Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOTTS PUD PRELIMINARY - 6 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• 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 presented 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, loth 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 11 - 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. n J P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 6 Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve the Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD; Preliminary and Final, with the variance requirement achieving the minimum score of 50 percent on the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked that an additional condition be attached regarding the development agreement. Member Clements -Cooney added to her motion to execute the development agreement as stated in the memorandum given to the Board. Member 0-?Dell accepted and seconded the addition. -The motion to approve carried 7-0. POTTS PUID. PR1EL M NARY. Case #6-92 Mr. Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. Member O'Dell inquired if any signage was going to be placed on West Elizabeth Street indicating where the apartments are located. Mr. Olt stated that there was no intention of placing an identification sign for that development. Mr. John Freeman, Architectural One, pointed out that the property in the area was unique in only having 2.3 acres to work with and hemmed in by existing developments. One situation he felt needed work on was the access into the project. One concept reviewed was using an alternative route through the Matador Apartments, but those negotiations failed. A request by the owner of the property was made that these particular apartments suit a higher renters market. The design consists of 2 bedroom units with more floor area, fireplaces, vaulted ceilings, and garages. The owner planned to rent to young married couples, married students, or young fadulty. There are 22 units proposed for the site which obligates the developer to provide 1-3/4 parking spaces per unit. Total number of required parking spaces for the development comes to 38-1/2 spaces. The developer has provided 39 parking spaces for the site, 10 of which are in garages with 24 foot free space in front of the garage to add one more parking space. A shared parking agreement has been established with C.B. and Potts Restaurant. The agreement adds 5 additional parking spaces in their lot which may constitute an overflow for the development. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 7 PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Nancy Deal, 1112 Lynnwood, expressed concern about the height of the structures. Ms. Deal spoke with Mr. Olt previously and was informed that the structures are to be two -stories in height with slanted roofs. Ms. Deal felt that the structures would look odd compared to the Matador Apartments which have flat roof tops. Ms. Deal wanted to know how much higher the base of the buildings would be compared to the Matador? Would this project be rentals or condominiums? What type of landscaping would occur around that area? Mr. Vic Meline, 1212 Southridge Drive, has been living in the area since 1967 and has seen a lot of pressure brought to the residential development for rentals to the student body that attend CSU. According to the developer, those apartments are going to be occupied by married couples, however, in the past he has seen 3 to 4 college students occupy one apartment which creates some problems. Mr. Meline objects to the project due to traffic problems and two-story multi -family housing backing up to an existing residential neighborhood. He felt that 2.5 parking spaces would not suffice the parking needs of the project. It was also anticipated that the structures would bring more noise to the area. Mr. Meline noted that several residents attended the neighborhood compatibility meeting; and at that time 26 units were being proposed, since then the number has reduced to 22 units in order to allow for fire vehicle access. He inquired about the access which goes to the ditch and would like to know what the plan for the bike access was, other than running up and down the ditch. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Olt to address the question of how high the structures are in relation to the surrounding structures and also what is planned for the bike access. Mr. Olt stated that the City had indicated there was future consideration for the integrated bike/pedestrian trail system throughout the City. The applicant identified an access point at the southend of the property off the cul-de-sac. This is a 20 foot wide trail easement access to the ditch company right-of-way. The details for the bike/pedestrian trail system would be worked out at a later date. Mr. Freeman stated that they are proposing a standard two-story arrangement with a pitched roof, not unlike many apartments in this town. He proposed that the pitch of the roof could be lowered in order to gain a little advantage in height. He felt that the structures may be shorter than some of the surrounding residential homes. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page S Member Carroll questioned the grade from which the homes would come up in regards to the fill dirt on the property. Mr. Freeman agreed that there was fill dirt left over from previous developments which would be removed or spread around the area. He anticipated that the foundations would be about a foot above what we see as a natural grade on the land right now. Chairman Strom asked if natural grade meant street grade? Mr. Freeman replied that was correct and that there was an existing historic bank of the ditch which they anticipate the foundations not being much above the bank height. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the units are going to be owner occupied or rentals? Mr. Freeman contended that the units are owned by the same entity that owns C.B. and Potts and they would be rentals. Member Walker understood the canal right-of-way being 60 feet, does that basically mean the development's property line is 60 feet from the single family houses? Mr. Freeman replied that 60 feet was correct. Member Walker wanted to know how far back from that property line would the structures to the west be from the proposed project? Mr. Freeman stated that the 1 to 50' scale site plan shows the adjacent property owners homes to scale. That site plan was taken from an aerial photo. Member Walker asked if the developer was proposing significant landscaping along that canal in order to provide a buffer? Mr. Freeman answered that the landscaping was grouped in areas of sensitivity to sound. There are a few existing trees that will also help as a buffer. The shrubbery has been clustered in order to avoid headlights shining into adjacent neighborhoods and block some of the long vistas out of the development. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Olt to address the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Olt stated that, by code, the maximum length in a cul-de-sac is a single point of access that can be no more than 660 feet. That 660 feet falls just at the end of the cul-de-sac, in the same manner a fire truck would be able to park out in the drive lane which has to remain unobstructed. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 9 Chairman Strom asked Mr. Meline to come forward and clear up some inaccurate information regarding the trees around the ditch area. Mr. Meline stated that the trees along the ditch belong to the ditch company who can cut down or poison them in order not to interfere with the water way. The trees shown on the plan will be removed eventually, so they will no longer play a part in the landscape feature of the development. Mr. Meline was assured by the developer that the drainage would not go into the ditch, but would go to the north and into a drainage area that was set-up by the Matador. However, the low spot in the development is at the south end of the property and in order to drain that area the developer would need to build up the south end. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she was concerned about the traffic issues. She stated the developer expects the residents of these units to be family oriented; however, she envisions the units to consist of 3 or 4 students with the potential of one vehicle per tenant. She was also concerned that the cumulative traffic impacts at the site would create adverse conditions to the surrounding neighborhoods. She also noticed the density chart supports 22 units for the site, but would like that density to be reduced. Member Walker stated that the LDGS allows for the proximity of two different uses with multi- family next to single family, however, the height of the buildings certainly would not be offset by the canal which provides a buffer strip. It occurred to him that the existing trees in the ditch right-of-way would eventually be removed, therefore not providing for landscape buffering. Member Walker would like to see more attention given to the landscaping due to the future loss of the existing trees. Chairman Strom commented that the project was just in its preliminary stage and that there was an option to recommend changes if need be. Member Carroll felt that multi -family housing units are the logical development for that area. He thought that it would be impossible to envision single family houses or commercial property in that location. Member Carroll was concerned with the traffic issues and that the road leading into the development was private and not being maintained by the City. Could it possibly cause some maintenance problems? He felt that the parking situation was also a concern and with that location and the demand for multi -family housing, one would be looking at 3 or 4 students each with a car. The mitigation for the single family dwellings was also his concern. The ditch provides some mitigation, but the ditch companies control that right-of-way. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 10 Member O'Dell referenced letters received from Marilyn Arnold which were in regards to there not being enough parking at Fort Ram Village and therefore would probably not be enough parking for this project. Did the developer use a different formula in determining the number of parking spaces that would be needed for this project as compared to Fort Ram Village? Mr. Olt stated that these units are two -bedroom and as the code states there is a requirement of 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit with two -bedrooms. Fort Ram Village's units vary from 2 to 4 bedrooms. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Olt's opinion on the parking at Fort Ram Village. Mr. Peterson replied that Mr. Shepard has been reviewing the matter of parking at multi -family housing units and he would be the best person to respond to that question. Mr. Shepard stated that Fort Ram Village has a total of 217 units in Phase I, which breaks down into 32 one -bedroom, 62 two -bedrooms, 61 three -bedrooms, and 62 four -bedrooms. Those 62 four -bedrooms were the first four -bedroom units approved in the City. Those four -bedroom units consist of 2 parking spaces per unit. The code requires 2.5 which was adopted after the units were approved. There is a total of 404 parking spaces in Phase I. According to the parking code, with the 2.5 ratio requirement, there should be 433. Mr. Shepard added that he has visited the site several times and noticed that parking was tight, but there was no overflow parking on any of the surrounding side streets. The problem that was occurring at Fort Ram Village consisted with the married student housing, located on the north side of Plum, which these people were parking in Fort Ram Village. Fort Ram Village has implemented a sticker system in order to avoid non -tenant parking. Member O'Dell clarified that the 2.5 parking spaces was added to the code for four -bedrooms, but did the code change for 2-3 bedroom units? Mr. Shepard stated that the code did not change for 2-3 bedroom units. Member O'Dell stated that in order to use an argument such as this, it would not necessarily be justified, but because Fort Ram Village is perceived to be overcrowded there would not be enough parking at this project. Member O'Dell stated that the developer could not tell people that they can't rent the unit, but she felt that the number of renters could be limited. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Freeman agreed that one can not discriminate based on family type, age, or number of children, however, he wished that the Board would not impose a number on how many people could occupy a two -bedroom unit. Member Cottier questioned if pedestrian circulation has been addressed? If the 39 parking spaces were to be filled, would there be a sidewalk from the development to C.B. and Potts parking lot? Mr. Freeman responded to that question in stating that a sidewalk system has been integrated to run the length of the subdivision. Member O'Dell asked if the Matador Apartments were 2-story? Mr. Freeman replied the units at Matador are 2-story, but much denser then the proposed project. The particular parcel of land being used for this project was originally going to be used for Matador Apartments 4th filing. If that filing were built it would have held 30-34 Matador Apartments. Member O'Dell moved to approve Potts PUD, Preliminary with the condition that the developer include additional landscaping to take the place of the trees which were removed along the ditch. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker felt that his main concern was the landscaping around the project. He stated that if the developer addressed that concern the problem of mitigation between single family residences and multi -family would be resolved. Member Carroll stated that he was persuaded by the discussion and will vote in favor of the motion, provided that the Board would be able to see a revised landscape plan at final. He still felt some concern about the parking, but any traffic or parking problems would impact the site itself and not the surrounding neighborhood. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not support the motion because she did not feel the proposal met the needs of the neighborhood compatibility criteria which states; " is the project designed so that the additional traffic generated does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development." She felt in dealing with neighborhood compatibility, one needs to take into consideration where the site is in relation to the City of Fort Collins and if the site was somewhere else besides around CSU there may not be a traffic concern, but where the site sets it does not meet that criteria. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 12 Member Cottier stated that she would support the motion and felt the project is the best use for that area; it is unfortunately a little tight but workable. She hoped the ownership would strictly enforce.no parking on the side streets. Chairman Strom shared the concerns about the traffic, however, he does not see that it would be a problem for the surrounding neighborhoods. He recalled raising concerns at the time Taco Bell and Diamond Shamrock were constructed that the site was awkward, but there wasn't really anything that could be done about that piece of land. He felt this was a better proposal for this site than he expected. He felt that with the additional landscape screening it should mesh reasonably well with the single family homes. The motion for approval passed 6-1. GRANADA HEIGHTS PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, Case #7-92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with a variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance for this project. The ordinance required that 65 percent of single family or duplex lots, less than 15,000 square feet, be oriented to meet the definition of a solar oriented lot. In this particular instance the project does not meet the 65 percent requirement. Staff does support that variance. There also was a condition of approval recommended that the development agreement, final utility plans, and the final site plans must be signed before the May 18th meeting. Member Walker asked for a clarification of the standard 6,000 square foot lot size, and since the standard is in place what is the rationale for going below it? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that 6,000 square feet was the minimum size in many of the City's single family districts, but recently some of the zoning districts were amended in the older parts of town. The reason for the reduction was due to existing homes on lots that did not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum. In some cases, the applicant could come in and develop single family lots at 6,000 square foot minimums without going through the PUD process. If that instance was to occur, one must also adhere to all of the strict requirements of the zoning district which includes setbacks. In going through the PUD process it often provides the flexibility in terms of lot size requirements, and lot setbacks. Chairman Strom stated that in relaxing straight zoning standards through a PUD, a developer usually trades something back for reduced standards. Is that occurring in this case?