HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PUD PRELIMINARY 12.16.91 P AND Z BORAD HEARING - 42-91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING AE NUTFS
December 16, 1991
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, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie
O'Dell, Renee Clements -Cooney, and Jan Cottier. Board member Jan Cottier left at 12:00 a.m.
Staff members present include Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark,
Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman,
Kerrie Ashbeck, Kayla Ballard, and Patti Schneeberger.
Mr. Frank presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 - Approval of Minutes from
the September 23, October 21, & November 18, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - Four Seasons, 7th
Filing, Final, #112-790; Item 3 - The Courtyards at Southridge Greens (Formerly Third
Replat of Mail Creek Village), Preliminary and Final, #9-82AE; Item 4 - Fort Collins Retail
Center, Applebee's, Final, #50-85F; Item 5 - The English Ranch Subdivision, Preliminary,
#75-86E; Item 6 - Fort Ram Village PUD, 2nd Filing Easement Vacation, #PZ91-71; Item
7 - Amendment to Chapter 29 of the City Code, and Item 8 - which was pulled for
is discussion, Amendment to Chapter 29 of the City Code, #54-91.
Mr. Frank presented the Discussion Agenda which included: Item 9 - Taco Bell Restaurant
PUD, Preliminary, #50-90A; Item 10 - Paragon Point PUD (Formerly Fossil Ridge), Overall
Development Plan, #48-91; Item 11 - which was combined with Item 10 but voted on
separately, Paragon Point PUD (Formerly Fossil Ridge), Preliminary, #48-91A; Item 12 -
Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary, #42-91; and Item 13 - South Fort Collins
Veterinary Center PUD, Preliminary, #46-91.
Chairman Strom asked if there were any Consent items that the Board or members of the
audience wished to pull for discussion. There were no items pulled for discussion.
Chairman Strom asked Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman if anything more in depth was needed
besides the staff report to deal with the variance requirement in the English Ranch Subdivision.
Mr. Eckman felt that the variance included in the English Ranch recommendation was implicit
that the variance go with the approval.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 through 7. Member Cottier
seconded the motion.
The motion to approve carried 7-0.
•
1
P & Z M)NUTES
December 16, 1991
Member Walker moved to approve the Paragon Point PUD, Preliminary, #48-91A with the
two staff recommended conditions.
Member Cottier would like to offer a third condition regarding construction traffic. In addition,
Southridge Greens Boulevard be barricaded at the very northern most portion of this project until
the first home is to be occupied.
Member Walker agreed to add that third condition to his motion.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Member Cottier stated that she was aware of the neighborhood opposition to this project and she
approached this from the prospective of looking at the overall development criteria and tried to
see what she could use to justify a negative vote. She felt though that the project did adequately
address all the criteria with respect to public services and safety. The project was also very
sensitive to all the resource concerns and site design issues.
Member Klataske stated that in his neighborhood a similar issue rose on an access concern. At
the time of that hearing the neighbors also stated that they did not need the other access. Those
same people who were opposed to making that area a through street now use that on a daily
basis now. This area he felt does need a second fire access point for safety.
Mr. Olt brought up that as part of the motion the variance for the lower density requirement
needs to be stated as part of the motion.
Member Walker agreed to that suggestion.
Member Clements -Cooney agreed also to that suggestion.
The motion to approve carried 7-0.
Chairman Strom pointed out to the people in the audience who were opposed to the passing of
this project that they have the opportunity to appeal this to the City Council.
BLEVENS SUBDIVISIGN LOT 9 PUD - PRELIM NARY. #42-91
Ms. Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval
with the condition that the final drainage report and the drainage and grading plans, including
an erosion control plan, be approved by the Stormwater Utility prior to final approval.
27
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Mr. Kint Glover, applicant for Lot 9 PUD, stated that he would like to review what materials
he has for the presentation thoroughly. The architect on the project is Dave Knox. The utility
engineer is Don Parsons and Associates, which are represented by Jeff Couch. The first thing
to be reviewed is the footprint by Dave Knox and follow with a review of the map of the
location.
Mr. Dave Knox, architect for the project, reviewed a few of the key elements of the site plan.
One of the things they tried to complete is maintain a set back for the building and the parking
lot, so the sense of the front yard on the rest of the street is maintained. The building itself is
oriented for solar access on the main entry side. He felt that they have also tried to maintain
an area for recreational use.
From an architectural stand point in relating to the neighborhood, he found that most of the
houses on Blevins Court are rather simple houses with low sloped roofs. They have tried to
maintain simple masses and would propose to use materials similar to what the existing houses
are.
One of the main objections that had been brought up through the course of this project is parking
and traffic. This project has provided nine onsite parking spaces where the LDGS required a
total of six. They also felt that the primary tenant group that this structure would target is
students. He felt that this structure is within walking distance to the college, therefore not
creating any significant traffic impact during peak hours.
The developer would provide a fire hydrant on the cul-de-sac. The builder also would provide
privacy fencing and combined with landscape buffering would create a screen to the adjacent
properties. The building itscl f in terms of the percentage of coverage to the property is very
similar to what the single family houses are in this area.
Member Walker asked what the coverage of the building is on the lot.
Mr. Knox stated that the building coverage is 1956 sq. ft. and is 16 1/2 percent.
Member Walker then as'Kcd if there would be two stories on this structure.
Mr. Knox agreed.
Member Walker clarified that there would be a basement developed and a first floor.
Mr. Glover stated that by City Code it is considered to be one story.
28
P & Z NU NNUTES
December 16, 1991
Mr. Glover pointed out a few surrounding buildings in order to orientate the board of the
proximity to the campus. In terms of distance from Lot 9 Blevins Court to the Library or the
Business Building of the campus, the lot is closer than Corbett Hall or the Towers. Mr. Glover
stated that an engineer stated to him that the area in which Lot 9 is could be considered as off
campus housing.
Mr. Glover stated that he did not feel that this area should be zoned single family residential,
due to the fact of the proximity to CSU and the Holiday Inn which is less than a 1/4 of a mile
away.
Mr. Glover gave a brief slide presentation in order to refresh people's memories of the area in
which Blevins Court is located. He started by showing a house located across the street from
Blevins Court and then went on by showing property along Whitcomb. Most of the houses in
the area show vehicles parking in front yards, etc. which leaves for an unattractive sight. With
the Blevins Court project there would be more than adequate parking for that structure. Mr.
Glover noted that the sorority and fraternity houses in the area are actually well kept along with
the married housing units.
Mr. Glover stated that most of the area is investment property which are considered rentals.
There are 22 lots in the subdivision and 3 are actually owner occupied, 2 are business/owner
occupied, 2 are quasi -rentals, and the balance which is around 15 are non -owner occupied
property. At the neighborhood meeting there was a suggestion that this neighborhood could
develop a trend in returning to an owner occupied neighborhood. Mr. Glover researched this
statement and pointed out that one of the lots since 1983 has changed ownership 3 times from
one investor to another investor.
The use of Lot 9 Blevins Court, Mr. Glover believed, had already been determined. The
location, economic values of the houses, traffic, and the location of various other buildings in
the area has contributed to the factor of the neighborhood having low probability of every going
back to being single family residential. Mr. Glover felt that for the price of what these houses
are sold for, that a family would choose to purchase something newer in the southeast or
southwest without those negatives.
Mr. Glover felt that what they have proposed with Lot 9 Blevins Court PUD is a plan that
addresses the parking problem, the trash problem, and the landscaping problem. By the project
being a PUD it has requirements for landscaping which the City can enforce, which is not the
case with any of the existing properties.
Mr. Glover felt that one of the benefits to this project is that the people who occupy this triplex
will either attend or work at CSU which is in walking distance.
29
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Chairman Strom asked for public input.
Ms. Emily Smith, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that
the primary importance to their association was the preservation of a sense of neighborhood
entity, neighborhood compatibility, and maintenance of acceptable quality of life. Ms. Smith
stated that this neighborhood had reached the balance point where further assimilation of high
density developments and their accompanying intensity of human activity can contribute directly
to individual neighborhood deterioration.
Ms. Smith stated that the association gives careful and critical evaluation to each high density
infill proposal. The association seeks a high quality development on Lot 9, which is compatible
with and has the least impact upon the existing fragile neighborhood.
The concerns and recommendations of the association were first viewed regarding the proposal
of Lot 9 in early June of 1991 and still remain the same today. The association recommend that
the appropriate building for this site is a duplex, which consists of 2 bedrooms per unit and six
parking spaces.
The proposed density is too high for this fragile area. She felt the density to be incompatible
with the existing single family residences. If residential infill residences such as this project are
viewed in isolation, then these neighborhoods would face ultimate deterioration.
Parking and traffic are main concerns for any development on streets adjacent to CSU. Not only
are there not enough parking spaces for current residences, but the area is already over burdened
by off campus housing. Any development on Lot 9 must provide one parking space for each
unit, plus one parking space for each bedroom. The parking guidelines used by the planning
staff are usual for sites that are remote from the CSU campus, but do not apply to lots
immediately adjacent to CSU.
In May a traffic signal will be installed at the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection. There is also
a daycare planned for the northeast corner of the Lake StreeUWhitcomb intersection. The
University is also currently in the initial stages of implementing the circulation system and access
plan which will eliminate approximately 1300 parking spaces from the campus. Without doubt
those few changes will bring increased traffic and parking to this area.
Noise and light must also be buffered on this sight. Any project built on this sight must buffer
the perimeter with a 6' solid privacy fencing and 4' evergreen trees on 5' spacing. Inside and
outside lighting must be sensitive to neighbors. The attention must also be given to windows
on the northwest and east sides of the buildings. Outside lighting must be adequate for the
safety of the residents but not overly lighted.
Approval of the applicant's proposal establishes a precedence for other properties to be approved
for basement apartments that would further increase the bedroom density. She felt that this was
a legitimate concern since several residents in this neighborhood already have basements that
could be set up as apartments. In the past the Zoning Department did not allow these properties
to offer their basements as apartment rentals.
Ms. Smith stated that the association supports a duplex with 2 bedrooms per unit with a
condition of providing a parking lot with six parking spaces, and landscaping/lighting for that
development.
Ms. Dee Colter, who lives in the area feels that a balance should be kept in the neighborhood,
and not let this area turn into a neighborhood of just mass students.
Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time.
Member Walker commented that one of the issues on this project is that the area is single family
residences. He was concerned with the issue of overloading a site. He felt that this site was
being maxed out. He agreed that this area of town is critical to the proximity of CSU and that
the applicant had painted a picture of this area being run down. Member Walker suggested to
build something more appropriate for the area, instead of inserting this type of project which
could be detrimental to the area.
Member Cottier commented on the density issue of this project. She felt that in computing the
point chart it appears th,. -.is project has gotten credit and achieved sufficient points to qualify
for 11 units an acre by virtue of the fact that it is close to a school and day care center. It
appeared to her that the intent of the point system that people living in this project could use
those types of services, which in this case does not apply. She also felt that the density is
appropriate because of the surrounding densities with the married housing, Holiday Inn, and
other surrounding buildings. It is a student area and she felt that a single family home would
not appeal to very many people.
Member Walker stated that the whole area needs to be redeveloped or redefined. There are
single family houses located in this area but if they have 3 or 4 bedrooms then they have 3
people living in them. Member Walker also stated that he would like to see a project built there
with more options for different types of people to live there. As suggested by one of the
speakers in regard to it being a duplex, he felt that was a great idea.
Chairman Strom wanted to know how a duplex would provide options that a triplex does not.
31
P & Z MINUTES
December 16, 1991
Member Walker felt that a duplex would not overload the site. It would create less intensity of
use on the site, and more amenities that might appeal more to someone who works At CSU and
out of the student age population. `,
Member Walker moved to deny the Blevins Subdivision Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary, #42-91.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell felt that because this was a neighborhood in some kind of transition she felt that
people needed to look forward and try to figure out what project will make sense in the future
for this site. In reviewing this project and what immediately surrounds it, the building itself
does not seem too big, but the surfaced area is so much more than the adjacent properties that
it is incompatible.
Member O'Dell sited all development criteria number 26 and 33 in the LDGS. The building
does not fit in aesthetically with the adjacent properties. Number 36 refers to parking and she
felt that there is too much parking for that site.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that if this project was a development in itself it would be a
great development. However, sticking a development of this sort into the single family
residential neighborhood does not fit in with the overall site consideration.._
m.-
A_.
Member Carroll stated that he would support the motion, but reluctantly. He felt that this is a
lot that has set empty for 35 years and part of the things that are important to the City is infill.
This project will most likely be used by students and that there is a very good chance that those
students will walk to campus and create less traffic and parking problems. Member Carroll felt
that any building placed on this site will most likely be used by someone who was connected
with the University. However, he also felt that this project seemed to be a bit of a push. The
single family residences that are located there are basically rentals, but felt that this project is
putting in a seven bedroom units verses a three bedroom unit which triples the use in that
particular area.
Member Cottier stated that her earlier comments were presented in a positive way, but she felt
she had been swayed by her fellow board members. However, she feels that the proposed
density is appropriate for the area in general. On the specific site, there is too much asphalt for
that area.
Member O'Dell stated that she felt it is real feasible to do a duplex and that she did not want
to encourage the decrease of parking spaces, but at the same time when one looks at the
percentages of coverage the parking is very high.
32
1;
P & Z N INUTFS
December 16. 1991
Chairman Strom struggled with some of the concerns, but felt he supported the issue. He is
concerned about the hard surface coverage, but it appears to him that it is a reasonable trade off
given the fact that those cars will be off the street and will be kept out of the front yards.
Chairman Strom noted that in generally speaking, the reason that one see's problems in the area
now is because the structures do not suit the demand for use in the area. He is not sure that this
is the best development for this site but it appears to be a reasonable development.
The motion to deny carried 5-2.
NOTE: Member Cottier left the session after the vote was taken at midnight.
SOUTH FORT COLLINS VETERINARY CENTER PUD. PRELIMINARY #46-91
Mr. Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval with no
conditions.
Member Carroll asked if the major item that brought this project off consent onto discussion was
the noise level.
Mr. Olt stated that initially the use was something that had not been resolved, such as the mixed
use concept, which is part of the point charts. That was not determined and the noise level
study had not been provided. That is why staff felt this item could not be placed on consent.
Member Carroll asked if both of those items have been resolved to staff satisfaction.
Mr. Olt stated that yes, both items have been resolved to staff satisfaction.
Mr. John Dengler, John Dengler & Associates, stated that when they first began planning this
project the two main issues that they knew they were always going to have to deal with was the
existing wetlands designation, and the outdoor dog runs. Mr. Dengler stated that they have
worked very closely with staff on both of those issues. In regard to the wetlands, instead of
filling this low site for construction, 53 percent has been preserved as green open space and
have consolidated the wetland into one location on the south end of the property. By doing it
that way the land can remain as a wetland all the time by the additional drainage that would go
to that area, thus enhancing the vegetation and wildlife possibilities.
Mr. Dengler stated that this project was compared to the projected noise level of a similar
project that Dengler and Associates just completed in Denver and that has been open since April.
To date there has been no complaints from the neighbors regarding this facility as far as noise.
33