Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINECONE PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 60 91A - 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 Fxkman, 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 Fling - 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 Fling - 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, lst 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. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 15 Ms. Whetstone stated that the City of Fort Collins has made it a policy to subdivide existing facilities, such as, fire stations, detention ponds, and other City buildings. In this case the Housing Authority occupies the building that belongs to the City of Fort Collins, and if the Housing Authority were to leave, the building would remain intact and the site would then be turned back over to the Parks and Recreation Department to be used for some other use. It is not untypical to have a City facility or structure sitting on a lot. Member Carroll commented that the project basically gives a legal description of the real estate, and that the site needs to be referred to by engineering standards. Hence, this site would just be referred to as a lot. Chairman Strom stated that this property is different than the Potts PUD in the sense that developments were encroached around property and isolated that piece in the back end. This lot fronts on a public street. Member Carroll moved to approve the Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision Plat, Final. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. Chairman Strom recessed the meeting for five minutes and will reconvene the meeting with Item #i20 Pinecone PUD Overall Development Plan. The Pinecone PUD Overall Development Plan addresses property that wraps around the Fort Collins High School site, and that both of these items would be addressed separately due to distinct ownership and authority on the projects. Member Klataske stated that he has submitted a declaration of conflict -of -interest due to owning property in the area and would be abstaining from the discussion. PINECONE PUD, OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Case ##6"1A Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated the staff report representing the project was put together very well. Mr. Ward felt that in planning the project, the unique mix of land uses, the high school site, coordinating with CSU, and various private development interests have come together to produce a very innovative approach to this site. Member Walker asked what the limitations are to the comer commercial property and is there a time limit on those restrictions? P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 16 Mr. Kirk Douglas, Representative to Poudre R-1 School District, explained that there was an article in the covenants that restricts the negative land uses and encourages positive land uses. Negative land uses are those that would detract from the educational purposes of the high school project; such as, arcades, paraphernalia shops, tobacco stores, and any store that would sell alcohol. The positive land uses are things that have educational orientation which would be considered as computer software stores, bookstores, and uses of that nature. The Board of Education has placed an umbrella on those covenants with a first right of refusal if in fact a land use was to be determined in their discretion to be detrimental to the educational purposes of the high school. Member Walker asked what the time limit to the covenants are? Mr. Douglas stated that no time limitation has been placed on the covenants. The covenants are initially for a 25 year period and then they automatically extend for 5 year increments for perpetuity until they are rescinded by then the current owners of the property, both Poudre R-1 and Timberline Partners. Chairman Strom clarified that in order to rescind the covenants both partners must agree. Mr. Douglas agreed with Chairman Strom's clarification. Member Walker asked what the status is of the city park? Mr. Ward stated that the development of the park was moving ahead and scheduled for closing in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Douglas stated that the Board of Education was acting upon an extension agreement which extends the option contract on the park from April 30 to May 15. The City of Fort Collins, Parks and Recreation Department has tendered a contract to purchase the property to the School District and is currently under review. Mr. Peterson stated that the contract is subject to the approval of City Council and that the action has not taken place at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked for an elaboration of the details in the covenants on the enforcement of school policy at the park and the proposed neighborhood commercial site. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Douglas stated the current covenants recorded against the property provide rights of governments on the commercial property, the park, and school property; which allow the School District to enforce any of its policies or codes of student conduct on any of the surrounding properties regardless of ownership. It is currently pending and will be approved by the Board of Education prior to the closing on the park. It basically would allow the School District the privilege to enforce its rules and regulations. Specifically, if there continues to be a violation of the law, it is the Police Department's responsibility for enforcing the law. If it is a matter of school policy or rules that were violated, then the school has the option of enforcing them. Mr. Paul Eckman stated the rights of governments may only be enforced against persons who are enrolled in the school districts education program. The covenants continue for 20 years instead of 25 years, unless they have been changed since we received this copy. Chairman Strom asked if those covenants would also extend? Mr. Eckman stated the covenants renew every year automatically unless terminated by a unanimous vote of the then owners. Chairman Strom asked the applicant to address the bicycle/pedestrian access in the Overall Development Plan area. Mr. Ward stated that the accesses have been planned on the Timberline Partnership property which consists of a combination of on -street bike lanes, a detached bike trail along Timberline, in the drainage areas, and into the pedestrian system, which is a part of the school concept and surrounding neighborhoods. One of the areas the Transportation Department reviewed, was how the existing school population arrived and departed from the current school, what are the means of getting them to the proposed high school, and how does this dovetail into the current master plans, the bikeway and open space master plan? Generally, because of the obstruction of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks there are limits in getting trail connections over to Timberline. There is an underpass at Spring Creek near Edora Park that is in the planning process and at grade crossing at Drake/Horsetooth looking at a possibility of building another underpass that would connect Stover, Swallow, Centennial, and drainage ways under the railroad track and come out at Vermont which is the center of the Pinecone frontage on Timberline. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 18 PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Tom Harding, resident of Sunstone, wanted to congratulate Staff and the Board in taking into account what kids tend to do in stores. Mr. Harding stated that he managed a 7-eleven across the street from Lincoln High School in Denver. He felt that the amount of rip-off that would occur in the store was one of the highest in that City and that was only mitigated by the fact that the store had the highest take from the pinball machines than any other store in the area. The only way one could handle that type of situation would be in taking into account the kinds of businesses one places in the area. He felt that was achieved in this project, but that the only thing better would be not to build a commercial area right there and that is not possible. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney wanted to know why the 68 acres high school site was shown for informational purposes only and not part of the Overall Development Plan? Mr. Shepard felt the best reason was at the request of the Applicant, that 68 acres under separate ownership to Poudre R-1 would not become a signature party to the Overall Development Plan Document. For the past several months both parties were involved in planning in order to achieve good comprehensive planning on this piece of ground. Member Cottier felt it was a little awkward to consider an Overall Development Plan with a big hole in the middle of the project, but needed to know what the different phasing of parcels in the Overall Development Plan were going to be? Mr. Ward explained that phasing would be coming from two different directions. There is a preliminary plan for the apartment/convenience center site that is in process right now and scheduled for the May meeting. A first phase single family project, that is parcel G and extends part way into parcel H, is being put together for preliminary submittal for the June meeting. The high school is on a 1995 opening schedule and the best estimate at this time for the development of the commercial corner is within 3-5 years from now. Chairman Strom wanted a clarification on whether the uses of the covenants apply to the small commercial piece located north the project? Mr. Ward stated that the covenants currently in place do not cover that piece. The proposal to extend to the entire 238 acres would give the school district the authority but not the complete obligation. Member O'Dell asked that with the number of potential housing units in that area, has the school district looked into putting a elementary school in that area? P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Ward stated that the school district is always thinking of new school sites, but there was no specific discussion related to an elementary school site in that area. Mr. Keith Dixon stated that there was not an elementary school planned for that site. Linton Elementary is directly south of this location and would be used for residents of the area. Member O'Dell stated that 500 plus housing units were planned for this area and it seemed to her that Linton was fairly full and how does one accommodate this many more homes and students? Mr. Dixon explained that a new elementary school site was being reviewed to take place sometime after 1995, but it will be farther south and east. Member O'Dell wanted to know if any other signals or other restrictions on turning movements along Timberline or Horsetooth Road were planned other than the one on Vermont? Mr. Ward replied that the restrictions were not so much the result of single family, but that most of the restrictions were due to the proposed future of Timberline as a major arterial. An access point sets directly opposite Danfield which is not proposed to be signalized. This access would allow for left turns in and as Timberline is increased to a major arterial, that access would probably no longer be practical. Access into the northerly part of the commercial site would have a left -in, right -in, and right -out with raised medians. The access from Horsetooth into the commercial area would be strictly right-in/right-out. Full movement would occur into the main high school parking lot and onto the main street serving the residential area. In the future, Mr. Ward anticipates one other full movement access point into the northerly part of the site; however, the exact location of it has not received as much attention as the other access points. Mr. Ward stated he did not know of any other signals proposed for that area. Member O'Dell felt that those types of things should be phased in with the development of the high school and residential areas. Member Walker asked if the convenience center in parcel D was going to be a standard 50,000 square foot center? Mr. Ward explained that a convenience store and a small amount of retail lease space is proposed for that site. The total non-residential square footage would be about 6,000 square feet. Member Walker asked that if the covenants that apply to parcel A, did not apply to the retail space and parcel D? P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 20 Mr. Ward stated that was correct. Member Walker did not understand why they do not apply, because eventually that would be the place where the arcades and liquor stores would go. Mr. Ward replied they had reviewed the area and asked themselves how far does one go in restricting or penalizing common ownership. There are convenience uses approved on the property to the south and numerous other opportunities for convenience type usage along Timberline Road. Chairman Strom stated that the traffic report indicated that there would be some E and F levels of service at certain intersections and was anything being done to mitigate those levels of service? Mr. Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Department, asked if there was a specific location he had in mind? Chairman Strom stated that Intersection #1 was the particular one he had in mind. Mr. Ensdorff stated that most left turns in Fort Collins off of arterial streets are going to experience high levels of delay. Right turns would operate reasonably well with an acceptable level of traffic. The Transportation Department is trying to limit the number of left turns or have fewer non -controlled intersections on arterial streets. It is expected that left turns off of an arterial street would occur, but that the department was trying to limit the opportunities in those situations. Chairman Strom asked if the traffic input studies are an accumulative analysis of what the Transportation Department expects to happen from the development? Mr. Ensdorff stated that was an accurate assumption and that the department provides a traffic consultant with background data in both existing and future projections in order to determine the short and long-term outcome of traffic in that area. Chairman Strom replied that essentially the levels of service for the peak hours are acceptable to the Staff? Mr. Ensdorff stated that they are acceptable. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 21 Member Walker moved to approve Pinecone PUD, Overall Development Plan. He felt that there were several innovative ideas with respect to this project and was very pleased with the cooperation between the Developers and the School District; which presents unique opportunities to provide this type of project that would meet a variety of needs in a creative way. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented on the Overall Development Plan fitting the mixed nature of the area. He felt that people like to cluster as close as possible to an elementary school verses a high school and by locating the high school in this particular area toward the southwest corner of this development it allows for the buffering of the athletic fields and the city park to the east. He felt that the roads were innovatively designed, so as not to have straight collector streets. He also encourage the Board and the Administration to extending the covenants to the surrounding areas. Chairman Strom replied that he was looking forward to seeing the development of the pedestrian/bikeway system in that area and was encouraged to see that planning of that nature was occurring at this early stage. The motion to approve carried 6-0. PINECONE PUD, FORT COLLINS HIGH SCHOOL, Advisory Review. Case #60-91B Chairman Strom asked that a brief summary be presented to the Board in regard to what type of authority they might have on this issue. Mr. Eckman stated the authority of the Board was limited to state statutes regarding this type of issue. The reason this project was not listed in the Overall Development Plan was because the School District wanted to make clear that there was not any implication this project would come through as a Planned Unit Development or subject to the City's zoning ordinances. The Planning and Zoning Board's authority is based on statute 22-32-124, which requires the Board of Education to submit a site development plan for review and comment to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to construction of any structure or building. The Planning and Zoning Board may also request a public hearing before the Board of Education relating to the proposed site development plan, but nothing in the statute shall be construed to limit the authority of the Board of Education to finally determine the location of public schools within the district and erect any necessary buildings and structures. Basically, the statute authorizes you to review the site development plan and make comments on it. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval.