HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONERIDGE PUD, THIRD FILING PRELIMINARY - 21 92F - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
January 24, 1994
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison
The January 24, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim Klataske,
Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, and Sharon Winfree.
Staff members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone and Carolyn Worden.
AGENDA REVIEW
Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda which consisted
of:
Consent Agenda: Item 1, Approval of December 13 and December 16, 1993 Planning and
Zoning Board Minutes; Item 2, Johnson Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #83-93;
Item 3, Lopez Elementary - Advisory Site Plan Review, #84-93; Item 4, *East Drake
Terrace Office Park PUD - Final, #58-93A; Item 5, Stoneridge PUD, 3rd Filing -
Preliminary, #21-92F; Item 6, Harmony Crossing PUD - Final, #65-93B; Item 7, Windtrail
Townhomes PUD - Final, #66-93A; Item 8, *Stetson Creek PUD (Formerly Rock Creek) -
Final, #16-89F; Item 9, Resolution PZ93-18 Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10,
Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11, *Total Petroleum West Prospect -
Non -Conforming Use Expansion - Final, #78-93, and; Item 13, Recommendation to City
Council for Fox Hills Annexation and Zoning, #36-93A,B.
Discussion Agenda: Item 14, Stonebridge Garden Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #82-93;
Item 15, Indian Hills Village PUD - Preliminary, #81-93, and; Item 16, Coventry
Subdivision - Preliminary, #80-93.
Mr. Eckman pointed out Ordinance 151 was passed by Council on final reading in December
and now the changes for the Land Development Guidance System are applicable for the first
time.
Member Cottier requested to pull the December 16, 1993 meeting minutes and suggested to
review the wording of the motion for Spring Creek Project. Because of the appeal.
Chair Clements asked to pull Item 5 Stoneridge PUD and Item 6 Harmony Crossing PUD
because of conflict of interest.
It was requested from the audience that Item 7 Windtrail Homes PUD, Final, be pulled.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
January 24, 1994 Minutes
Page 2
Chair Clements announced there was a request by staff to put Item 19 Kenney Rogers Roasters
PUD, Preliminary and Final, which was on the discussion agenda, onto the consent agenda. She
suggested a motion and a condition regarding the neon lighting to be reviewed by staff. She
asked Planner Kirsten Whetstone if this was acceptable.
Ms. Whetstone indicated that the condition should be worded such that staff reviews it prior to
filing the PUD. If it is found that it needs to be reviewed by the Board, that will be done.
Member Cottier moved that Kenney Rogers Roasters PUD on the Consent Agenda with the
condition that staff will review the neon lighting prior to filing the plans.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Member Walker asked about the outcome of the review but is unclear where final jurisdiction
lies.
Ms. Whetstone replied the neon shown in the Board's packets is something new and was not
submitted to the Planning Department for review. Staff needs to look at how that affects the
architectural character, compatibility with the Square PUD. Staff can recommend that it goes
back to the Board for review.
Mr. Eckman stated his concern of the criteria the staff would use to decided whether the neon
was acceptable. Would it be possible for the plan to be approved without neon, then the neon
be added as an administrative change. If that is the case, is there sufficient criteria to guide staff
on decision making on an administrative change to add the neon?
Ms. Whetstone replied yes. She recommended that the plan be approved with no neon and if
staff wants to submit it as an administrative change, it will be reviewed at that time.
Member Cottier withdrew her motion to read:
"Kenney Roasters PUD be moved to the consent agenda and vote on final as submitted
and any neon shall be considered as an administrative change."
Member Klataske indicated that was acceptable.
Mr. Phillips clarified "as submitted previously without the neon" is that correct?
Both Members Cottier and Klataske replied yes.
Motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
January 24, 1994 Minutes
Page 3
Chair Clements requested a motion of the Board for acceptance of Minutes of December 13,
1993 and Items 2, 3, 4, 11, 13 and 19.
Member Walker madeS,q mlaotion to that effect to approve the items.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
Chair Clements had a conflict of interest over Items 5 and 6 and asked Vice Chair Cottier to
preside.
Vice Chair Cottier moved approval of Items 5 and 6 of the agenda.
Motion seconded by Member Winfree.
Motion carried 6-0, with Chair Clements not voting because of conflict of interest.
WINDTRAIL TOWNHOMES. FINAL PUD - Case #66-93A
Mr. Shepard read the staff report and recommended approval with conditions that requires the
timely filing of the development agreement and the utility plans.
The applicant, Kay Force from the firm Jim Sell Design and representing the developer of the
project. She referred to the site plan and described its location and density. The plans
coordinate for the Center of Advanced Technology. At this stage, there is adequate traffic
circulation and showed future plans to Center Drive.
CITIZEN INPUT
Rick Steadman - resident of and President of Hillpond Homeowners Association - He clarified
the reason the item was pulled was not lack of support of the overall project, but rather
associated traffic problems and future traffic impacts. Otherwise, no other opposition to the
plan.
The neighborhood concerns are:
1. He reference to Matt Delich's traffic study to page 1. At the Shields-
Hillpond intersection, east leg, there are sight line constraints for vehicles