Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHAMROCK MANOR PUD PRELIMINARY - 53 89 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 PLANNING 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, Rcx 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, Klataskc. 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, 057-86I SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD, 5th Filing - Final; Item 5 #47-89B THE ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS SUBDIVISION - Preliminary; Item 6, 055-89,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 due 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 L • 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. Member Walker questioned what guarantee there was that seniors only would be reside here. Mr. Hartman noted this fact was indicated on the PUD. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted it could be easily controlled in the board and care facility. She 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. 0 John Germann, 2701 Stover, Unit 2, was concerned with parking since there were only eight spaces for the current buildings, the devaluation in property, and what might occur should the board and care facility move out. Chairman Kern noted any anticipated change would require Planning and Zoning Board review. Jeanne Sprague, 2701 Stover, Unit 1, gave a history of her involvement in the property, noting she had reduced the original proposal of 42 units to 40 and upgraded the buildings prior to the decline in the real estate market for condominiums_ She indicated the proposed density was a concern. Ms. AIbertson-Clark indicated the residents of the board and care facility were not counted individually as they did not have individual kitchen units. The parking demand is based on each efficiency and one -bedroom unit requiring 1.5 spaces, yielding 46 spaces for this proposal. Staff felt parking was adequate. Chairma❑ Kern felt the need for parking as well as density would be less with the proposal. Member Walker questioned Board's recourse on the covenants. Mr. Eckman stated our policy and practice is to not consider private covenants or their applicability. The Board's decision should be governed by the code and the Land Development Guidance System. Member Walker questioned the need to link the projects since there was shared access for some garages. Ms. Albertson -Clark indicated the comment about a dividing fence through the driveway was incorrect and the applicant had stated her desire to join the homeowner's association. Member Klataske asked for density clarification. Member O'Dell questioned compatibility. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded noting the proposed building heights fell between the existing one and two story buildings and staff was recommending increased brick on the facade to further match the existing buildings. Staff felt comfortable with the proposal. Member Walker reiterated his concern this project be for senior residents only. Ms. Albertson -Clark noted in a similar project the Board decided against putting a specific age restriction on the project. Mr. Eckman added using "senior' for a definition would make project difficult to monitor. A condition limiting number of occupants or age of occupants was more workable. Chairman Kern voiced his agreement with Member Walker. Mr. Hattman interjected that the efficiencies be limited to one resident per unit. E • Member Strom indicated parking, not age, was his concern. He would prefer restricting the number of cars per unit and asked for a rundown on the parking space requirement which Ms. Albertson -Clark gave. Chairman Kern questioned the buffering intended and whether lighting would be intrusive. Mr. Hartman responded. Member Strom moved to approve the project with the conditions that final building elevations and utility plans be submitted for review and that the efficiency units be limited to a single resident. Member Klataske quested whether there would be a limitation on the board and care facility and Member Strom felt the residents would not be ambulatory and therefore there would be no problem. Member Walker felt the project met a housing need, the location was appropriate, and it met the LDGS criteria. The Board neither addressed economics or covenants and they should not be a part of the Board's decision. Member O'Dell supported the project. Member Carroll shared other Board members' views and felt it was difficult to mesh new projects with existing projects. Chairman Kern mirrored a number of previous comments and felt the project fulfilled in -fill requirements and was less intense than the previously approved project. The motion to approve was seconded by Member Carroll. The motion was approved 7-0. QUAIL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - Preliminary-46-87B Sherry Albcrtson-Clark gave the staff report. Member Burns excused himself due to a perceived conflict of interest. Eldon Ward, from Cityscape, indicated he was available to answer questions. Ms. Albcrtson-Clark noted the City was in the process of securing land for a park in the southeast corner of the proposal. Dan Jensen, owner, added the City would close on this 20 acres which was approved by City Council on January 2. Member Carroll asked if there would be off-street parking for the park. Ms - Albertson -Clark said typically Parks and Recreation submitted a parking proposal to the Planning Department. Member O'Dell asked the status of fencing along greenbelt areas and Member Klataske asked who maintained the landscaping between the fence and roadways. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded maintenance would be incorporated into adjacent lots. Dan Jensen noted it would be in the covenants for maintenance and that fences would be no more than four feet high to insure an "open Space" feeling. •