Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVERSIDE JUNCTION PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 13 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESE 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson presenters the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the March 23, 1992 meeting; Item 2 - Blevins Court PUD, Lot 9 - Final, Case #42-91B; Item 3 - New Creations Interiors PUD - Amended Final, Case #10-92; Item 4 - Warren Farms Subdivision, Filing 2 - Preliminary and Final, Case #53-84H was pulled for discussion; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73- 82M; Item 6 - Oakridge PUD, IOth Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82AZ; Item • 7 - Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #11-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 8 - Kingston Woods PUD - Final, Case #58-91A; Item 9 - Quail Hollow Subdivision, 6th Filing - Final, Case #46-89G; Item 10 - Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One - Final, Case #3-90F; Item 1 I - Potts PUD - Preliminary, Case #6-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 12 - Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #7-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 13 - Laurie Subdivision PUD, 1st and 2nd Filings - Modification of Conditions of Approval, Case #44-89 E,F; Item 14 - Resolution PZ92-5 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 15 - Resolution PZ92-6 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 16 - Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision Plat - Final, Case #28-89B was pulled for discussion; Item 17 - Prospect Land Company Annexation and Zoning, Case #16-92; Item 18 - Webster Second Annexation and Zoning, Case #21-92; Item 19 - LaPorte Plaza Rezoning and PUD - County Referral, Case #22-92 was continued to the May meeting. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of. Item 20 - Pinecone PUD - Overall Development Plan, Case #60-91A and Pinecone PUD - Fort Collins High School - Advisory Review, Case #60-91B; Item 21 - Colorado State University Sign; Item 22 - Riverside Junction PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-92. Member Cottier pulled Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73-82M. 40 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 33 7.1115 .1LZ�:.Y��>�.i► 'wl�oi:.__9SA�,. 1d.� Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with the condition that the development agreement and final plans be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Gunther Seligmann, Representative of Poudre Valley Hospital, stated that the hospital is making the effort to alleviate the congestion of traffic on the main hospital campus. He felt that part of that relief would be to move Outpatient Services from the main campus and relocate those to various locations. Those services generate a considerable amount of traffic around the campus. The current parking situation does meet the required code of the City. He felt that as various needs for the hospital grow so will the parking needs, and therefore, identified the piece of land to the west of the Riverside Junction complex. Since that identification of that area, the hospital has entered into a long-term land lease agreement with the owner. Approximately at the same time, the hospital became aware of the School District plans for the rebuilding of the Laurel School. At that point both entities identified each other's needs and have developed a plan that benefits both parties. He stated that the hospital's parking lot may be used for future use when the public park in that area is developed. Mr. George Brelig, Robb, Brenner and Brelig, felt that the piece of land for the parking lot is considered to be a benefit to both the district and the hospital. This site entitles the school to have an assemblage of land to provide a better playground layout. It also allowed the hospital to take the parking further away from the residents. He pointed out that 54 percent of the land is dedicated to parking and drives, and 46 percent is dedicated to walks, islands, and landscaping. He felt that one of the areas in which they focused on was that if any development occurs south of that lot the parking area would be appealing. He discussed what type of landscaping would be planted and that the proposed 15 foot high light poles would not detract from surrounding properties. He stated that the landscaping would be more appealing to the surrounding area than to the users of the parking lot. Mr. Brelig stated that one specific comment came from the neighbors and that was to have the hospital, the City and the School District bring only one master plan to them and not various plans from each. He stated that in order to accommodate the neighbors one master plan has been designed to show what the objectives were for that site and the surrounding area. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 34 The secondary function of the parking lot is that it will provide parking for the proposed park in order not to create another black asphalt area in the neighborhood. The traffic study that was done indicated the actual trip generation for this project would be less than what has been formally approved (retail space) for that site. He felt this project is in harmony with Laurel School, a future park, and would complement any adjacent development that may occur on the eastside. Chairman Strom indicated his concern with having a six foot solid privacy fence between the parking lot and the landscaping to provide screening from the ditch and felt that if the landscaping was out -of -sight then it would be out -of -mind. He wanted to know what type of maintenance would occur? Mr. Brelig responded that the ditch is mildly maintained at best, and the proposed landscaping would start about a foot away from the ditch and create a cultured ground cover. He stated that two and three foot high Juniper landscaping would occur on the northside of the fence. The fence was created in order to give the neighbors an all year round screen. The hospital has committed to maintain the parking lot and the surrounding areas. Chairman Strom asked if the length of the fence goes directly all the way to the west property line? Mr. Brelig replied that the fence goes to the west property line and stops as a wood fence, and then proceeds north with a chain link fence, which is provided by the School District. Chairman Strom asked if the grade was flat from the properties to the south across from the site? Mr. Brelig stated that the slope of the grade is from south to north and that a slight slope occurs in the east/west direction. Chairman Strom asked if it would be possible to do something with berming instead of fencing? Mr. Brelig answered that there was somewhat of a natural berm that is about 2 to 3 feet in height, however he was not sure if there would be enough to do a total berm to keep the headlights out of the residential area. He felt the headlights were the biggest concern and that is why they planned for a fence. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that staff also had concerns with accessing the landscaping and if one takes note to the site plan rather than the landscape plan there is a note regarding a 3 foot gate opening to access the area between the fence and the ditch. She also was concerned about the placement of landscaping in there as well as the existing Elm trees and the need for maintenance in that area. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 35 Chairman Strom was concerned that you can not see that area very well and it would be easy to become an area where blowing trash and debris accumulates. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Sanford Kern, 804 East Elizabeth Street, felt that this project should be examined carefully in regards to past Planning and Zoning Board and City Council decisions specifically in the planning that has or has not gone on for this area. He stated that approximately 15 years ago that there was some rezoning proposed in the area and at that point the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council reaffirmed that they wished to keep this end of East Elizabeth Street as intact as possible and maintain the residential nature of the area. The Eastside Neighborhood Plan also places a great emphasis on maintaining the residential character of an area such as this. He felt that the PUD in these cases is considered to be a trade-off and a way of getting a variance to the underlying zoning, in this case being RL. He stated that the Eastside Neighborhood Plan states that viability of the Eastside Neighborhood, that the existing land use mix of these preservation areas be maintained. One trade-off listed in the plan is that the use would facilitate the future street linkage, in this case being Pennock Place, so that finally the Eastside Neighborhood will be able to access Albertson and the Riverside Junction. He felt that now the potential could be there to realize that a neighborhood park is essential. He felt that if this project were to be passed that there would be future pressures placed on this area. He felt that this project prevents access from the south properties to the commercial area by going straight through Elizabeth Street, which the neighborhood vigorously opposes that type of access. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there is enough available land to do berming instead of the fence? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there is some space in the area and that two considerations have come into play. One being to maintain the existing Elm trees. There are approximately six Elm trees which occupy the space directly north of the Emigh Ditch. The second consideration is whether there is enough space to construct a berm with acceptable side slopes high enough to screen headlights. The height of the berm would need to be around 42 to 48 inches to be able to screen the lights. She felt the berm would be desirable but the question is can that berm be high enough to hold some ground cover in order to screen the headlights of the cars parked in that area. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 36 Chairman Strom stated that the area could possibly support a small retaining wall on the parking lot side and dropped the parking down that it could support a berm. Member Carroll felt that the fence is for the benefit for 2 to 4 neighbors along that area, and would encourage the hospital to talk with those neighbors in regard to the screening of the lights. He felt he would support a decision to recommend the construction of a berm, so as not to create a six foot fence. Member Carroll moved to approve Riverside Junction PUD, Preliminary and Final with the comment that the project is an excellent idea and that the Eastside Park now has the potential of being constructed. He felt that the site would not only work well for the Hospital, but Laurel School and the proposed park. He opposed any development on East Elizabeth Street that would be other than residential. Member Clements -Cooney second the motion. She strongly suggested that the Hospital work with the residents and that six foot fences should not be the answer for screening headlights etc. and would like to see some other form of buffering done to that area. The motion to approve passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.