Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILVERBERG PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 12 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 22, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. 1f Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: item 1 - Minutes of the May 18, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Little Caesars PUD - Preliminary, #29-92; Item 3 - Potts PUD - Final, M6-92A; Item 4 - Best Buy PUD - Preliminary, #29-92; Item S -Hampshire Square H - Preliminary Subdivision, #31-92; Item 6 - Silverberg PUD - Overall Development Plan, #12-92; Item 7 - Prospect/Overland PUD - Final, N5-84D; Item 8 - Resolution PZ92-8 Vacation of Utility Easement (Continued until July 27, 199M); Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-9 Vacation of Temporary Easements for Access, Drainage and Utilities; Item 10 - Dakota Heights Subdivision - County Referral, #32-92; Item 11- Woody Creek Subdivision - County Referral, #33-92; Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas; Item 13 - Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan, N52,82D; Item 14 - Southside Service Center PUD, Phase III - Site Plan Advisory Review, X52-82E; The following items continued until June 27, 1992 - Item 15 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan, #54- 87F-, Item 16 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, #54-87G; Item 17 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, N21-92B; Item 18 - Stoneridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, N21-92C; Item 19 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, N60-91D. Item 2, was pulled for discussion by the applicant. Item 4, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 5, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 6, was pulled by a member of the public. Member Klataske stated he had a conflict with item 7. Member Carroll moved for approval of items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 12 it would look better than other areas and maybe it would prompt those people to do something. That was something they could look at with the final. Member O'Dell asked if they were talking about replacing the trees with shrubs in the section between the street and the sidewalk, or the six foot seven foot wide strip next to the fence? She was not sure what was being suggested. Mr. Storck replied he would like to propose keeping the trees as we show them currently and then cobble stone next to the planting beds in these areas to break up that with xeriscape. Chairman Strom asked if he meant at the base of those trees. Mr. Storck replied yes. That would come out from the distance of the fence itself to the sidewalk and so that would make a definite substantial break. Member O'Dell asked if they would carry it from the fence to the sidewalk. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member Carroll moved approval of item number 5, Hampshire Square II, Preliminary Subdivision with one condition, that some additional landscaping be shown at final on the streetscape. Member Cottier Seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked if he was thinking along the same lines in terms of landscaping. Member Carroll replied he did not want to get too specific, but some landscaping in between the trees as the applicant proposed between the sidewalk and the fence, of low maintenance that would become established in two years, xeriscape that would break up the canyon effect of the streetscape and the wall. The motion was approved 6-0. ILVERBERG PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Roger Anderson stated his concern was actually he did not know anything that was going in there. It had nothing on the list here, but that's why he was here, to find out. Once he found out, he may object to it. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report recommending approval. Chairman Strom asked for a brief synopsis of what the ODP meant and what additional stages they would be going through before anything happens in terms of actual development on this site. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 13 Sherry Albertson -Clark replied the ODP basically set out the expected or proposed land uses and a sense of the intensity or the scale of those uses. It also determined the future access points such as we talked about at Prospect Road and the frontage road. Beyond this level of development proposal was required both at preliminary and final P.U.D. The preliminary was the focus on land use and the overall site design of the site. The review of the final was to make certain that the final plan was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan. Final approval was required before there was any type of construction to occur on the particular piece of property. Member Carroll asked for clarification if there was nothing specific proposed on any of these four pads at this time. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and typically with an ODP it was fairly normal to see a preliminary P.U.D. at the same time. However, in this particular case the applicant has shown an interest to Staff to at least to try to focus on pinning down access points for this site so that they would have something to potentially market in the future. Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman Architects, just wanted to emphasize that the ODP did not at this time have any specific site users, current land uses consistent with the zoning it had received. We were looking at a possible marketing with this ODP. We did not see any potential uses at this time or any users that had expressed any interest in the site. One thing that we they were looking at doing was adding a minimum landscape strip along the interstate highway and cooperating with the City on that project. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Anderson stated he saw the planning for Prospect and the wildlife reserve that they were going to have along there and it was really nice. They were always looking for a gateway to the City, he just hated to see it be highway businesses, you can't change that or anything. As far as a motel or motel alley on Mulberry Street, he would like to see them all stay there and better planning used for the corner. After all, they advertising our wildlife along the Prospect Road projection, and you come out there and people come along the highway and it tends to look junky. That was just the area he was opposed to. It was already planned, and he could not back anything up, and he was sure it would be used but it was something to think about. Gas stations up there eventually, you know they look tacky and you come off onto Harmony and there was a little gas station convenience store there and things look tacky. They just don't look good for being a gateway to the City. That basically was his objection and to let you know that they could plan a little something better. Chairman Strom responded that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the current development at 1-25 interchange had been done under the City's P.U.D. regulations. At a minimum they would be taking a harder look at development on this site than anything that was going on at those other interchanges and they would certainly be looking at landscaping and texture character and all the other requirements that showed up in the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System at that time. That was the reason he asked Sherry to go through a brief discussion of the process. There would be additional stages of review before anything is built here certainly. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 14 Member Clements -Cooney asked how this ODP might be impacted by the Prospect Street Scape program should that be adopted. Ms. Clark replied they would be reviewing that at a preliminary P.U.D. and she would think that this could affect potentially the landscape set back, the area that was delineated now. It also could help them determine the kind of plant materials that go into that area. Right now the ODP was showing a forty foot landscape setback. There was potential that this could be somewhat different depending on what version of Prospect Corridor was ultimately adopted and how this area fit into that corridor plan. They would be evaluating any future preliminary P.U.D.'s against whatever they have adopted for the Prospect Corridor Streetscape. They would be looking at plant materials as well as the landscape setback, also, the specifics on the street design and how Prospect was constructed in that area would also be determined somewhat by whatever was adopted in the Prospect Corridor Streetscape Design. Member Carroll moved for approval of Silverberg PUD, Overall Development Plan. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll added the Mulberry/I-25 area was totally out of the City's control when developed and so the City had no input into that area. This site was annexed in 1989 and when it was annexed it was zoned as a highway business zoning but with a P.U.D. condition, meaning that if it didn't have that condition someone could simply build a use that fit the highway business without any further review by us. It did have a P.U.D. condition so he would certainly hope this would be given a much stronger look than some of the other areas that you see that are ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years old and they were are already looking at the Prospect Road Streetscape going all the way a mile past I-25, which if adopted by Council would incorporate this property into it. Chairman Strom commented that looking at the map they still don't have any control over highway 14 and I-25 or for that matter Harmony Road and I-25 so that would mean some better influence over those intersections before anything happens there. Motion passed 6-0. AMENDMENT TO SIGN CODE: LIMITATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT. #38-92. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director gave a brief overview and background on the proposed amendment and Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator and co -manager would went over in detail the sign amendments. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Alan Cunningham, president of Scenic Colorado, stated they were very interested in billboard control, on -campus signage. They also had concerns about on -premise signage and towers and overhead