HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK REZONING AND MASTER PLAN COUNTY REFERRAL 12.18.89 P AND Z BOARD - 56 89 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 1989
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Chairman Sanford Kern, Lloyd Walker, Rex
Burns, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Board Member
Jim Klataske arrived at 6:38. Member Jan Shepard was absent. Staff members
included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Rick Richter,
Paul Eckman, and Gail Ault.
Board Members who attended the December 15. 1989 workscssion included
Chairman Kern, Members Burns, O'Dell, Strom, Carroll, Klataske. Members
Shepard and Walker were absent.
Planning Director Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The
Consent Agenda consisted of: Item 1, Minutes of the November 20, 1989
Planning and Zoning Board meeting; Item 2, *51-89 ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BATTERY & RECYCLING PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3, *52-89
CALIFORNIA PLAZA PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 4, #57-86I
SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, 5th Filing - Final; Item 5 *47-89B THE
ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION - Preliminary; Item 6,
#55-89,A FRONTAGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION AND
ZONING; Item 7, #29-89,A COLORADO NATURE CENTER FOURTH
ANNEXATION AND ZONING.
Mr. Peterson added Item 1, the Minutes, had been continued to the January 22,
1990 meeting. Item 4, Sunstone Village had an added condition that the
Development Agreement be signed. The staff pulled Item 3, California Plaza,
for discussion and Board Member Strom pulled Item 2, Rocky Mountain
Battery, for discussion. Chairman Kern noted he would not be voting on Item
7, Nature Center Annexation, due to a perceived conflict of interest.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Items 4,5, and 6. Member Strom seconded.
Motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Strom moved to approve Item 7,
Member Burns seconded and motion carried 6-0.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN BATTERY AND RECYCLING - #51-89
Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval.
Member Strom indicated his concern centered on the best method to accomplish
this proposal. He felt perhaps a rezoning was better than granting a variance.
He believed to qualify for a variance the applicant must 1) prove hardship duc
to the current situation, and 2) show no adverse public effect will result.
Member O'Dell questioned the difference in the process for the two methods,
wondering why the PUD was pursued, and indicated a hardship was suffered
because the applicant could not meet all point chart requirements.
Mr. Shepard replied that recycling would be a use by right in the IG Zone.
The PUD process was pursued because it offered site plan review, and the
applicant felt the use was appropriate for the location as well as time
considerations.
0
Member Kern also shared Member Strom's views and felt rezoning more
desirable.
Member Burns moved to approve this project Including the granting of the
variance. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve this Item
passed 7-0.
CALIFORNIA PLAZA PUD - Preliminary & Final - 052-89
Ted Shepard gave a description of the property and indicated the final
drainage plans were approved with the condition all stormwater documents be
reviewed by Stormwater Utilities in their final form.
David Herrera, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, the
applicant, explained the casement problems and the need to approve this project
prior to the end of the year.
Mr. Shepard gave the staff report and added the project was subject to the
following condition: All storm drainage plans shall be completed by the
applicant, and reviewed and approved by the City's Stormwater Utility prior to
the City of Fort Collins executing and recording the PUD documents.
Mr. H. N. Brandenhoff, 1709 Remington, owner of the property to the north of
the driveway, asked for clarification on the s-shaped access and whether he
could have access to his backyard from the proposed parking area.
Mr. Herrera indicated two properties to the south had been donated four
months ago by Stormwater Utilities. The non -approved easements were
terminated and the flag lot casement on the north created. Regarding the use
of the property to access Mr. Brandenhoff's land, Mr. Herrara replied it would
be up to the new owner but the Authority could put forth the recommendation
that an access be granted.
Mr. Shepard indicated the PUD could possibly be amended administratively, or
the suggestion could go through the Planning and Zoning Board.
Member Klataske understood the need to expedite this project. Member Walker
approved of project with staff condition.
Member Klataske moved to approved the project with the condition that staff
stated. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve with
condition was approved 7-0.
POUDRE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK - Master Plan and Rezoning - 56-89
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a staff description of the proposal.
John Donnelly, civil engineer with CDS Corporation represented the applicant,
Poudre Valley REA. He stated this was not a currently recommended use but
Poudre Valley REA picked the location because of the amenities. Ptarmigen
Subdivision to the north has reviewed the plan. The out lots to the south
could be sold to other similar users; i.e., electronic assembly. Poudre Valley
REA proposed covenants for use, architecture, industrial processes, etc.
Ron Carey, General Manager, Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, showed
a map of the service territory and indicated the excellent access provided by
the site. Adjoining property owners all support the project although it doesn't
meet current County land use designation.
Ms. Albertson -Clark indicated the rezoning from farming to the industrial zone
was inconsistent with the County plan and staff is recommending denial. The
applicant had done a good job addressing architecture and internal land
concepts but covenants are difficult to enforce by local government.
Member Walker noted there appeared to be no hardship necessitating this move.
Member Burns stated due to a perceived conflict he would refrain from voting
on this item. Chairman Kern explained his vote against the proposal stating
that while REA was a marvelous neighbor this zoning change would be
permanent and remain even if REA left. Member Carroll felt the South
College facility was excellent but was troubled by the industrial use on the out
lots and the fact there was no specific plan for the entire area.
The motion to recommend denial to the County Commissioners was made by
Member Carroll. Member O'Dell seconded. The motion carried 6-0.
SHAMROCK MANOR PUD - Preliminary - 53-89
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a staff description of the proposal & property.
Ric Hattman, architect for project, stated two distinctly different housing
types, related to one another, would be provided. Phase one would be assisted
living for 17 residents in one building of the scale of a single family home.
Phase two would be 26 units of independent living. It was an in -fill project
and the transportation impact with this project was less than with previously
approved projects.
Mcmbcr Walker questioned what guarantee there was that seniors only would be
reside here. Mr. Hattman noted this fact was indicated on the PUD.
Ms. Albertson -Clark noted it could be easily controlled in the board and care
facility. Shc added the Board could put a specific condition on the individual
dwelling units.
Mr. Eckman, asked the Board to consider the age group they wished to target.
John Vettcrling, 2701 Stover, Unit 5, stated the Scotch Highlands Board was
against the project. The October 25 neighborhood meeting showed a proposed
fence dividing the driveway between the existing project and this proposal.
Also the rules and regulations of the Board indicated no construction could
occur without Board approval and no business activities were allowed on the
property. He noted the residents had sent a letter of concerns. Additional
concerns of his were the density as well as the devaluation of his property.
Mary Jean Mahan, 2701 Stover, Unit 10, was concerned that plans for the
property have changed and with the devaluation that would occur.
11