Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLATINUM AUTO BROKERS PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL ..... 7/25/1994 P & Z BOARD HEARING - 36-94 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 PLANNING 6 ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 23, 1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, staff support Liaison The July 25 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Roll call was answered by: Chair Clements, and Members Cottier, Fontane, Strom, and Winfree. Board Members Absent: Bell and Walker. Staff Members Present: Ashbeck, Eckman, Herzig, Olt, Phillips, Shepard, Vosburg and Worden. Mr. Phillips read the agenda review. AGENDA Item REVIEW 2. Cottonwood Ridg• Subdivision - Preliminary, #31-94 Item 3. Aamoo Transmission PUD, Lot 10, Creger Plaza, 2nd Replat - Preliminary and Final, #32-94. Item 4. Oakridge, Block One, 3rd tiling, Courtyard by Marriott - Final, #13-82BH. Item 6. Pinecone POD, the Tower Shoppes - Preliminary, #60-91L. Item 7. Westbury PUD, 1st tiling, Final, #11-94A. Item e. Fox Hills, 2nd Filing, Subdivision Plat - Final, #36- 93D. Item 10. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval Item 11. Continued - overland Trail Annexation and Zoning Item 9. Withdrawn - Arapahoe Farms Townhomes - Item 12. Platinum Auto Brokers PUD - Preliminary and Final, #36-94. CONSENT AGENDA: Item 1. Minutes of the May 23, June 6 and June 27, 1994, P & Z Meetings were pulled for revision to a summarized format and continued until the August 22, 1994 meeting. Items 7. 8 and 10, Member Winfree moved for approval of Items 7, & and 10. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 6 Member Strom moved approval of Item 12. Platinum Auto Brokers PUD Preliminary including the variance, subject to the conditions that there is an improved landscape plan along the frontage to include planting islands at both extremes of the driveways with street trees and lower shrubs with barriers for definition. With satisfactory landscape improvements, conditions for a variance could be satisfied at final. Member Winfree seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 5 She personally viewed the site and asked how it fit in with the North College Access Plan. Her concerns were with PUD requirements, curb/sidewalks, and no upgrading of the site. Mr. Shepard replied that the level of upgrades was based on the amount of impact. Also, North College Avenue has always been treated differently from South College Avenue. Ms. Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer for the City Engineering Department spoke of improvements and impact related land use issues, only a redevelopment would support more improvements. Mr. Phillips spoke of goals of the North College Corridor Plan which encourages incubator businesses in this type of area, staff supports this project. Chair Clements asked if it was unusual that a PUD was applied for by a sublessee who was not the lessee nor the owner of the property. Mr. Shepard replied that it was acceptable and that the owner must sign off on the plans prior to recording. Mr. Roy pointed out before approval is finalized, the LDGS requires certification by attorneys that all the owners and proprietors of the property have consented to the proposed use. He spoke of the variances involved with the project and the standard being abbreviated in the agenda item summary. The LDGS requires several criteria be met before a variance is granted. He read those requirements, pointing out the possibility for the need of this type of application and quoted, "or alleviate any existing problem of traffic congestion or urban blight and the strict application would render the project practically unfeasible." Mr. Roy said any violations of variances will be discretionary of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Mr. Barnes, who reviews it during the processing of the application and reserves a decision until final. Member Cottier believed the project did not meet any of the variance criteria nor was it a benefit to the community. She spoke of a need for landscaping. Mr. Roy said the finding on the variance does not have to be unequivocal to serve the public good, but upon satisfaction at final. Planning & Zoning Board Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Ward spoke of allowable uses of the project site, fast food establishments with a consensus that Poudre R-1 will not change their open campus policy. The pedestrian access will be more desirable with high school governances. Mr. Ward spoke of a right-of-way but stated no traffic signal on Artic Fox is planned. Mr. Vosburg, City Transportation Engineer spoke of signal warrants with the criteria used from a national standards policy, left turn delays, and other alternate routes for neighbors. Ms. Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer with the City of Fort Collins, spoke of plans for the widening of Horsetooth, Timberline and the time frame projected for fall of 1994. Mr. Shepard reviewed the parking issue indicating ratios are similar to other high schools, also during the school year a para-professional will govern street parking. Mr. Shepard also reviewed buffering issues and landscape plans. Member Winfree moved for approval of Item 6 Pinecone Preliminary PUD with conditions as stated in the staff report. Member Fontane seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Item 12. Platinum Auto Brokers PUD - Preliminary and Final, #36- 94. Mr. Shepard gave a brief staff report recommending approval for the P.U.D. with a request for granting a variance for the project. Mr. Gary Farkas, 1845 N. College Ave., gave a brief presentation of his proposal, expressing concern over landscaping issues and the fact that he is a renter and not the owner of the property. There was discussion among Board members regarding the landscape enhancement. No citizen participation. Member Cottier was concerned about the lack of landscaping along College Avenue, the lack of new construction for sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the amount of cars on display. One display vehicle looked too close to the street. This should be a landscaped island. Since this is a P.U.D., more upgrades should be required of the applicant.