Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH FORT COLLINS VETERINARY CENTER PUD PRELIMINARY - 46 91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEET G MiNUTFS December 16, 1"1 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 Repiat 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 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. 9 P & Z MINUTES 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 P & Z MINUTES December 16. 1991 Chairman Strom stated that the noise study which was submitted mentions that as one of the location descriptions that the closest residential unit as being approximately 200' feet to the dog runs and wanted to know what that meant. Mr. Dengler stated that the reason the noise study was taken at that location was to facilitate the major concern which was the people to the west. What they did was a cross section through the site which basically shows the end of the kennels, shows the landscape buffering in the fence on the property line, the existing low wetland drainage within the railroad easement, the elevated railroad tracks, then more distance and an existing concrete lined ditch. When one adds up this buffer distance one ends up with 256' to the face of a building. So the noise level of the dogs barking and facing the direction of the neighborhood took it and compared it to 250' and that was the reason for that distance. Chairman Strom wanted to assume that the 60 decibels is the maximum with a barking dog at 250', and the ordinance as he understood says that the maximum is 55 decibels within the residential zoned property. How does one look at the application of requirement for mitigation. Does first in time give a person first in right and will the multi -family residential, should it ever be developed west of the railroad tracks have to concern themselves with the noise level or does one have to be concerned with specific noise levels meeting the ordinance at this point in time. Mr. Eckman felt it would be difficult to buffer against a speculative use and since the surrounding uses are unsure first in the right seems appropriate. Mr. Dengler added that the fence that was behind the kennels was downhill from the kennels in this situation in Denver was only 3' high and there was no landscaping or 5' elevated railroad track in there. Mr. Dengler stated that all those factors would add to the noise buffering. Chairman Strom stated that the higher fence being the barrier and above the line of sight means that the railroad berm would have little or no effect. What sort of fence is being proposed. Mr. Dengler stated a 6' solid wood fence would be put in place. Mr. Eckman stated that on page 5 of the LDGS says when a use is the first to develop on two adjacent vacant parcels the First use shall provide the necessary buffer to any reasonable future use. Mr. Eckman noticed that the surrounding zoning is all highway business except to the west where is planned multi -family. Chairman Strom stated that the noise would probably not be a problem, but the noise study which was presented raised a question to him about getting the same reading at 100' as you would at 200'. Just by going from a 100' to 250' one should lose better than 6 decibels. 34 P & Z ND NUTFS December 16, 1991 Dr. Rainey Corbyn, stated that if one looks at the study, one of the issues pointed out was the measurement of background neighborhood noises registered from 50 to 57 in the neighborhood surrounding the facility in Denver. Chairman Strom stated that the question is if one gets a reading of 50 decibels before insighting the dogs to bark and then receives a 10 decibel increase from inciting dogs to bark where does that increase come from. He felt that there are questions to him in the noise study that just do not make sense. Mr. Frank stated that this was only a preliminary plan and that further information could be gathered and brought back to the board at the final. Member Klataske also had concerns with the noise level. He questioned the noise level at night when the surrounding residential units were trying to sleep. He felt that study should also take place in relation to time. Mr. Dengler stated that there is a note on the plan that all dogs are to be inside from outdoor kennels by 7 p.m. and then are not allowed back outdoors til 8 a.m. Member Klataske agreed that measure would take care of the noise level then at the later times. He also referred to adding additional water to this drainage area, and what provisions are made to clean the kennels and where does the runoff water go. Mr. Dengler stated that the waste goes directly to the sanitary sewer and the outdoor kennels are totally covered by roof and so there is no introduction with stormwater interfering with sanitary sewer and vice -a -versa. At the end of the runs, both indoor and out there are drains that are sized properly and take the waste directly to sanitary sewer. All the stormwater runoff goes beyond these drains back to drainage on the ground down to the new wetlands. Member Klataske then stated that there would be no opportunity then for accumulation of waste in the wetland areas. Mr. Dengler then agreed and also stated that there is no possibility of additional stormwater run- off in the sanitary sewer. Member Walker agreed that maintaining the dogs inside after a certain hour would be a great idea. His concern is generally in regard to having enough data here to decide whether there is a noise concern or not. 35 P & Z MINUTES December 16. 1991 Mr. Olt felt that it was necessary to better clarify what the concerns are, and what kind of information is necessary to alleviate the concerns that are being expressed about the noise levels. The only area he felt that was in great concern was the area to the west. He felt that the noise level studies fit within all criteria with the other surrounding areas, and that the only area to be truly resolved is the residential neighborhood to the west. Chairman Strom felt that the main area is having a study that is not very definitive in terms of what the noise levels actually are. Member Walker stated that approximately 250' of distance and a wooden fence would be sufficient. Chairman Strom stated that he felt it was best to do a preliminary approval of this project with a condition of that there would be a demonstration that the noise was appropriately mitigated. Member O'Dell stated that she agreed with that condition. Member Walker also aerecd with that condition. Member O'Dell moved to approve the South Fort Collins Veterinary Center PUD, Preliminary, #46-91, with the condition that at final a follow-up study or explanation of the distances and decibel level be provided at final. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 6-0. BLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PUD. PRELUAINARY #42-91 was brought back in front of the board for reconsideration. Mr. Glover stated that it zppcared with perhaps some adjustments or alterations to that project that perhaps might be acceptable to the board as well as the planning staff. Mr. Glover stated that the planning staff supports it and the board was not sure which way to vote and it seemed to him that some items can be altered to satisfy those concerns. He would be open at a future date to discuss those concerns. As the neighborhood proposes a duplex of 2 bedrooms apiece, he felt was economically inviable to go through the PUD process that way. It would almost be better to build a three or four bedroom house with one parking space like the rest of the neighborhood. 36