CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD-OF-DECISION

Transcription

1 THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ITS REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012 AT PIKES PEAK REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER 2880 INTERNATIONAL CIRCLE COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO CHAIRMAN CLEVELAND CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 8:30 A.M. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 A.M. PRESENT: Butlak Cleveland Ham Suthers Gonzalez Shonkwiler Hartsell Magill Phillips ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr. Kyle Campbell, Interim Director of Planning Mr. Dick Anderwald, Planning and Development Manager Ms. Wynetta Massey, Deputy City Attorney/Municipal MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Butlak, to approve the March 15, 2012 Record of Decision (minutes). Motion carried unanimously (Commissioners Hartsell, Magill and Phillips abstained due absence during the March meeting). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Dick Anderwald introduced Mr. Kyle Campbell, Interim Director of Planning. Mr. Dick Anderwald announced a postponement request was received by the applicant, Today s Homes for Item 4.

2 Page 2 Commissioner Suthers presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Butlak for her years of service on the City Planning Commission. Commissioner Butlak encouraged citizens to volunteer at some point in the government. Commissioner Gonzalez presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Hartsell for her years of service on the City Planning Commission. Commissioner Hartsell spoke to her involvement with City government and commended staff on a job well done pertaining to public involvement and compromises made between the City and staff. Commissioner Magill presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Cleveland for his years of service on the City Planning Commission, and read the resolution into the record. Commissioner Cleveland spoke to his enjoyment on the City Planning Commission and commended staff on a job well done, as well as thanking the audience members for their constant participation. He also encouraged citizen involvement in local government.

3 Page 3 ITEM CONSENT CALENDAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. ITEM: A CPC CU PARCEL NO.: PLANNER: Erin McCauley Request by Mullen Heller Architecture, PC on behalf of Pima Medical Institute for a Conditional Use to allow a proprietary school in a PBC (Planned Business Center) zone. The subject property consists of.92 acres and is located at 3775 Citadel Drive North. 6 ITEM: B.1 CPC MPA A1MN12 ITEM: B.2 CPC PUZ ITEM: B.3 CPC PUD A1MN12 PARCEL NO.: PLANNER: Rachel Teixeira Request by Executive Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Northgate Properties, LLC for consideration of the following development applications: 1. An amendment to the Northgate Master Plan to modify the land use type from Multi-Family to Single-Family Detached Residential. 2. A change in zone district from PUD (Planned Unit Development Single Family attached) to PUD (Planned Unit Development Single Family detached) for the Stonewater at Northgate Filing No. 1 project. This project proposes a new 150-lot, single-family residential (detached) subdivision. 3. A minor amendment to the PUD Development Plan (File No. CPC PUD ) to replace the previously approved 262 attached townhomes with a clubhouse to a proposed 150 detached single-family lot subdivision. The subject property consists of acres and is located northwest from the intersection of Voyager Parkway and Middle Creek Parkway. 7

4 Page 4 ITEM ITEM: C.1 CPC ZC ITEM: C.2 CPC NV ITEM: C.3 AR DP PARCEL NO.: PLANNER: Steve Tuck PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by Classic Consulting Engineers & Surveyors, LLC on behalf of Fellowship Bible Church of Colorado Springs for consideration of the following development applications: 1. The removal of Conditions of Record for the Overlook at Pulpit Rock multi-family residential project and modify 20.3 acres from OC/CR/SS (Office Complex with Conditions of Record and Streamside Overlay) to OC/SS. 2. Nonuse variances to Section of the City Code to allow retaining walls in the following locations: 1) in the 25-foot front setback adjacent to Interstate 25 with a setback of 18 feet and a maximum height of 11 feet, 2) in the 20-foot rear setback with a setback of 8.6 feet and a maximum height of 22 feet, and 3) in the 25-foot front setback adjacent to Nevada Avenue with a setback of 15 feet and a maximum height of 10 feet. 3. A development plan for the Overlook at Pulpit Rock multi-family residential project. The proposal is for 288 dwelling units in eight (8) buildings. The site is located at the southwest corner of North Nevada Avenue and Interstate 25 and consists of 20.3 acres. PAGE NO. 9

5 Page 5 ITEM ITEM NO.: 4 CPC PUD A1MJ12 PARCEL NO.: , & PLANNER: Rick O Connor NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by CTR Engineering on behalf of Today s Homes for the following amendments to the Dublin Terrace Development Plan: 1. To allow a different building type and elevation than what was previously approved; the new elevation would be approximately four (4) feet higher and have less of a hipped roof at the ends; 2. To change the grading to allow for approximately six (6) feet of fill at the highest point; and 3. To modify the landscaping along at the south side of the property providing additional landscaping (trees). All proposed amendments are for the 10 most westerly townhome units (three most westerly buildings), located along the south side of the property (south of Emerald Isle Heights), adjacent to existing singlefamily residences directly south of this project. The subject property is zoned PUD/AO (Planned Unit Development with Airport Overlay), consists of acres and is located approximately ¼ mile west of Powers Boulevard and south of Dublin Boulevard. PAGE NO. 13

6 Page 6 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM: STAFF: A Erin McCauley FILE NO.: CPC CU PROJECT: Pima Medical Institute 3775 Citadel Drive North DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item A-File No. CPC CU , the Conditional Use request for Pima Medical Institute at 3775 Citadel Drive North, based upon the finding that the application complies with the Conditional Use review criteria in City Code Sections E and Motion carried unanimously. DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR

7 Page 7 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: B.1, B.2, B.3 STAFF: Rachel Teixeira FILE NO.: CPC MPA A1MN12, CPC PUZ ; CPC PUD A1MN12 PROJECT: Stonewater at Northgate Filing Nos. 1 and 2 DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item B.1-File No. CPC MPA A1MN12, the Northgate Master Plan Amendment based upon the finding that the request complies with the review criteria in City Code Section Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item B.2-File No. CPC PUZ , the zone change of acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development: Single- Family attached; 35-foot maximum building height; 8.48 du/ac) to PUD (Planned Unit Development: Single- Family detached; 35-foot maximum building height; 4.58 du/ac), based upon the findings that the change complies with the three (3) criteria for granting of zone changes found in City Code Section B and the establishment and development of a PUD zone criteria in City Code Section Motion carried unanimously.

8 Page 8 Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell to approve Item B.3-File No.: CPC PUD A1MN12, the Stonewater at Northgate Filing No. 1 and 2 Development Plan Amendment based upon the finding that the request complied with PUD development plan review criteria in City Code Section , subject to compliance with the following technical and/or informational plan modifications: Technical and Informational Modifications to the Development Plan: 1. Provide City Landscape Architect s approval and adequately address all comments and concerns. 2. Change the Salmon Stone Point Street Name Type from Public to Private on Sheet DP Provide Engineering Development Review s approval of the Drainage Report. Motion carried unanimously. DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR

9 Page 9 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: C.1, C.2, C.3 STAFF: Steve Tuck FILE NO.: CPC ZC , CPC NV , AR DP PROJECT: Overlook at Pulpit Rock DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item C.1-File No. CPC ZC , the deletion of the Conditions of Record for 20.3 acres from OC/CR/SS (Office Complex with Conditions of Record and Streamside Overlay) to OC/SS. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item C.2-File No. CPC NV , the Nonuse Variance to City Code Section to allow the following retaining walls: 1) in the 25-foot front setback adjacent to Interstate 25 with a setback of 18 feet and a maximum height of 11 feet, 2) in the 20-foot rear setback with a setback of 8.6 feet and a maximum height of 22 feet, and 3) in the 25-foot front setback adjacent to Nevada Avenue with a setback of 15 feet and a maximum height of 10 feet. The recommendation for approval is based on the finding the request complies with the review criteria in City Code Section B. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell, to approve Item C.3-File No. AR DP , the development plan for the Overlook at Pulpit Rock, based on the finding that the plan complies with the review criteria in City Code Section E subject to compliance with the following technical and/or informational modifications to the development plan: Technical and/or Informational Modifications to the Development Plan: 1. Note the City file number of AR DP in the lower right corner of all sheets. 2. Note the property is within the North Nevada Avenue Urban Renewal Plan, City File No. CPC MP Note the existing zoning as OC/CR/SS as established with Ordinance No Note the conditions of record established with Ordinance No Note the proposed zoning as OC/SS. 4. Note that a revocable permit shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The revocable permit is for the circuitous, north

10 Page 10 driveway onto Nevada Avenue and the retaining walls located in the right-ofway of Nevada Avenue. Delete possible encroachment agreement required. 5. Note that nonuse variances are requested to allow retaining walls which exceed six feet in height within the required front and rear setbacks. Identify the locations of the variance requests and note the distance from the retaining walls to the adjacent property line. Note the file number of the variance application as CPC NV As required by Engineering Development Review (comment 1) note at the conclusion of the legal description on sheet 1 the proposed legal description: Lot 2, The Overlook at Pulpit Rock Filing No Delete the note All North Nevada Avenue public street improvements constructed by the Overlook at Pulpit Rock subject to Urban Renewal Authority (URA) reimbursement. URA staff has indicated no agreement is in place for reimbursement. 8. As required by Engineering Development Review (comment 8) revise the floodplain statement on sheet 2 regarding the finish floor elevations. 9. As required by Engineering Development Review (comment 9) revise the geologic hazard statement on sheet In the geologic hazard statement on sheet 2 include the City file number of AR DP and correct the agency name and address to: City of Colorado Springs Planning and Development Department, 30 South Nevada Avenue, Suite 105, Colorado Springs, CO. 11. Note the front setback along the northerly property line as 25 feet instead of 20 feet. The property line is considered a front yard because of the adjacent right-of-way of Interstate 25. Revise the landscape plan accordingly. 12. Three existing easements conflict with structures shown on the development plan: 1) right of way easement, Book 1616, Page 170, 2) right of way easement, Book 401, Page 513, and 3) right of way telephone easement Book 375, Page 493. The easements are shown on sheet 10. Note on sheet 10 that these easements shall be vacated prior to recording the final plat. 13. Provide a barrier (e.g. gate or posts and cable) to discourage public access on the gravel, fire access driveway that serves Fellowship Bible Church. If the barrier includes a gate or posts and cable, then note a Knox lock shall be provided. Note the barrier shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. Note the pavement material for the driveways and parking spaces. 15. Note the curb type to be used at the perimeter of the driveways, parking spaces and landscape islands. 16. As required by Information Technology provide an interior private street name. 17. Show the detached sidewalk along Nevada Avenue as six feet in width instead of five feet. 18. As required by Mountain Metropolitan Transit show a concrete bus stop pad between the curb and sidewalk north of the signalized intersection on Nevada Avenue.

11 Page As required by Engineering Development Review (comment 2) indicate the pedestrian ramp on the south side of the south driveway onto Nevada Avenue will be constructed with this project. Show the ramp connected to the existing pedestrian ramp at the corner. Delete future ped ramp. 20. As required by Engineering Development Review Traffic (comment 1) note a striping and signage plan shall be approved by Traffic Engineering. 21. As required by Engineering Development Review Traffic (comment 2) show a right turn only sign for the right in/right out driveway onto Nevada Avenue. Note the sign shall meet MUTCD and Traffic Engineering standards. 22. As required by Fire Prevention provide adequate fire access for the buildings. 23. As required by Fire Prevention provide the required minimum width for the fire lanes on both sides of the median located southwest of building As required by Fire Prevention revise the driveway located southwest of building Provide a typical detail of the retaining walls indicating proposed materials. 26. Delete the six-foot trail shown within Tract A. Show the trail at both the north and south ending at the edge of the grading that extends for a short distance into Tract A. Parks and Recreation has indicated they will not maintain the trail or the tract; therefore to avoid future confusion regarding trail maintenance; the trail within the tract shall be deleted. Access to the tract and the existing, informal trails within the tract is appropriate and will provide safe and easy access to Tract A for residents of the apartment project. 27. In cross-section A-A on sheet 9 show the sidewalk which parallels the driveway that extends from Nevada Avenue into the site. Note the width of the sidewalk as 6 feet. 28. Note the width of all sidewalks that are adjacent to parking spaces as six feet. 29. Show the location of the bicycle racks on a paved surface near the building entries (one per building plus one for the clubhouse, a total of nine racks). Provide a typical detail of the rack. 30. Note that no more than two low profile (not exceeding six feet in height) signs are permitted. Show the location of the low profile signs. Show the signs with a minimum setback of three feet from the property line. Note the removal of the existing Fellowship Church sign (if this sign is to be relocated to the church s property then the sign must be shown on the Fellowship Bible Church s development plan File CPC DP A2MN12). Delete the note indicating a monument sign located within the Nevada Avenue right-of-way. 31. As required by Colorado Springs Utilities address Action Items 1 through As required for the Streamside Overlay review address items 1, 2, 3 and As required by the City Landscape Architect address items 1, 3 and On sheet 11 indicate in the lighting notes the light fixture as full cut-off. Note the type of light (e.g. metal halide) and the wattage of the fixture. 35. On the elevation drawings note the height of the buildings at the ridge of the roof.

12 Page Identify the exterior colors of the buildings (e.g. light tan). 37. Note exterior lights attached to the buildings shall be residential in character. Provide a typical detail of the light fixture(s). Motion carried unanimously. DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR

13 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS CALENDAR ITEM: 4 STAFF: FILE NO.: PROJECT: Rick O Connor CPC PUD A1MJ12 Dublin Terrace Townhomes STAFF PRESENTATION Mr. Rick O Connor, Interim Land Use Review Lead, spoke to the request for postponement requested by the applicant. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Mr. Matt Ervin, Director of Operations for Today s Homes, formally requested a postponement for at least three weeks to provide time for the applicant to meet with staff and provide a revision to staff for consideration. Commissioner Magill inquired of the reason the applicant would need to meet with Staff. Mr. Ervin replied they would like to meet with staff to solidify a plan, in hopes to withdraw the plan in the future. Commissioner Hartsell inquired if new fees would need to be paid if the applicant were to withdraw, then resubmit a new plan. Mr. O Connor stated there would be new fees, because the proposed application will be vastly different from the current application, in turn necessitating a new round of review. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of the process that the application has gone through thus far. Mr. O Connor stated that the application was directly referred to the Planning Commission by staff. Commissioner Suthers stated that she is in support of the postponement, and does not want to see the media driving the process of this project. Mr. Ervin stated that he would like to request a postponement for the application, and again stated that he would like the opportunity to discuss the application and possible revisions with staff prior to coming back before the Commission. Commissioner Suthers stated that she would like to hear from the neighborhood regarding the postponement.

14 Page 14 CITIZENS REQUESTED TO SPEAK 1. Ms. Melissa Garcia, adjacent property owner spoke to the flooding issue which occurred do to the project; as well as the construction noise that has occurred during all times of the day and night. She stated that she did try contacting Today s Homes to voice her concerns, but she did not follow through. She also inquired about the possible mitigation plan of potential flooding as they have previously experienced flooding in their basement. She then stated that she had someone who represented themselves as part of the City, tell them that they should take a $2,000 settlement and be done with the issue. She later contacted the City and found out that the above offer was never propositioned to homeowners on behalf of the City. Commissioner Butlak inquired of the whereabouts of Ms. Garcia s home. She pointed her home out on the vicinity map provided in the staff report. Commissioner Gonzalez inquired of Ms. Garcia s position on the postponement. Ms. Garcia stated that she is not in objection to the postponement; however, she would like to see something done to mitigate the chances of her home flooding again. Commissioner Shonkwiler inquired about the drainage plans. Mr. Steve Kuehster, City Engineering, stated that the current drainage plan is no longer valid because the lots were graded and the application is no longer in conformance with the drainage plan. He also stated that he received a letter from the developer, agreeing to properly address the issues caused by the illegal grading, and will take action to ensure the project is in conformance with the drainage plan. Commissioner Shonkwiler inquired if assurance was given to Mr. Keuhster by the developer. Mr. Kuehster deferred that inquiry to the applicant. Commissioner Magill inquired of enforcement, and how quickly the drainage issues can be addressed in order to ensure the neighbor s homes aren t flooded. Mr. Kuehster stated that there are enforcement options provided within the violation process. Commissioner Hartsell inquired of the Planning Commission s authority over the drainage issues brought before the Commission today, as well as the Commission s ability to enforce the applicant s non-compliance with the drainage plan. Commissioner Magill stated he feels that drainage is an issue that involves Commission oversight and will not be able to make a decision regarding the postponement request without this issue being addressed. 2. Ms. Jeane English, adjacent property owner, was in objection to the postponement. She stated that she had to miss work in order attend today s meeting. She spoke to the developer s disregard to the original approved plan. She stated that someone representing the developer offered to plant trees in the rear of her home in order to compensate for the additional building height. She

15 Page 15 then stated that the townhomes are at least eight (8) feet higher than the approved height, and there are not trees big enough to block the additional building height. 3. Mr. Bill Sheridan, adjoining property owner spoke about replacing a fence that had blown down, and due to drainage issues created by the project, the post holes had filled with about two (2) feet of water. Mr. Sheridan also spoke to the tremendous height of the homes and the developer s lack of consideration to the surrounding homes. He is also in opposition to the postponement; he stated that would like to see the project go forth in an expedited manner. Commissioner Hartsell inquired of the timing, and should the postponement be allowed. Mr. O Connor deferred to the applicant to address the timeline regarding moving the units. Commissioner Hartsell requested that staff summarize the reason that the proposal is before the Commission today. Mr. O Connor stated that the project is before the Commission today because the developer did not comply with the approved development plan when the property was being constructed and the applicant is requesting approval of an amended development plan. Commissioners Hartsell and Cleveland inquired of the process and timing, if the decision was to deny, postpone, or withdraw, the project; and which action would be recommended by staff. Mr. O Connor explained the City process as it pertains to the Planning Commission and the possibility of this item being appealed to City Council. Commissioner Shonkwiler inquired of the enforcement action taken by the City because of the developer s non-compliance with the approved plan. Mr. O Connor stated that an abatement agreement between the City and the applicant can be written. Commissioner Shonkwiler inquired if withdrawal is the best action in order to address the drainage issues. Mr. O Connor stated that Code Enforcement can be brought in at any time to address non-compliance with the approved development plan, to include non-conformity with the drainage plan. Commissioner Shonkwiler then stated he would like to see the applicant make a good faith agreement to address drainage as soon as possible. 4. Mr. Bill Marchant, a citizen, spoke to the process and the developer s lack of conforming to the approved development plan. He stated that he would like to see the project denied and wanted the Commissioners to consider the remarks given by the neighbors. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mr. Ervin stated that he is willing to address the drainage issues and committed to having the issues resolved as soon as possible. Commissioner Butlak inquired if the construction that took place was in conformance with the drainage plan. Mr. Ervin stated that it should have been, but it was not. Commissioner Butlak stated that she would like to see the applicant s feet held to the fire regarding the drainage plan, the drainage swale, and require conformance to the approved plan for the sake of the neighbor s homes. She would like to see an improved drainage plan that addresses water flows and

16 Page 16 maintenance. Mr. Ervin stated that he intends to address the drainage issue as soon as possible. Commissioner Magill inquired of the timing of moving the existing building. Mr. Ervin stated that he is currently in talks with a company that moves buildings and wants to see the situation resolved as quickly as possible. Commissioner Hartsell addressed the applicant and the doubts presented by the neighborhood. She stated for the record that she could see why no one had faith in the promise made to adequately address the drainage issues, as the entire project has been developed with blatant disregard to the approved development plan. Mr. Ervin stated there will be another neighborhood meeting held next week. Commissioner Cleveland inquired if the drainage will be fixed prior to the meeting. Mr. Ervin stated he would like to see this issue resolved immediately. Mr. O Connor was asked to give his recommendation regarding postponement, withdrawal, or denial of the project, but he noted this decision needs to be deliberated amongst the Planning Commission members. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Gonzalez stated that he is opposed to the postponement due to neighborhood comments regarding expediting the project and addressing drainage issues. Commissioner Shonkwiler stated that he is in support of the postponement, and is in agreement with allowing the applicant to prove that they are true to their word. He feels that a postponement is the best way to get the most action taken as quickly as possible. Motion by Commissioner Shonkwiler, seconded by Commissioner Hartsell to postpone Item 4-File No. CPC PUD A1MJ12, an amendment to the Dublin Terrace Townhomes, until the May 17, 2012 City Planning Commission Hearing. Motion carried 5-4 (Commissioners Gonzalez, Cleveland, Butlak, and Ham opposed). Commissioner Ham stated that he is concerned with postponement as the nonconformance issues could take more time to be adequately addressed. Commissioner Butlak stated that she does not want to see the current project acted upon as the project is currently irrelevant and major changes need to take place prior to the project coming back before the Planning Commission. DATE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR