Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD - 94-88A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 27, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at approximately 6:34 P.M_, in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Frank Groznik, Lloyd Walker, Jan Shepard and Alternate Rex Burns. Staff members present included: Toni Peterson, Joe Frank, Mike Herzig, Eric Bracke, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 27, 1989 and March 6, 1989 meetings; Item 2 - West Elizabeth Properties PUD, Final -#51-88A; Item 3 - OakRidge Village PUD, 8th Filing, Preliminary-#13-82AP; Item 4 - Southridge Greens PUD, Fairway Seven, Final - #9-82Y; and Item 6 -Resolution PL89-1, Vacation of a Utility Easement - #5-84CV. Item 5 -Warren Farms 3rd Filing, Final Subdivision - #53-84G, was continued until the April 24, 1989, meeting; Item 7 - Milne Annexation and Zoning-#I1-89, A; Item 8 -Harmony Number Six Annexation and Zoning - #12-89, A; Item 9 - Fort Col- lins Substation Annexation and Zoning - #15-89, A; Item 10 -McClanahan First Annexation and Zoning - #76-88, C & D; and Item 11 -Amendment to the City Zoning Code-#18-89. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were other items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. There were none. Member Kern moved for approval of Items 1 - 11 except the continued Item 5 which was continued one month. Member Groznik seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-0. #94-88A - FOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD - Final (Formerly The Carnet Exchange PUD) Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. Ken Goff of Hunter Architectural Group, represented Mr. Odette, the owner. He described the project and noted he had met two times with the Board and four times with the neighborhood in an attempt to resolve issues and concerns. The December 19 Board meeting approved the preliminary with two conditions; 1) that there would be a second neighborhood meeting; and 2) that storm drainage problems be resolved. The Board had also expressed concern on building height although did not condition the issue. All three concerns had been addressed with additional neighborhood meetings. The building was lowered in height; and, while the storm drainage concept is not significantly different, the revised project added a diversion structure to Help alleviate any erosion problems. Snead Drive would not be completed with this project, however, the developer will provide funds for building the extension of Snead Drive when it does occur. The temporary right-in/right-out to College Avenue would be eliminated when Snead Drive was completed. • P & Z Meeting - March 27, 1989 Page 2 He stated all the neighborhood concerns have not been solved but they attempted to resolve those they could following the guidelines outlined in the drainage study and the South College Access Plan. Ms. Clark gave the staff recommendation of approval. She noted staff believed the project was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary. The energy dissipater and separator proposed for stormwater control were not required but offered by the developer. Board Member Walker asked questions in regard to the dissipater and separator and whether they would be defined in the development agreement. Member Groznik and Chairwoman O'Dell questioned the timing of Snead Drive and how it would be developed. Ms. Clark responded the ROW was owned by the City. She believed there was more than one owner involved on the property to the south. Development of Snead Drive would occur with development of the adjacent property to the south. Michael Griffith, an attorney for the Fossil Creek Homeowners' Association, acknowledged that part of the process had worked successfully and they were grateful for the architect's willingness to listen and make changes_ The second step in the process was goal -directed development and the association felt the plan had deficiencies which called for denial. He went on to state both the point chart and the activity chart must be addressed. There were potential traffic safety problems with this project and there was a commitment to Phase 2. He felt it was important to know how access off a non -arterial street was to be handled and the right- in/right-out access off College needed to be defined and limited. There was no other reasonable access to the street system and it would cause undue problems not to allow a College Avenue access. This would mean answering Point Chart C, Criteria 1, regarding access from a major arterial different from staff's interpretation and the project would not gain a sufficient percentage for approval. Mr. Rod VanVelson, 316 Parkway Circle North, President of the Fossil Creek Homeowners' Association, noted that after four neighborhood meetings there was a turnout for the project because of concerns. He stated the 25 foot transition zone between commercial and residential was a concern as was the redesign of the subdivision entrance to a four -lane arterial to accommodate larger commercial development. He questioned how temporary the temporary entrance would be. Dr_ Mike Harvey, 5323 Fossil Ridge Drive, stated that, in his opinion, the architect had exceeded City standards but noted City standards were not acceptable to address drainage concerns. He discussed flooding of Fossil Creek, the runoff problem, detention storage, and water quality. The new EPA soon -to -be -law standards were more stringent than City requirements and should be enforced. Rather than deal with site specific problems there was a need to look at basin -wide problems. He had two major concerns: pollution and the second increased to total run-off, which the applicant tried to address through the energy dissipater. P & Z Meeting arch 27, 1989 • Page 3 IX-1 Nimnto, 5220 Greenview Drive, a 10 year resident of Fossil Creek, was anxious to see the area with its amenities. The enhanced and felt the neighborhood project was on a slope and created was concerned concerns with urban runoff. Ile noted the detention structure was a positive approach but other ideas in regard to wetlands and the detention system had not been addressed. Lynne Block, 5328 Fossil Ridge Drive, a 10 year resident, stated her concerns were traffic/safety/access issues. She was opposed to the realignment of Fossil Creek Parkway and felt it would shift commercial traffic burdens to a residen- tial area. There were many flaws in the project and it was not conducive or compatible with neighborhood policies. She pointed out there was a commercial area to the north of their subdivision with businesses and a frontage road for circulation. She stated the homeowners looked at more than just one site. They were concerned about what future development might bring. Debra Moyer, 5201 Greenview Drive, was concerned with the location of the temporary access for Snead Drive and the many changes that have occurred in the plan. The median was being eliminated as well as the trees (in the median) and the appealing entranceway. Dave Flaase, 5430 Fossil Creek Drive, residential property owner to the west, indicated he was the lone voice with no objection. Overall he felt it was an attractive project. . Paul Heffron, the general partner of the property to the south, indicated he was available to answer any questions. He noted there was a contractual obligation to build Snead Drive and it would provide an attractive entrance. He stated he would provide some funds for landscaping to be used as buffer- ing and supported the neighborhood effort to see this develop as a quality area. lie felt this building; would enhance the area. Mike Clinger, a neighborhood resident, asked if the stakes on the project site showed utility easements and indicated some stakes were very close to his property line. Mr. Clinger wondered if a four foot berm could be placed in the buffering area to keep the runoff out of the residential area. Dick Rutherford, engineer, indicated the stakes in question were the property line stakes. Member Shepard pointed out that if they were given points for the proposed energy considerations lose points for College as a primary access, it would not effect the point chart percentage. Member Groznik pointed out land use question was evaluated at preliminary. The final review was to look for substantial conformance. Member Burns asked if there were entrance alterna- tives that would enable the median to be retained. Member Klataske concurred with Member Burns. Member Groznik moved to approve Fossil Creek Design Center PUD - Final. Member Kern seconded the motion and amended the motion to include the statement that the developer add necessary asphalt to the south section of the present entrance on Fossil Creek Parkway, adequate to maintain the median in 0 that parkway. The motion was approved 6-0.