy #74 and she thinks it is a compatibility and transition issue. She thinks this is an appropriate transition. She was impressed with the developers desire to work with the neighbors and provide buffers that are appealing to both. Member Chapman felt the applicant has done an outstanding job of trying to make the storage units more compatible with the neighborhood. He would be supporting the project. Member Colton stated he also would be supporting the project. He felt it was not intrusive to the neighborhood. The motion was approved 5-0. MIRAMONT_SELF STORAGE PUD, PRELIMINARY. #54-87AM • Planner Ludwig gave the staff presentation on the proposed storage units recommending denial for failure to satisfy All-Development Criteria A-1.2 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 24, 1997 Page 22 • "Comprehensive Plan" of the LDGS. He stated that with the previous approval this criteria does not matter since the Board had determined differently. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design gave the applicant's presentation. He reviewed the site line from second story windows,raising the berm, placement of landscaping and the relative height of the units. Mr. Ward spoke on building materials and architecture. PUBLIC INPUT Harold Swope, Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association reiterated their position stating that they think the design is beautiful and they are very much in support of the project. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Gavaldon asked about the distance to the trail on the north property line. Mr. Ward replied he did not recall the exact distance, Alan Westfall reported that it is 15 feet to the property line. They have purposedly presented the architecture with relationship of brick and other elements to break it up along there. He reviewed a graphic representation of the north side of the property. Chairperson Bell asked abouth the length of the buildings. Mr. Westfall reported combined about 300 feet. Member Chapman asked about the buildings on the southside and the westside and what was going on with what looks like a notch in the rooflines. Mr. Westfall replied that some would be a change in elevations. Member Chapman asked about the 340 foot building on the northside and that it did not fill any of the architectural detail and what was the rationale for that, Mr. Westfall replied there were relief elements in the buildings as well as the step downs. They did not pop the roofline up because of the neighbors to the south's view plain. � • Chairperson Bell asked how high the berm was. �