Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/21/2002Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mika] Torgerson Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W)416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Colton, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Meyer, and Gavaldon. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Stanford, Harridan, Waldo, Alfers, and Williams. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ02-03, Easement Dedication. (WITHDRAWN) 3. #48-01 Seven Oaks Academy's Little Acorns, Project Development Plan. 4. #35-96A Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment. (PULLED TO DISCUSSION — CRAIG) Recommendation Items: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 5. #46-01 1040 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning. Discussion Item: 6. #2-02 East Elizabeth Street Rezoning. Member Craig pulled Item #4, Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A to discussion. Director Gloss stated that Item #2 was to be withdrawn from the agenda. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 3 and 5. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 2 Project: Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, #35-96A Project Description: Request for a 14,000 square foot drugstore at the southwest corner of the Drake Crossing Shopping Center. Two existing buildings would be eliminated. The site is located at the northwest corner of South Taft hill Road and West Drake Road and is zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that the applicant on this item called him to clarify a question he had regarding the west fagade of the building. There are in fact pilasters protruding from the west face of the building. Member Craig stated that she just needed to have a presentation on the landscaping and tree mitigation and protection issues. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He showed slides of pictures of the trees on the site to be removed and noted that the Board had received copies of the new landscape plan prior to the meeting. He also showed photos of trees to remain and illustrated the tree locations on the site plan. He discussed the mitigation plan for the trees to be removed based on a meeting held on site with the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, the landscape architect, Michael Stahl, and himself. Planner Olt showed slides of the two buildings to be removed as well. Member Craig thanked Planner Olt for his slides and asked about possibly transplanting some of the trees that are to be removed. Planner Olt replied that there are several that could be transplanted. Staff has suggested possibly contacting Poudre School District for transplant location. The developer has stated that they would be amenable to that but did not want to incur the cost of moving them. Planner Olt stated that there may be another source that will take some of the trees but deferred to the applicant on that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 3 Member Craig asked about a manual used by the City Forester to evaluate the trees. She asked if that manual was used in this case. Planner Olt replied that it likely was but that Tim Buchanan, City Forester, was not present to definitively answer. Member Craig stated that she was curious about the value of some of the trees and how the mitigation really fits in. Planner Olt replied that Mr. Buchanan would have to answer the question on the value but added that Mr. Buchanan was able to place a mitigation value on each of the trees that are slated for removal. Either two or three trees will be planted for each of the trees slated to be removed. Some of the new trees will also have to be upsized; 14 of the new trees will be upsized and another 9 trees will be added, for a total of 23 mitigating trees. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the Board had requested Tim Buchanan's presence at the meeting tonight. Planner Olt replied that he suggested it would be good but Mr. Buchanan did not give any indication he could be here. Planner Olt stated that he had all the information given to the applicant by Tim Buchanan. The new landscape plan is adequately mitigating the lost trees, according to the City Forester. Carl Schmidtline, Galloway, Romero, & Associates, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that Mr. Buchanan did a point study on the site for the trees to be removed and came up with a point total of 23 mitigating trees necessary. An additional nine trees were added to the original total of 14. The 14 trees have been upsized from 2 to 2.5 inch, 2.5 to 3 inch, and 6 foot to 8 foot trees. Mr. Schmidtline showed the new landscape plan and illustrated the locations of the new trees. He stated that the existing site has 30 trees on it. With the new landscape plan, there will be a total of 31 trees. In addition, the plan will add 202 new shrubs to the site, including nine Mugo Pines. With respect to the tree re -locations, Mr. Schmidtline stated that it was not possible to do on -site because of the amount of other vegetation and their extensive root systems. Some of the trees can be re -located in more of a field -type environment and survive. Walgreens would be happy to offer the trees to be removed to any source. Public Input Mr. Schmidtline stated that a couple neighborhood meetings were held on the project. The first occurred in November and the neighbors were promised that a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 4 follow-up meeting would be held, which was. One of the neighbors, Stephanie Gurzado, 2318 Hampshire Court, was not able to make it to the meeting. Mr. Schmidtline read the letter into the record, stating that the letter was address to Richard Sapkin, the property developer. "Dear Richard, I wanted to thank you and your organization for spending time with myself and other neighbors regarding the Drake Crossing shopping center. This shopping center is an important asset to the neighborhood and the community and we have watched this property deteriorate over the past years. Your company's proposal to expand and remodel the Safeway will be a welcome change to the old grocery store. In addition, the removal of the buildings on Drake to make way for a new Walgreens is very exciting. At first, I was concerned about the drive -through pharmacy, however, after understanding that this is a prescription -only pick-up window, I can admit this will be very useful for those times when the weather is inclement or I am unable to leave my small children in the car when they are sick. I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, however, please feel free to distribute this letter to all people in attendance. I would also like to let everyone know that you and your group have been very accommodating to me by having multiple meetings and being available by phone whenever we have had questions. I look forward to this project being approved. Sincerely, Stephanie Gurzado" Public Input Closed Member Craig asked about a 6-inch maple tree at the southeast corner of the lot and why it was going to be removed given that no other development is shown in that area. Mr. Schmidtline replied that that is where the proposed monument sign for the center will be located. That is about the only location for a monument sign on this property. Member Craig asked why the sign couldn't be moved further to the west, only about 3 feet. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Schmidtline replied that the property line of the site, and utility easements, won't allow that to happen. The monument sign setback requirements will also keep that from happening. Member Craig asked about the removal of a 12-inch Honey Locust tree where the entry way will be located and if it would be possible to put the entry way a bit further north to avoid taking out that Locust. Mr. Schmidtline replied that trying to locate the store entrance as close as possible to the street has necessitated the removal of that tree. Member Craig asked about a Blue Spruce tree that was to be put in at the southwest corner of the site, along Drake, and why it was located within 5 feet of the building. Mike Stahl, landscape architect for the project, replied that because of the utility easements, there was no other location for the tree. He stated that he was given direction that more trees were needed along the Drake frontage and he thought the tree would adapt, even though it is not the ideal situation. Member Craig stated that she wished Tim Buchanan was at the meeting because she wanted to know the definition of a significant existing tree and why the 12-inch Locust was not considered significant. Planner Olt replied that Mr. Buchanan had placed a value on each of the trees to be removed in terms of mitigation. Member Craig stated concern due to the Code language which states that "streets, buildings, and lot layout shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees" and we are taking out 15 trees. City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that "significant tree" is defined in Article 5 as one that is 6 inches or more in diameter at breast height. Planner Olt stated that 6 of the trees that are to be removed, based on the site visit, do not even require mitigation because of their size or condition. Chairperson Gavaldon asked Ward Stanford, City Traffic Operations, if he had looked at the short-term traffic report. Mr. Stanford replied that he had. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 6 Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there would be any increase or change in traffic with the addition of the drive -through lanes. Mr. Stanford replied that he did not expect there to be an increase in traffic. The study performed on the project did not negate any of the existing traffic on the site, it just added a new Walgreens as if everything else stayed the same. Therefore, it was a very conservative study. Member Craig asked if a Queen Maple was considered a shade tree or an ornamental tree. Mr. Stahl replied that it is considered a shade tree. Member Craig stated that the mitigation standards state that shade trees should be 3-inch caliper, not 2-inch as shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Stahl asked if the 3-inch was for the mitigated upsized tree and stated that that was done on the upsized mitigated shade trees. Planner Olt stated that the trees that were originally shown on the old plant list went from 2-inch to 3-inch caliper for the shade trees and from 6-foot to 8-foot for the evergreens on the new plan. There were 14 trees to be upsized to get 14 mitigation "points." The 9 additional trees, for 9 total points, do not have to be upsized as well. Member Craig asked if the 9 additional 'points" were required to mitigate the size of these existing trees. Planner Olt went over the site plan tree -by -tree to illustrate how the 23 mitigation points were determined. Fourteen of those points were gained up upsizing 14 of the already planned trees. Nine additional trees were added, for a total of 23. Member Craig asked why 9 two-inch trees were preferable to maybe 6 three-inch trees. Planner Olt replied that there were some locations lacking trees; therefore the 9 trees seemed like the best option. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked about designing around significant trees and stated that it seemed like if everything were kept the same but with a single drive - through, the building could have been pulled up and all the significant trees Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 7 would not have been eliminated. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if that was considered or if that was just not a possibility in this economy. Mr. Stahl replied that even if a new building were going exactly where the old building is, some of the trees would probably not survive the construction because of the over -excavation that would be required for the foundations. That is also why transplanting the trees is not recommended. Kathleen Kreger, Bowers and Kreger, 899 Logan Street, Denver, the traffic engineer, stated that the drive -through lanes are purely a convenience for prescription drugs. They tend to be used by the elderly, handicapped, and parents of young children. There are two lanes because, by state law, anyone picking up a prescription drug has the right to a conference with the pharmacist. Because a person can have up to a 20-minute conference, the double -lane will allow the pharmacist to fill other prescriptions in the drive -through lanes. That is a standard design on all pharmacies that have drive -through lanes. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if there is typically more than one pharmacist on duty. Mr. Kreger replied that they typically do, during the day. Chairperson Gavaldon asked the landscape architect if they had sought out parties to take the trees that are to be removed. Mr. Stahl replied that Walgreens would be open to giving the trees to parties that would come get them. However, he stated that his experience shows that there is a great deal of expense in moving trees that large and that they are likely to struggle for years whereas a new tree may be caught up to that size in a few years. Moving the trees makes sense only if they are going to a large area and can be removed easily. Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she appreciated all the mitigation efforts but stated that she cannot support it because she believes something could have been done to at least save 4 of the trees in the front if the building had been moved or one of the drive -through lanes eliminated. She stated that she did not feel like the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 8 design worked as hard as it should have to minimize the disturbance of significant existing trees. Member Colton stated that he wondered about the logic of the double drive - through lanes. Member Carpenter stated that she shared the frustration of Members Craig and Colton but stated that without Mr. Buchanan here and the fact that he did look at the trees and set the mitigation points, she felt like her hands were tied in terms of denying the project. Chairperson Gavaldon suggested continuing the project to have Mr. Buchanan go back and do some more work and mitigation. Member Craig stated that she thought Planner Olt explained Mr. Buchanan's findings very well but the Board has the right to look at the project and decide whether they feel it is meeting the Land Use Code. She stated that continuing the project would not help. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the building could have been moved back or if it was placed there because of a setback or build -to requirement. Planner Olt replied that the south line of the building meets the build -to line. It is 15 feet off the property line, adjacent to Drake Road. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if it would have been an option, without seeking a modification, for them to have moved the building farther north, away from the street. He asked if it was as far forward as it was a as a result of the build -to line or if that was a function of the size of building they wanted with the double drive -thorough lanes. Planner Olt replied that the placement of the south wall meets the build -to line standard and it could not have been moved north without a modification. Member Colton asked if 15 feet was a maximum or minimum setback. Planner Olt replied that it is a maximum setback. Member Colton stated that sometimes an expert opinion is needed and Mr. Buchanan should be at the meeting or the item should be continued. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 9 Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he was on the fence with this project because more could have been done to the building to mitigate the significant trees. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the parking was the required amount, or if it was what they desired. Planner Olt replied that they certainly could have reduced it. The size of the building, 13,650 square feet, by Code allows for 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 54 spaces. They could have 54 spaces and they show 51. They are just under their maximum allowed. The motion was denied 3-4 with members Colton, Craig, Torgerson, and Gavaldon voting in the negative. Attorney Eckman stated that the Board could move to reconsider or rescind the vote. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was not particularly opposed to the project, but in light of the section of the Code cited by Member Craig, it does not seem like they have designed around significant trees. He suggested continuing the item and asking the applicant to consider slight re -designs that might save some of the significant trees. Richard Sapkin, Edgemark Development, stated that he agreed with Vice - Chairperson Torgerson and he feels there are things that can be done. He stated that he would offer moving the monument sign in order to save that tree. He also offered to relocate all the trees within a reasonable proximity. Member Colton stated that he would like to see the item continued to work on saving more trees. Member Craig agreed. Member Colton moved to reconsider the item, Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 10 Member Colton moved to continue the item, Walgreens at Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Major Amendment, File #35-96A, to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting, April 4, 2002. Director Gloss stated that the next meeting has already been advertised and the packet had been printed. The following meeting had been anticipated for cancellation due to lack of items which would take the item into the first meeting in May. Attorney Eckman stated that the item could be continued to the next meeting because all interested persons are in attendance. Member Craig seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked the applicant to work on designing the project to preserve existing trees, to the extent reasonably feasible. Chairperson Gavaldon and Member Craig agreed. Member Craig stated that she would champion a modification if the building ends up further than 15 feet away from the line if trees could be saved. Member Carpenter stated that the street that had to meet the build -to requirements could be moved to an interior street and asked if that would help. Member Craig stated that this building would not have an interior street to build to. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: East Elizabeth Street Rezoning, #2-02 Project Description: Request to rezone two parcels of land located at 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth Street from NCL — Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District to NCB — Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District. The properties are located north of Elizabeth Street, just west of Lemay Avenue. Together they total .77 acre in size. The properties are currently zoned. One of the parcels (1004 East Elizabeth) is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 11 vacant, the other contains a single family residential dwelling. The sites are designated as Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Recommendation: Denial Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Barkeen visually pointed out for the Board the properties using an aerial photograph. He stated that the properties were currently zoned NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density District and the request was to rezone the properties to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. Planner Barkeen showed slides of and reviewed for the Board the surrounding area. Planner Barkeen gave the Board information on the Structure Plan designations and the East Side Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 1986. Planner Barkeen stated that the Planning Staff was recommending denial of this application. The recommendation is based on the East Side Neighborhood Plan, which is still a valid Plan and has been incorporated into the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan as an element of that Plan. It is also one of the findings that the Board needs to make in order to recommend approval of such a rezoning. Planner Barkeen reported that a neighborhood meeting was held for this application. Member Craig asked Planner Barkeen to report on what he felt the neighborhood concerns were at the neighborhood meeting. Planner Barkeen responded that the concerns were the continued transition of the Buffer District on down to the west of these lots. Paul Harder, who lives at 737 Rochelle Circle and is one of the owners of the properties gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Harder was there to discuss what he calls the "distorted" zoning on the properties at 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth. After reading the staff report, he is at odds with the Planning Department and their position. Mr. Harder referenced the vicinity map in the staff report and the map in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. He stated that he would use the two maps to try and explain the unusual situation that does not exist anywhere else in the East Side Neighborhood and as far as he knows does not exist anywhere else in Fort Collins. Mr. Harder gave a visual presentation of the maps to the Board and stated that this is a situation where the NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density which Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 12 is basically single family residential is sandwiched in between what is commercial on one side and E, Employment on the other. Mr. Harder pointed out to the Board the commercial to the north and the employment that is directly to the south of the property. Mr. Harder pointed out the zoning designations in the area and stated that buffer zones were being used all along the sides all throughout the East Side Neighborhood Plan to buffer the commercial from the residential. Mr. Harder referenced the site shots that Planner Barkeen presented and they showed the properties to the south which are apartments and doctors offices and nursing homes that run down for two blocks. He felt that the one thing that Planner Barkeen's presentation was lacking was site shots of the commercial property that adjoins these properties. The commercial is the foundation of the NCB, Buffer zone. The NCB Buffer zone came out of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the purpose was to buffer residential property from commercial property. That is what you will find throughout the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Harder, using visual slides, gave a history of the neighborhood, which began around the 1960's, and the zoning of the area and surrounding areas. He gave a history of how the area developed. He stated that there are other properties west of his lots that are in a similar situation where the commercial property sits right on their back and the apartments and the businesses are across the street from them. Mr. Harder read from the East Side Neighborhood Plan. "The buffer areas are intended to provide a cushion between the fringe area and the preservation areas. Predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity, non retail, non residential uses." "The fringe area, this includes the predominant non residential areas fronting South College, Lemay Avenue, Riverside Avenue and portions of the downtown business district." Along with that, page 24, Section 3.2 it talks about where the buffer areas would be used. "Land Use Conversions and added accessory uses such as home occupations are anticipated in the buffer area." "Close proximity to more intense fringe tends to make many sites less desirable for most single family residential uses." That is the just of the purposes and the use in close proximity to the commercial. They are sandwiched between the E, business apartments and the commercial uses. Mr. Harder stated that there is no separation between the commercial uses and their property. There is about 8 property that are squeezed between the high and heavy zoning districts. There is no other property owner in this extreme Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 13 zoning situation anywhere in this area. He feels that it is easy to see and easy to support. Mr. Harder addressed the staff report. He referenced page 2 and the reference to the East Side Neighborhood Plan and that it includes a specific zoning pattern for this area focusing on preserving the single family residential and commercial areas and proposing land use buffers between areas of residential and commercial uses. They agree with that statement. The staff reports also states "that the rezoning request within the East Side Neighborhood Plan must demonstrate substantial compliance with the specific zoning pattern established by the plan." "The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the zoning districts recommended by the properties in the East Side Neighborhood Plan." He feels that is not a true statement and felt that they were not inconsistent, in fact they are probably the most consistent lands you could find. These two properties have to be the best two qualified properties to meet the purpose and use of the buffer zone in the entire East Side Neighborhood Plan. There is no other NCL residential property being impacted by commercial and business in this area like theirs is. Mr. Harder closed by saying that this is the first time in 20 years they have had a chance to ask the city to look at their property realistically, objectively and most importantly, honestly. The present zoning on this property is so wrong that it actually denies the reasonable use of the property. They have been paying their taxes, cutting their weeds for 20 years. What they really have is a vacant piece of property that has become a black hole. A recent appraisal was devalued by 20% because the appraiser said that this could not be considered a single-family residential area anymore. This has to be as bad as zoning can get. He asked the Board to consider all the facts and recommend that the zoning on his property be corrected to NCB. Katie Hoffner, who lives at 1002 East Elizabeth and is the closest property owner to the rezoning proposal at 1004. She felt that they would be the most affected by the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. It is her position that rezoning for 1004 East Elizabeth not be rezoned to NCB as it will devalue their property. Mr. Harder states in his petition and also stated here tonight that an appraiser devalued the property 1008 because it was not considered part of a single-family residential property. It therefore, states on the record what happens to the property adjacent to the NCB zone, the value declines. The only way they can protect their value would be to petition to rezone to NCB so they could recoup their property value which will also set into motion a dangerous domino affect and set a precedent for encroaching on the intentions and vision of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 14 Ms. Hoffner stated that the current shopping center property does not affect their property because is at the back and north and does not have any access facing their property. She also disagrees with Mr. Harder that the vacant lot at 1004 East Elizabeth is not suitable for a residential property because the property at one time did have a single-family residence. It is common knowledge that Mr. Harder owns the adjacent commercial property to the east and to the north of the rezoning considerations and the plan for 1004 and 1008 East Elizabeth will most likely play into a larger plan for all three properties. The broad definition for NCB makes the potential for all three properties combined to play a significant role in the decline of this residential area. Again she wanted to state her opposition to this request for rezoning. Member Craig asked Planner Waido if these property owners were at the table when the East Side Neighborhood Plan was being developed. Were they asking at that time to be a buffer area? Planner Waido replied that there was a tremendous amount of citizen and property owner input that went into the development of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and he could not recall whether these property owners were involved. There were two primary factors that lead the city into doing detailed neighborhood plans. The first one was, what Mr. Harder mentioned, was the Heider rezoning, which is the property directly adjacent to the 1040 East Elizabeth that was on the consent agenda. That was an extremely controversial rezoning, with it being denied primarily out of the fear of the domino affect. The second factor was the change from a standard zoning approach, to regulating land use, to the development of the Land Development Guidance System; which gave the land use flexibility to allow proposals on any property, and the criterion and the system helped the city to make a decision of whether or not that proposal should be approved on that property. We started seeing a lot of things being proposed in older neighborhoods that did not make a lot of sense. That is what lead to the development of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planner Waido commented that somehow it has been put out that part of the justification for rezoning for these properties is the fact that they are recommending a rezoning on the 1040 East Elizabeth property and that these are in a similar situation. They are not, the 1040 rezoning is based on the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the reason we are rezoning it is because we made a mistake in 1997 and put that property back into the NCL zone instead of retaining it in the NCB zone. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 15 Member Torgerson asked about the buffer district and why was there not a buffer between the commercial and the residential. Planner Waido replied that the uses were existing and eventually in the NCB zones abut single family housing. The boundaries were drawn after careful consideration during the planning process as to where the NCB zone should be and where the preservation or the low density residential should be. The shopping center was originally zoned IG, General Industrial and it was rezoned into a commercial zone as a result of the plan. That was actually a down zoning that went through on that property. Member Torgerson asked to see the map that the buffer areas were outlined in yellow. It seemed to be missing a yellow spot in this area and he wondered if that was a result to the intense opposition to the rezoning proposal on the Heider property. Planner Waido responded to the Board that in looking at the map, it is not, in every instance where you have a commercial corridor along a major arterial, that you have the predominantly residential areas buffered from that commercial with a buffer zone. The lines were drawn after careful consideration of a number of factors. If staff followed the logic that Mr. Harder is portraying we would have a yellow line all the way up and around all of the commercial areas. That did not happen because of the various reasons that were existing at the time when the zoning pattern was developed. Mr. Harder gave applicant's response. He stated again the points he previously made regarding being sandwiched between commercial and employment districts. He also stated that this area should be a buffer area. Chairperson asked if there has been any other change within the city like this and did the domino affect occur. Planner Waido replied that if the question is did the city rezone a property, which then allowed a change of use from residential to a higher intensity use. Subsequently, did another property come in and so on and so forth. He could not think of any case or cases where we rezoned a property and we had that type of domino affect. We have, however, through three neighborhood plan, the East Side Plan, West Side Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan, looked at older neighborhoods and identify those portions of the neighborhood that we felt were appropriate for redevelopment and those portions of the neighborhoods that need to be preserved. The most recent West Central Neighborhood Plan, the neighborhood residents and property owners, when coming across this type of area, did look at those areas differently than those did in this area. That may Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 16 be a function of having 20 years between the developments of the plans. Absent any effort to have the neighborhood come forth with changes to the plan, he thought the Board should still use the Plan as its primary decision guide for this rezoning effort. Planner Waido also offered that at some point in the future the attitudes and perceptions might change regarding these deep lots. From a planning perspective, to get some additional residential next to a neighborhood commercial center and a major employment center would have some merit. The area is also under the auspice of a neighborhood plan and we would have to have the neighborhood agree with that perception. Member Colton thought that an appropriate avenue for Mr. Harder would be to talk to the other residents and maybe offer a plan for the entire area and see if they would agree. If so, an amendment might be appropriate for the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Planner Waido replied that both Planner Barkeen and himself met with Mr. Harder last week and outlined that as a potential option for him. Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council denial of the rezoning request. Member Colton commented that there was some merit that given the fact that this does meet the plan and we should stay consistent with the plan. If Mr. Harder can get enough support from the neighbors to rezone several properties in the area. At this time he felt that the staff recommendation was appropriate. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she was very impressed, even when they did the East Side Plan back in 1980, that they were specific right down to the house numbers of every street so there was absolutely no interpretation. It was one lot after another and how they wanted it zoned. She appreciated that since we have gone through some other plans that were totally how do we interpret it and it was a real dilemma. If the Plan is that specific, she felt the Board should uphold that plan until the neighbors or staff deciding changes the Plan it needs to be changed. Member Colton added that he did not feel the conditions for a rezoning were met per the staff report. Chairperson Gavaldon agreed with Members Craig and Colton. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 17 The motion was approved 7-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Approved by the Board March 18, 2004 Stephani Guzzardo 2318 Hampshire Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 March 20, 2002 Mr. Richard Sapkin Managing Principal Edgemark Development LLC 410 17a' Street, Suite 1705 Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Richard: I wanted to thank you and your organization for spending time with myself and other neighbors regarding the Drake Crossing Shopping Center. This shopping center is an important asset to the neighborhood and the community and we have watched this property deteriorate over the past years. Your company's proposal to expand and remodel the Safeway will be a welcome change to the old grocery store. In addition, the removal of the buildings on Drake to make way for a new Walgreen's is very exciting. At first I was concerned about the drive thru pharmacy, however, after understanding that this is a prescription only pick up window I can admit this will be very useful for those times when the weather is inclement or I am unable to leave my small children in the car when they are sick. I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, however please feel free to distribute this letter to all of the people in attendance. I would also like to let everyone know that you and your group have been very accommodating to me by having multiple meetings and being available by phone whenever we had any questions. I look forward to this project being approved. Sincerely, Step ham Guzzaro i