Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/19/2004
Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m Roll Call: Carpenter, Lingle, Craig, Meyer, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Barkeen, Shepard, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 17, 2002, June 5, August 21, October 16, and November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-04 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-05 — Easement Dedication. 4. Resolution PZ04-06 — Easement Dedication. 5. #54-87AH Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major Amendment. 6. #1-04 Harmony Farm — Second Annexation S Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #20-03 Prospect/I-25 — Overall Development Plan. 8. #36-961 Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Major Amendment. 9. #36-96J Mulberry/Lemay Crossings, Home Depot — Project Development Plan. 10. Fall 2003 Land Use Code — Remanded Item from City Council. 11.#43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning. 12.#42-03 Adrian — Annexation and Zoning. Marion Jeffrey, 4620 Player Drive Pulled Item 5, Sam's Club Expansion for discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Craig commented on Item 6, Harmony Farms Second Annexation and Zoning. She would like to send a message to Council in regards to their aggressive pursuant of these involuntary annexations of enclaves. She does not feel that the negative consequences that people that are being forced into these annexations is being looked at. She wanted to make sure that the minutes reflect that she is concerned and would like Council to look at the impacts when they do look at enclave annexations, instead of just putting them on the consent agenda and not realizing that there are negative, both financially and otherwise, consequences to these involuntary annexations. Member Schmidt concurred with Member Craig. She thought it would be beneficial that the people affected by the enclave be made well aware at the time of all the fees and the financial impacts that the future annexation will have. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Project Description: Harmony Market PUD — Sam's Club Expansion — Major Amendment Request to expand the existing 99,810 square foot Sam's Club membership retail store by adding 30,753 s.f. along the west side and a portion of the north side of the building. In addition, to accommodate the expansion, the parking lot on the west side of the building will be re -configured including shifting the north -south access drive and the curb cut on Oak Ridge Drive further west. Significant architectural changes are proposed for the north and west elevations. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Marion Gentry, 4620 Player Drive which backs up against the lot that faces the Sam's Club addition. He and his neighbors are concerned that the tire shop will now be pointed towards their homes. It used to be pointed towards Harmony Road. Being familiar with air tools and the changing of the tires, he believed would create a lot of noise coming their way. The neighbors are asking that there is sufficient sound barrier to keep the noise from escaping and reaching their properties. Another concern is the off-loading of materials with fork lifts and that would also create a lot of noise. They live in a pristine part of the County there and they are going to be annexed next year by the city and they are concerned to maintain their property values and the seclusion that they have at this point. Public Input Closed. Kevin Robertson, civil engineer on the project addressed Mr. Gentry's concerns. He stated that they had talked to Mr. Gentry prior to the meeting and they had agreed to add additional landscape screening to that area. They had agreed to additional Juniper trees. Mr. Robertson also informed Mr. Gentry about the city noise ordinance and the hours of operation of the tire center does not interfere with that. A noise meter will be installed to make sure the noise levels are adhered to. Chairperson Torgerson asked about he fork lifts loading and unloading and when did that occur. Mr. Robertson replied that would occur during normal business hours. Member Craig asked to see a vicinity map. What is in between Sam's Club and Player Drive? Planner Shepard replied that Player Drive is labeled on the vicinity map and it is on the west side of the shopping center. The first row of lots does front on Player and does back to the shopping center. In between this site and Player Drive is a variety of land uses. There is a real estate office, mini storage, some vacant lots that can be further developed. It is served by Oakddge Drive. There is a vacant lot and additional existing commercial. Those were specifically downgraded to business services so as to not have retail. That was one of the land use buffers and transition for Fairway Estates. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 4 Member Gavaldon stated that he views that there is enough buffer between the site and Player Drive that should take care of the noise. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Sam's Club Expansion Major Amendment, #54-87AH based on the findings of fact and conclusions on Staff Report page 9, A through E. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she thought that the applicant had done a great job of listening to Mr. Gentry and adding more landscaping in trying to address this situation. It sounds like they want to be good neighbors and she hopes Mr. Gentry is satisfied in the end. Member Carpenter questioned if the additional landscaping should be included in the motion. Mr. Robertson replied that in his conversation with Mr. Gentry he had asked that they plant more Juniper trees in the buffer along Boardwalk. They are pretty tight with their landscaping as is it and they could do that as long as they could replace what is there with the type of tree that Mr. Gentry is asking for. Planner Shepard added that the area that we are trying to add more landscaping to is very "packed" already. He thought the Board would want to say something like, "replace the deciduous with evergreen trees to the maximum extent feasible." We are only going to be able to get in a few more. We don't want to get the wrong evergreen tree because we don't want to let them get to wide at the bottom and block the sidewalk. There are only a few species that can do that effectively. In terms of specifying a quantity, he can not do that right now. He can tell the Board they will get as many of them in there as possible. The evergreen trees will have to be set back from the sidewalk, as far east as possible and not spill over into the parking as well. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the required street trees could be replaced. Planner Shepard replied they think both could be done. We want the street trees to stay where they are, add evergreens wherever we possibly can. It is just a matter of "swapping" out some species. Member Gavaldon rephrased his motion: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 5 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Sam's Club Expansion Major Amendment, #54-87AH based on the findings of facts and conclusions on page 9 of the Staff Report, letters A through E. With the addition of evergreen trees in areas of opportunity that will help improve the buffering between this site and the residents of Player Drive. A plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning Staff. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Schmidt also mentioned the letter submitted by Mr. Robertson that indicates that the doors to the tire shop will be closed as much as possible to help mitigate the noise. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Prospect/I-25 Overall Development Plan, #20-03 Project Description: Request for approval of an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for land uses permitted in the C, Commercial, I, Industrial and UE, Urban Estate Zoning Districts. The proposed uses are 350,000 s.f. of commercial (on 31 acres), 1,600,000 s.f. of industrial (on 84 acres) and approximately 40 single-family residential dwelling units (on 20 acres) on a total of 135.53 acres. The property is located at the northeast corner of East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. Hearing Testimdnv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig stated her concern was in looking over what was required for an Overall Development Plan she noticed the TIS for pedestrians and bicycles were not required because of the location. Part of the point of the contiguity in the ODP's was to make sure that each piece of property connects with the other. She has concerns that this was not required at the ODP even though to the north there are some very definite connections that we are going to want them to make as well as within the site. Member Craig asked that when a PDP comes in, will we require the TIS at that time to make sure we have the pedestrian and bike connections. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 6 Planner Olt replied that we would require that. Typically we show a regional trail system, but we don't typically are showing from the standpoint of a standard bike/pedestrian connections associated with a Project Development Plan. Member Craig referenced an ODP that came in to the south of this ODP, on the southeast corner and they showed pedestrian connections internally as well as how it would go out and connect to the next property. This particular ODP did not have any of that. She then looked up what was required on an ODP under Section 3.2.2(c)(6), she noticed that it was supposed to be required. When she looked at the conclusions of the TIS it says, "there are no pedestrian attractions within the distance specified by city evaluation criteria, consequently no level of service analysis was conducted. As the area matures the sidewalk system planned with this development will be supplemented and expanded." Nothing was shown on this ODP, not even internally. She felt that was lacking and she was willing to let it be "lacking" but she wanted to make sure that it is in there very strongly at the PDP stage. Planner Olt stated that was a point well taken. Member Meyer also wanted to reiterate a point that she had heard that someone could build something here without bringing the intersection up to grade. For her comfort level she asked if anything could be built there if the intersection is not fixed. Planned Olt replied that was correct and that would be determined with any subsequent TIS that is done with the Project Development Plan. A Project Development Plan could be approved but no Final Plan for any phase of this development could occur until those improvements are made. Steve Pfiester, one of the owners of the property stated that there were four items they felt needed to be worked out to proceed with any development of the property and some of those have already been identified tonight. The first is the Sub -Area Plan and they have been working with city staff since 1999 and that Plan was approved last summer. The next was a 1601 study for the interchange and he has been working with the city Transportation Department and City Manager. There have been a series of meetings over the last 2 % years and the City Manager has written a letter indicating that the city will cooperate with their submittal of a request for a 1601 study. That study would have to be funded by the landowners and there are a group of landowners that are prepared to do that. They are waiting for the ODP to be approved and then can proceed with that next step in the 1601 study. Another issue is the floodplain. About two years ago they were notified that the floodplain was expanded due to the new rain fall Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 7 criteria. They have some issues with that that they have been working through with the Stormwater Department. The main issue is the culverts and they have requested that two culverts blocked be opened. They made a formal request that was denied and we are now pursuing some resolution to the culverts that affect the floodplain. The final thing that he wanted to address is the east/West street that comes off of the frontage road near the north end of the property. The property owner to the north of them is Les Kaplan and they have talked with him about a land swap so he would become the owner of the property north of that street because it connects with his property. There is no agreement at this point, but should that happen, he would be requesting a rezoning of just that small triangle so the zoning would compliment or be the same on his property. Public Input None. Member Gavaldon read from Page 4 of the staff report, "No site specific development plan or Building Permit shall be approved or issued in a manner that will result in a reduction in the level of service below the adopted level of service standards for the affected facility." He asked how sure we are that they cannot slip, or present something that is piece mealed and add on and add on and then someone in the south could do the same thing without having to do any major improvements. He thought that we are exposed to some of that opportunity. Director of Current Planning Gloss responded that this would follow up on Member Meyer's comment as well. There is an exception criterion in the APF Standards that talked about nominal impact. The question came up if a convenience store would generate enough trips and the threshold is 50 peak hour trips. The example used with the convenience store is that it would generate enough�traffiic that it would trigger improvements to the intersection. Member Meyer used the example of a "few houses" and a few houses would not generate enough traffic, so conceivably, the applicant could go through a PDP process and put in a very low density housing development here and do it incrementally and not do the intersection improvements. That is conceivable. Given what we have seen with the development proposal of the ODP and the intent of the uses that are shown on the plan, it seems highly unlikely that given the economics, that that would occur, but it is not inconceivable. Member Craig also commented that the storm drainage issues are so large on this property that it will come into play for anyone to develop. The cost of the drainage improvements would prohibit anyone from putting in just a few houses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 8 Member Carpenter moved for approval the Prospect/I-25 Overall Development Plan, #20-03 according to the findings of facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon stated that this area is of great concern to him and he has not supported the last two projects for the reasons tonight. He was going to vote to approve this project, but he wanted the record to show his concerns and that if there is any piece mealing or any opportunity seeking here to go small and play under the accumulation, all we are doing is making it worse than it is today. His view is that Prospect Street has to be done right. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Mulberry Lemay Crossings Filing Two, Portion of Lot Six, Home Depot, PDP, #36-96J Project Description: Request to construct a parking lot for Home Depot on the southerly portion of Lot Six of Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Filing Two. The site is located at the northeast corner of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue. The parcel is 1.29 acres and zoned C, Commercial. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, City Planner, gave the staff presentation recommending approval. The request also includes a modification to the parking distribution standard that no more than 50% of the parking be located between the front door and Lemay Avenue. There is an analysis of that in the staff report as well as a graphic. Staff is also recommending approval of the modification. He stated that the Board also received an email from Eric Bracke of the Transportation Department in regards to a question that was raised. Blair Wareheim consultant for the Home Depot through Galloway and Romero, 5350 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village Colorado spoke to the Board. Mr. Wareheim explained to the board through a visual of the site and parking plan that not having parking on the north side of the building that would enhance the effects of the pedestrian plaza along the northern side of the building that abuts Magnolia Street. The front parking lot has been broken up into 5 smaller Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 9 segmented areas. They have tried to take the parking lot and not make it feel like a large expanse. They have taken the effects of diagonal sidewalks and a main parkway sidewalk through the middle of the parking lot and segmented the major front field in front of the store. No segment exceeds 80 spaces. The out parking area includes 107 spaces. By not having parking on the north side they could accomplish what staff had asked and that was to move the building closer to the street to better interact with the street itself. Mr. Wareheim spoke about the tree placement and that it created a nice parkway feel. It also served as a screening effect for the parking lots from both Magnolia and Lemay Street. In addressing the Board's concerns from Friday's worksession regarding exposure from Lemay Street to the parking lot, they readjusted and increased the space behind the sidewalk by 7 feet and made more that just a berm with hedge, they increased the width of it, put a 2 foot high berm on it, a double row hedge and added additional trees and increased the width of the interior landscape islands to try to give a better layer, filter and look to screen the parking from Lemay. They feel that that would serve as the same function as if you had a small retail building with parking there. Mr. Wareheim reviewed the access to the site, the interior landscaping and pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian access to the buildings and plaza areas. Paul Batista, architect with Galloway and Romero Associates reviewed the architectural elevations and building materials. He explained the entryway features, the plaza areas, and design features. Public Input Betty Aragon, 140 Second Street (Buckingham Neighborhood) stated she was here tonight because of her many concerns with how this Home Depot is going to impact the three Hispanic neighborhoods, Buckingham, Andersonville and Alta Vista. They were invited to an informal meeting by Home Depot, Lucia Liley and Mark Goldberg on Wednesday, January 213t and Thursday, January 22"d to get an idea about this project for Home Depot. She felt very disappointed that if this was a public meeting, informal, it was a meeting to inform the community about this project. Why were neighbors not also invited to this meeting, she was talking about the people who live on Vine Drive, the people who live on Conifer and in the Linden Lake area. They were not invited to this meeting and she felt very disappointed about that. This project will impact many people. She has great concern about how this project will impact the traffic on Lemay; from Lincoln and Lemay to Lemay and Vine Drive. That street is already on Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 10 overload and it would be suicide to put the Home Depot in at this time and have Lemay, Lincoln and Vine remain the way it is. It cannot hold anymore traffic. She has been told that this car count was included with the Wal-Mart, so obviously what they were told was that this project was created long before they ever knew about it. If the car count was included back with the Wal-Mart, she did not believe that the count was the same today as to when Wal-Mart went in. It is not. For anyone who has traveled on Lemay at 5:00 p.m. and in the morning when people are community to work, it is gridlock. Imagine the people of Andersonville trying to get out of their neighborhood to get to where they need to be. They can't because of the gridlock. They have asked for signs to ask that people allow space for people to get out. These signs are posted on Lemay and they do not work. There needs to be more consideration and that does not happen. She has been down there to her neighbors homes and cannot get out of their driveway because of the traffic. She felt that the traffic issues need to be addressed before anything else goes in adjacent to Wal-Mart. There has been much talk about the realignment of Lemay and she would like to see that happen. Until that does happen, she will not support Home Depot, she will not support any other project at this time to go into this location. They have a lot of growth coming in around these neighborhoods and she asked that the issue of Lemay be addressed. Do not put it into suicide and there will be a lot of accidents on that street. Ms. Aragon closed by saying that these three Hispanic neighborhoods are some of the oldest neighborhoods in Fort Collins and they have been neglected for a very long time. As you can see, there is not much of a voice that is coming out of these neighborhoods. She wanted to share with the Board why. She has talked to people in these neighborhoods and their response is "why should we bother?" They don't listen to us anyway; we have been forgotten for a very long time. Hispanics have not had a voice in the development of Fort Collins. It is a "done deal" they are not going to care what they have to say. She would like to believe differently. She will come to every single meeting she has to and continue to tell them there is a problem. Please hear their voice; they are part of this community. Frank (inaudible) 225 Second Street (Buckingham) agreed that there is too much traffic and they have problems getting out to go to work in the morning. Lincoln is getting too packed like Lemay and they don't know what to do about it but stay there until the traffic moves. Sometimes they are late to work because they cannot get out of their neighborhood. He also mentioned the train and how the traffic gets worse with the trains. They suffer and was hoping that there would be something done about it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 11 Beverly Weiss, 1924 East Vine Drive hoped that there wasn't going to be another nightmare like they have at Wal-Mart right now. There are so many people at Wal-Mart, she did not care if you back up from each side, the cars are almost hitting each other, people are driving through, we have too wide of an isle and there are trees in there that should not even be there. It looks like we are going to have the same mess here with wide trees that we don't need. We need little trees not great big trees. It is a mess to the railroad tracks at Lemay and Vine and the timing of the traffic light is too fast and very dangerous. She wondered how any trucks would be coming through there in addition to the ones that go to Wal-Mart. She questioned the number of parking spaces and would it be another Wal-Mart mess with parking? It is almost a joke, how wide would the parking spaces be? Something is going to have to be done. There are going to be construction trucks coming in and out of there while it is being built which will put additional traffic on the roads. She was concerned with the trucks and their speed on Vine Drive. If a policeman would sit out there at 5:00 a.m. she bets they could write 100 tickets. Ms. Weiss agreed with the concerns of the three neighborhoods. She thought it was nice that we were going to get a Home Depot, but the parking needs to be addressed. She also thought that Home Depot should pay mighty good for their portion of the road expansion if they are going to come in here. They are going to create so much traffic that the railroad crossing and the traffic signal at Vine and Lemay need to be addressed. She didn't care whether it is an overpass or an underpass, every housing development and everybody that wants to develop out there needs to contribute to fixing those intersections. Margaret Goosman lives in Alta Vista and when Wal-Mart was started it was told that it would improve the city and the streets. She was also concerned about the traffic and the traffic at Vine and Lemay. She stated that some of the neighborhood takes their children to school because the school bus is late because of the traffic. She felt that the city should improve the street and stop working in the south and forgetting about them. Public Input Closed Chairperson Torgerson asked about the neighborhood meeting that was mentioned and the notification area being large enough. Planner Shepard replied that they had a January 213t neighborhood meeting that was city sponsored. It also coincided, intentionally, with a flyer that the developer and the applicant put out into the neighborhood. We combined forces and they also continued it to the following evening. The city did not participate in the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 12 Thursday meeting. The city facilitated the Wednesday, January 215t meeting. The notice exceeded the notification area and staff was surprised that the turnout was as light as it was. He thought it was perhaps because so much information was conveyed during the Wal-Mart process and this is the second phase of the shopping center. There was neighborhood meeting minutes and staff believes they followed the process. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the memo from Eric Bracke regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis and it did indicate that the traffic from this project was predicted in the Overall Development Plan and that the intersections were still within acceptable ranges. He asked the applicants traffic engineer to address that since Eric is not available tonight. Kathleen Kreiger, Transportation Engineer with Kreiger and Associates, 899 Logan Street, Denver addressed the question. She stated that when Wal-Mart was originally developed, the entire site was considered. Although a specific user had not been identified as a major anchor with Wal-Mart, it was assumed that some large retailer would be there. In the traffic study that was originally done, it was assumed to be a free standing discount store similar to Wal-Mart. What they did when Home Depot came to this site was to take a look at the trip generation compared to what was assumed in the original traffic study. We looked at what uses are in place today, what use Home Depot would be replacing and what additional out pads could be built on this site and projected that traffic using the standard ITE trip generation rates. What they found was basically that there was about a 10% reduction in trip generation for all the critical periods a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the development being a Home Depot rather than what was assumed in the original traffic study. They also took a look at existing traffic conditions so they could see if their traffic projections in the Wal-Mart study were holding true to what was really happening in the city, or were there spikes in traffic that they had not accommodated. They took existing traffic counts of October 2003 and they then added to those traffic counts, the amount of development that has not been built on the site yet, Home Depot and other pad sites and added that to the 2003 traffic counts and compared them to the 2005 traffic projections that were in the Wal-Mart report. What they found is that they are under the projections used in the Wal-Mart traffic study. Whenever they try and do a major traffic study as this one was, they try and use very conservative numbers and that gives them a level of comfort that some things can change, but they were still making sure that they have analyzed intersections properly. Both trip generation and the background traffic on the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 13 streets are less than what they predicted in the original traffic study, therefore the assumptions of the traffic study and all the improvements that were completed as part of the original development still are appropriate and needed for this area. In conclusion, she found and Eric agreed that no additional traffic work was required as part of the improvements that were done originally. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the Andersonville access and the fact that it is difficult for those that live in Andersonville to get onto Lemay. Ms. Kreiger replied that unfortunately it is not an issue that comes from a development such as the Home Depot. That specific access issue is more of an issue of how that development was built originally and what access was planned for it and what controls are there. It needs to be looked at individually to help that neighborhood. She felt that was something that Eric should address but would say that the problem that you have in a situation like this is that you don't want to put in unwarranted signalization, but yet you have stop sign control that the delays become longer during peak hours. The fortunate thing is that Home Depot does not have strong retail peak hours; they are the same time as the adjacent street traffic. The trend of a home improvement center is that they get traffic throughout the day, their peak really occurs about 11:00 a.m. They don't have the late afternoon 4:30 peak and they also don't have the morning peak at the same time. As a user they are not really contributing a major problem when people in a residential neighborhood are trying to get out. What is more contributing to that problem is ongoing, increased residential development because everyone has a tendency to leave their house to leave for work at the same time in the morning. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the parking for the Home Depot and how will it differ from the parking at Wal-Mart. Mr. Wareheim replied that they have addressed the drive isles and the parking situation. All of their drive isles and the parking lot adjacent to the store, the drive isles are 25 foot wide. The Wal-Mart drive isles are 24 foot wide. Their parking stalls are 9 x 19 and by the lumber canopy is contractor parking which are 10 x 19 to accommodate larger vehicles. There is a seasonal area that has been moved to the rear of the store, customers can come in and out with an easy access. He felt they have tried to address those major facets with wider drive isles and larger parking stalls. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 14 Member Schmidt asked if he felt that the parking that they are requesting down closer to Lemay would be Home Depot customers, because there does not seem to be much connectivity with that parking lot. Mr. Wareheim replied that they do believe that some customers will park there. They believe that they have tried to make it a customer parking area. Member Gavaldon asked about customers using large carts and having to push them to the parking area next to Lemay. How were they going to do that with the weak connectivity? Mr. Wareheim replied they have tried to answer connectivity a lot of different ways. They have tried to give the customer a lot of different alternatives to get to their location within the parking lot. Yes, they know that they are going to be coming down drive isles; they could also come down the 8 foot walk. He feels that they have a fairly strong connectivity. Member Gavaldon asked if they had considered a 30 degree angle parking configuration. Mr. Wareheim replied that this is their standard for their retail method is a 90 degree parking. They believe in making it a 9 x 19 parking stall. If Home Depot could figure out a way to get product from their store and their customer to their car so they could load it without having it go down a drive isle, they would have already employed it. They have looked at the parking and believe this is the best way to approach the parking and maximize parking count. Member Gavaldon asked how the cards and four-wheel carts are recovered from the parking area. Mr. Wareheim replied that they do employ people who retrieve the carts from the parking area. Member Lingle asked if they would be open to a more architectural edge to their parking lot along Lemay, possibly some intermittent stone walls or something that might meet some of the aesthetic concerns that they have not having a building there to block the parking lot. Mr. Wareheim replied that they are not opposed to that but are very cautious about building something that will be a rigid perimeter to the site. He thought that if you use landscaping, row hedges, trees and berming, you get a softer architectural edge than if you just have a wall. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 15 Member Lingle stated he was not suggesting that they replace the landscaping with walls, but supplement the landscaping with it. Mr. Wareheim stated that they would be willing to work with staff to try and accomplish that. Member Schmidt asked about the pedestrian walkway and were cars required to stop for pedestrians. Mr. Wareheim explained that all their walkways are stamped concrete and are signed. Member Schmidt replied that they might want to consider that for the center walkway that goes to the other parking area. Mr. Wareheim replied that was a very good point and they should have done that and will. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he did not see any collection points in the parking area for carts. Were there any? Mr. Wareheim replied there will be collection points. What they do is let their retailers try and place those carts. It will be done. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Wareheim replied that for the whole center (not just Home Depot) will have 659 spaces and that parks at about 4.92. Wal-Mart is parked at about 4.8 and Home Depot is parked at about 4.5 per 1,000 s.f. Chairperson Torgerson asked about trucks and the unloading of the trucks and the hours that would occur. Mr. Wareheim replied that there is a service area behind that is fully screened with an 8 foot screen wall with entryways. There is a three bay loading dock and a lumber slab. Operating hours are restricted by the zoning code from 7 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. Planner Shepard replied that there is a standard that they will have to comply with and a sign will be posted. Mr. Wareheim added that all of their trucks will come to their service area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 16 Member Gavaldon asked to see a slide of the original Preliminary PUD. Planner Shepard replied he had that, but noted it has since expired. Planner Shepard reviewed the Preliminary PUD noting that retail H is going away, which is the parking area being reviewed tonight. Member Gavaldon wanted the citizens to see what was originally approved and where we are today. It was important for them to know that changes are made. Member Gavaldon asked Ms. Aragon about her concerns about how the neighborhood meeting was held and could she highlight some key points so he could better understand what the issues were. Ms. Aragon replied that her concerns were that a flyer was asked to be passed out by Lucia Liley's office. She knows that because she passed them out in her neighborhood. She did that because she felt it was important for people to be informed about what is happening in their neighborhood. She also knows that Esmeralda Chacon passed out flyers in Andersonville and Donna Dees for Villa Lopez and San Cristo. She did not see anything in the paper that this meeting was going to be held and she would also like to know what other neighborhoods were invited because to her knowledge it was just Buckingham, Andersonville, Alta Vista, Villa Lopez and San Cristo. Member Gavaldon asked Ms. Aragon what were their concerns at the neighborhood meeting and did they feel that their concerns were adequately addressed by staff or the applicant. Ms. Aragon replied that the main thing that was a factor for her was she didn't feel as thought they were addressing the impact of traffic and how it was going to impact Lemay and Vine, and the impacts on the Andersonville neighborhood, which is already Impacted by traffic. She is not supporting the Home Depot because she firmly believes that until the whole issue of traffic on Lemay is addressed and they do something with that street before putting more traffic on that street. Member Craig cited Land Use Code 3.6.3 and from reading it she did not get the feeling that we can, under the Land Use Code, address off -site infrastructure problems and that is what Andersonville is. As a Board is there any criteria they could be looking at. Planner Shepard replied that that call is usually made by the utility that has the off -site deficiency. In this case it would be the Transportation Department. As Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 17 we talked about during the original approval, that was one of the key issues. How far out do you go in the northeast quadrant of the city that has a lot of existing deficiencies and how much off site infrastructure improvement do you attach to one specific development proposal. That is a call we make on every project in Fort Collins. Based on impact, on proximity to the deficiency and based on the trip generation. That is done for all utilities, if the infrastructure is not there to serve, how do we get it there? What percentage of that deficiency is attributed to the overall city as an existing deficiency and what is -attributed to the impact generated by the project? Member Craig remembers under the LDGS (which the preliminary came in under), it had a more interpretive section because she used it at that time to deny the project because it did not have the infrastructure back at the preliminary. It concerns her that under the LDGS she could come up with criteria, but under the Land Use Code she could not. Planner Shepard responded that he did not think the Code's differ greatly. He did not see the city being hamstrung by the Land Use Code. When we attach off site improvements to a project, we do it based on the Colorado case law and how we are advised by the City Attorney. We have been doing that consistently under both LDGS and Land Use Code. He has not seen any of our utilities back off because we went to LDGS to Land Use Code. Member Craig asked again about any criteria she could use tonight to say that she feels that the Major Amendment does not meet the criteria, therefore she could vote no. Planner Shepard responded that what staff was saying was that we have looked at the off site deficiencies, we have looked at the project and we have calculated the amount of the deficiency that is attributed to the city and that which is attributed to the Rroject and we have asked for the maximum contribution that the law allows. Member Craig's concern is when the TIS is made it is always assumed that the bypass will go around these neighborhoods so Lemay that is in front of these neighborhoods will go back to being a neighborhood street. Having just seen at worksession the new list of Capital Improvements, she didn't see that at the top of the list, which concerns her because then we are talking another eight years of more traffic in front of these neighborhoods when this bypass will not be made. It goes back to adequate public facilities of Lemay and Vine because we do not have a project in place that says that this will be improved in the future because it will require a capital improvement project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 18 Member Craig asked why staff was not looking at it that way or if staff feels that because of the LOS they can't look at it that way. Planner Shepard referred back to Mr. Bracke's memo in the second paragraph and that the level of service is talked about at the intersection. Based on his judgment, the level of service at the intersection is C and it operates at an acceptable level. What makes the intersection very difficult is the train and we don't have the ability to mitigate the impact of the train. Member Craig asked if it was Mr. Bracke's expert advice that Home Depot is not going to cause an adequate public facility requirement at that intersection. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Craig asked about the original TIS and a left turn signal was put in as part of that report, which made traffic worse and was removed. Ms. Kreiger responded that the original project did provide for a left turn arrow that was something Mr. Bracke felt might relieve some of the congestion that occurs with the train. Obviously, it was his decision that the signal was not providing the function that it needed to. Ms. Kreiger also clarified that the overall TIS done for this area did not assume a bypass being constructed since it was not funded at the time. Member Schmidt commented that in trying to look back on this somewhat objectively because she was on the other side of the fence at that time and was one of the people who worked very diligently and their group was called "citizens against a Regional Superstore" it was not anything personal against Wal-Mart even though everyone referred to it as a Wal-Mart. Possibly that is what confused the neighborhood into believing that all they were dealing with was the Wal-Mart, but the whole concept was always about the scope of this entire shopping center and that this entire shopping center would create the amount of traffic that would create problems for these neighborhoods. At that time Ms. Aragon was a strong supporter of the Wal-Mart and everyone in the neighborhood wanted this shopping center to come no matter what the consequences were. She hoped they were enjoying the benefits for the neighborhood. With that comes the drawback that everyone expected that there would be a limitation in the facilities there and at this point in time, as other Board members have pointed out, that there is not much we can do about it. That project was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 19 approved through all the various stages it went through and so at this point we are just looking at the modifications that are being presented. She thought of the idea of having one large store such as a Home Depot whereas on the original plan there were three others approved and there will be less traffic with one store instead of three. It may make things better in the future and hopefully more focus will be on the northeast neighborhoods. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Mulberry Lemay Crossing, Filing 2, Lot 2, Home Depot Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(b), citing Page 13 of the Staff Report, Section F (1) and (2) for the modification. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Lingle stated that he agreed with the staff review of this in terms of it making sense for the site plan and the way the enhanced pedestrian facilities that can be accommodated by this modification. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Mulberry Lemay Crossing, Filing 2, Lot 2, Home Depot Major Amendment citing the staff report on Page 13, Section 8, A through F and sub -paragraphs (3), (4) and (5). Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon thanked the representatives from Buckingham, Alta Vista and Andersonville for raising their concerns. As they can tell the Board does still have issues with Lemay and Vine and he emphasized with them on that one. With our criteria and processes, they are at a juncture on that one. He does want them to know that he will be asking the traffic personnel to come and speak to them about the intersection, helping to understand the issues of the train. He does believe with the train the intersection is failing. He thought that the neighborhoods should stay involved and work with the current subcommittee and continue to let the Board know how they feel. He encouraged them to call Councilmember Bertschy and Mayor Martinez and ask that this be put on the table you cannot forward it anymore. Member Craig commented that she hopes that the neighborhoods know that the Board is also frustrated with that area and she is sure when you live and drive in that area, it is very hard to believe when they tell us that it is a level of service C, there is just no way it can possibly be that. Unfortunately as a Board, they have Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 20 to go with what is given and they can't just do whatever they want. Having said that she knows that Ms. Aragon is a champion when it comes to causes and she thought the cause that she should take up now is the bypass. We have the Building Community Choices coming to vote in 2005 for a new package of capital improvements. She thought that if she put her energy trying to get that bypass on the next capital improvement package and sell it to the voters, you will get your neighborhood back. At this point she believes that will be the only way. The motion was approved 7-0. The wall that Member Lingle suggested be added was discussed and it was determined that the Board would leave it as a suggestion. There was concurrence from the applicant that they were willing to look at that and it would be up to the applicant to work with staff on the Final Compliance Plan and if agreed they could proceed. Member Gavaldon moved for approval for Mulberry Lemay Crossing, Filing 2, Portion of Lot 6, Home Depot PDP, #36-96J with the facts and findings on page 5 of the Staff Report, Section 5, A, B, C, D and E. Adding that staff work with the applicant to look at some degree of architectural barrier along with the landscape and to keep it as safe as possible, using staffs discretion working with the applicant. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Member Meyer thanked the applicant, Home Depot; she thought it was a nicely designed building. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council regarding a continued item from the Fall 2003 Land Use Code revision process. The proposed code changes are summarized: • Add Small Scale Reception Centers as a Type Two permitted use within the Urban Estate zone district (Article 4). • Add Performance Standards for Small Scale Reception Centers as a supplemental regulation (Article 3). Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 21 Add a minimum parking requirement for Small Scale Reception Centers (Article Three). Amend the existing definition of Small Scale Reception Centers to add the work "graduations" for further descriptive clarity (Article Five). Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Lingle declared a conflict of interest on this item. Chairperson Torgerson stated that this item was remanded back from City Council. City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation. He stated that the remanded item is from the November/December cycle of the Land Use Code. He stated that staff has taken advantage of the intervening time frame to work out some of the concerns that were heard at the Planning and Zoning Board Worksessions and from various City Council Members over the last several months. The result of all of the discussion is that staff has some performance standards, a slight addition to the definition to add the word "graduations" and to address the parking issue. What is new since worksession is the memo the Board received this evening and the wording changes are in bold. In particular, the parking lot lighting is totally new, whereas, the two preceding it are merely revised for clarification. On the parking lot, it says that the requirements shall be as contained in 3.2.4 in addition to what would normally be allowed on a residential local street in Fort Collins by Light and Power. What is key there is the reference section 3.2.4, that way we can be more stdgt than Light and Power. We can require two things that Light and Power doesn't do; and that is we can require the down directional sharp cut off fixture as well as when a pole is close to a property line, we can put on what we call the "house side shield Planner Shepard stated that staff feels that they have addressed the Board's concerns about what happens if there is a nearby residential property that is vacant. We say that we have a platted lot in an Urban Estate Subdivision but it has not been built on. Having said that the Board will hear from one of the applicant's tonight that that particular dimension will not work for her but she is willing to accept it because she has a degree of confidence that when she comes back as a PDP, after a neighborhood meeting, that a modification will be in order Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 22 because her lot is shaped extremely long and narrow. It is hard to get a dimension going in the east/west direction like that. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley and Associates addressed the Board. She thanked the Board for letting them work further on this issue. She felt they were very successful in coming up with performance standards that solved the problems. Julie Meyer thanked the Board for reconsidering this item. She felt they have some very strong performance standards that benefit the city with this use for small scale reception centers. She received the same memo as the Board did prior to the hearing. She cited items C and D where it mentions the feet from the nearest property line. When they initially deliberated about distance, they really wanted to protect the neighboring residents. There are certain properties that are very narrow; the one in particular that she is looking at is 200 feet in width by itself. The neighboring however are also 5 acre properties, and the nearest resident is 500 feet from her actual location. There is an open space next to this great property, that a reception site would be ideal, however these become limiting. She wanted to know if they are necessary for the comfort level of the Board or what their conclusion was on C and D of the memorandum. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Schmidt stated that she was the person in the worksession who raised the question about the vacant lot. Her issue with that was that if we had in this ordinance that all buildings should be located a minimum of 300 feet from the nearest dwelling and adjoining property; she did not want to set up a situation where someone could not come in and develop on that lot because they would not be 300 feet from the site that is already there. But if that is not a requirement that impedes then, and that was her main problem, she did not want this 300 foot requirement next to vacant land to prohibit somebody from using that vacant land because then you would be too close to the reception center. Planner Shepard responded that he and Deputy City Attorney Eckman had discussed that matter and they agreed that a subsequent to a reception a builder chooses to build closer to an existing reception center, that does not cause the reception center to fail in anyway because it was there first. Member Schmidt asked if it limited the person who owns the vacant property. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 23 Planner Shepard replied no, they would be required to build according to the zoning on their property. Member Craig felt it was necessary because we are talking about a 5,000 to 10,000 s.f. facility; we are not talking about a house, barn or shed. She feels that the next piece of property, whoever it belongs to, and they should have a lot of buffer area when they decide to develop it. Member Schmidt asked about vehicular access and a way that would make it direct. She asked if that was a possibility. Planner Shepard replied that would be easy to do. Member Schmidt asked if the parking had to be pavement. They had discussed other options. Planner Shepard replied that was in the parking section of the Code and the ability to look at alternative surfaces. Member Schmidt asked about the noise ordinance and that it would be enforced. If you are a small scale reception center and someone calls the police because they feel you are in violation of the noise ordinance and the police come out and decide that you are, who would get the ticket. The reception center or the party that is having that event? Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it could be to the reception center or to the band that was making the noise. Member Craig asked about some of the reception centers in other communities and are they in neighborhoods, where are they located in other communities? Stacy Richter responded that there are various other reception sites in Fort Collins and Loveland. There are several that are in neighborhoods and close into residential like the Avery House here in Fort Collins. There are different types of events that they have at the Edwards House. The McCreerey House in Loveland is very close to residential and was a special exception by Loveland within their zoning to have weddings and receptions done at their place of residence. They are normally within residential areas or nearby. None have had complaints, they did call the police for Fort Collins, Loveland and Berthoud and asked if there has ever been a complaint on a reception site and none of them had ever had a complaint. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 24 Member Craig stated that the examples she is giving is not in comparison to the 5,000 to 10,000 s.f. of this site. Is there any other reception sites that compares to the size of this. Ms. Richter replied that the Cottonwood Club in Fort Collins would be a comparable example size wise. The Cottonwood Club does have an existing neighbor to the north that is right along side their property line. The house is about 20 feet off of the property line of the Cottonwood Club. There is a new development that is built up behind the Cottonwood Club to the west. Member Craig asked what size the Cottonwood Club was Ms. Richter replied about 5,000 s.f. Member Craig stated that was still on the low end, it was not all the way up to 10,000 s.f. Ms. Richter replied that the facilities that are going to do the market well in Fort Collins are going to be closer to the 5,000 s.f. for any new building. That is what they were looking at. Member Craig asked why staff went to something as large as 10,000 s.f. Planner Shepard replied that staff wanted to allow flexibility, we know there are larger parcels out there. Some of the research that Advanced Planning did indicated that some are that large. You might not get as many in the community if some are larger. We talked about what a seating capacity would be and what a large wedding would be and staff felt that 10,000 would be at the high end. Most will be in the 200 person, which would be a large wedding. It just did not seem like an objectionable size. Ms. Baker added that in response to the question regarding where the 10,000 s.f. came from, it would be in response to the need in the city. A lot of the ball rooms in the area are much larger in capacity than what they were looking at. They are trying to get away from the aesthetics of a hotel and have something more quaint. That 10,000 s.f. is not just a large ballroom; it is broken up so it more like a home and you can have smaller rooms for smaller conference centers. It is not to say that the 10,000 s.f. is just going to be a big parry, it is a smaller broken up area. Chairperson Torgerson asked if any other Board Member had comments on the 250 foot issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 25 Member Carpenter thought that we were making it harder if there are no dwellings on the adjoining property. She asked if that number could be reduced for the number of feet from the property line. Chairperson Torgerson also felt that it was excessive. He supported the first part of it because you would not want to come and sit down next to someone's existing home. Member Meyer asked what felt comfortable, 100 feet. Member Gavaldon stated that whoever comes in on the vacant parcel has a 250 foot buffer and now they can build and move their envelope where they want. Otherwise it is 300 feet from the nearest building. He felt we were covering our bases to not to be pushed up against somebody. Member Meyer asked how detrimental is one of these to an adjacent property; will it hurt the property value? Member Craig stated that in Urban Estate that would be a good chance and what if the property next to it is long and narrow also. How are they going to put the house so it is not impacted by the reception center? Even though we have from the property line to the building, 250 feet, by the time they put in a parking lot they could be right on the property line. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the minimum acreage would have to be. Planner Shepard replied 7 acres. Member Schmidt reminded the Board that actual zoning for Urban Estate can go down to two houses per acre, so it would be possible that a person will only have one acre parcel Ind they won't all be next to 5 acre parcels. That gives that person less room to play with on their land. Chairperson Torgerson stated that this is a modifiable standard, so if a specific condition came up that was warranted, this could be modified. Member Craig commented that she has not changed her mind from before. She thought that it was inappropriate in Urban Estate. She thought the purpose of the Urban Estates is compromised by this and she thought we don't have a lot of Urban Estate left in the city and she would hate to see it filled up with the size of buildings they are talking about. She does not understand why something of the size of 10,000 s.f. could not fit within any other zone but Urban Estate. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 26 Member Craig moved to not recommend putting the small scale reception center in the Urban Estate zone. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon asked Ms. Ripley if there was any facility close to the 10,000 s.f. in the Longmont Boulder area. Ms. Ripley replied that there is one in Lafayette. Member Gavaldon asked what the square footage of that facility is. Ms. Baker replied that they have two facilities on the site, just as they would with a historic home and a new facility. The newer facility is approximately 10,000 s.f. and the old home is about 5,000 s.f., and it is in a neighborhood and it is on about 10 acres. They are on a major arterial street but they are totally surrounded by homes. Member Schmidt asked how many people that would accommodate. Ms. Baker replied that for that kind of facility it could be anywhere from 125 to 370. The Dove House can accommodate up to 125 and the Lions Head up to 370. Member Carpenter stated she would not be supporting the motion. It seems to her that we have done a good enough job here with the new performance standards and especially with the one that makes these applications Type II reviews. She is not concerned with 5,000 to 10,000 s.f. in the Urban Estate that is a house anymore. This kind of a facility needs to be in a rural setting, there is really no where else to put it within the UGA. She thinks it is something we can use. She did not�see any reason not to approve it. Member Schmidt felt that the staff did a good job in coming up with a lot of the modifications. The key for her is the arterial street. She felt that was going to limit the impact on the neighborhood. She also thought it would limit the neighborhoods it is eligible to fit in. She thought that 10,000 s.f. is a very large footprint because on a house it could be two stories or with a basement. By the time you put parking around a 10,000 s.f. will make an impact. That is really the only part she is still uncomfortable with is the size. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 27 Member Gavaldon would support the motion. He agreed with Member Craig that Urban Estate was established and adding this use would be convoluting it. He also thought that the 10,000 s.f. is too much. He felt that 7,500 s.f. should be the maximum. He did like the standards but felt they could still be "beefed" up more. Member Craig appreciated the discussion regarding houses being 10,000 s.f. anymore, but she did not think that many of us would invite 500 of our most intimate friends over and put in a parking lot with lighting so our 500 friends would have a place to park and that we would invite them at least 4 times a week so we could afford our 10,000 s.f. house. That is where she has a problem, this is not a house, this is a business that impacts the streets, lighting, parking lot and disrupting every weekend for the neighbors. She really thinks this is inappropriate and does not meet the purpose of the Urban Estate Zone. Ms. Baker commented about the 10,000 s.f. Something that they looked at for their property which is 15 acres could potentially have 58,000 s.f. of homes on the property and that does not include accessory buildings. As it stands right now they would have one facility sitting in the center of their plot. Hewlett Packard sits right next to them and the view is already compromised by something else going on. She would rather look out her window and see this rather than all of this beautiful open space being torn up by houses. The way they have the cars directed they stay away from the houses and are directed toward HP and that will be seen in their PDP. Planner Shepard added that this use, with the way the performance standards are written could never go into a platted Urban Estate neighborhood. The motion failed 3 — 3 with Member Lingle not voting due to a conflict of interest. Members Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson voting in the negative. Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council that they look at these proposed changes for the small scale event center and recommending a size of 7,500 s.f. maximum; and including all the changes included in Planner Shepard's memo and the direct access. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 28 Project: Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, Mountain Vista Plan Amendment and Structure Plan Amendment, File #43-02 Project Description: Request to annex and zone approximately 91.25 acres of land located along the north side of East Vine Drive, south of the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of the Waterglen Subdivision. The project is located within the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan. The proposed zoning is LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Both the Mountain Vista Sub - Area Plan and the Structure Plan designate this property as E — Employment, and this is the zoning designation recommended by staff. Amendments to the Mountain Vista Plan and Structure Plan accompany the annexation and zoning request. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, File #43-02 with initial zoning to the E — Employment Zone District and denial the requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and Structure Plan Amendments. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning with initial zoning to the E — Employment Zone District and denial of the requested Mountain Vista Sub -Area and Structure Plan Amendments. He noted that the property gained its contiguity from the adjacent Waterglen Subdivision and also from land to the south of Vine Drive. This parcel is zoned for Employment uses on both the Structure Plan and Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan. Planner Barkeen noted that not zoning this property as E — Employment would result in a net loss of just over 90 acres of Employment -designated land in the City. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant's presentation, on behalf of Ken Crumb with Vista Ventures. She noted that Mr. Crumb also developed Waterglen and the hope is that the development of this piece of property will prevent Waterglen from becoming an isolated residential area. It seemed there Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 29 were three reasons for designating the parcel as Employment on the Structure Plan. First, CDOT had originally indicated that there would be an interchange at Vine and 1-25 and they are now stating that they do not know when or ever it will occur. In addition, Vine Drive was originally projected to be a truck route and that is no longer a viable option in this community. The third reason is that the property is bisected by a railroad track. Initially, it was thought that the railroad could be accessed with a spur but it seems that was probably never possible and is definitely not possible now because of the irrigation canal that runs parallel to the railroad track. The canal does provide a nice buffer to a residential use. Ms. Ripley noted that this site is almost completely surrounded by LMN properties and is really an isolated Employment zone. Ms. Ripley stated that in order to help resolve the issue of E-zoned land remaining in balance, her client is willing to make a land trade to change the zoning to E of a 67-acre piece of land that is currently zoned LMN, if the Trailhead property could be zoned LMN. This would make the net loss of E zone about 23 acres. Ken Crumb, applicant and owner, gave his testimony to the Board. He noted that the City has cited economic reasons for not wanting this property to be zoned LMN. He stated that his proposed project will provide significant employment opportunities during the time it is being built. He introduced Rhonda Corman, of UNC, to make a statement regarding the economic impact of this project. Ms. Corman stated that she did an economic impact analysis on this property, with use as a residential project. She found that the construction phase benefits would outweigh costs and stated that it makes sense, in the immediate run, to capture these revenues. The induced and secondary effects get even larger in the 10-year outlook. Mr. Crumb stated that this site is located minutes from the main employment centers of Fort Collins and is very conveniently located in terms of travel to workplace. In addition, a child-care facility has also been planned for the site. Public Input Jessica Toll, with the Fagre & Benson (?) law firm, 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver, 80203, gave her testimony to the Board, on behalf of Anheuser-Busch. She stated only that AB did not want zoning to change on any of its property. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked if the item should be continued for further staff information. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 30 Chairperson Torgerson stated that if the Board were to look at the applicable criteria for zoning and annexation, he would support approval of the project. Attorney Eckman stated that the Board should decide, based on the language of the Code, found in Division 2.9. It states that "any amendment to the zoning map involving the zoning of less than 640 acres of land shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the Council only if the proposed amendment is: a) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and/or; b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhoods surrounding and including the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan, as it stands now, would recommend E — Employment but the zoning change could be supported if the Board found evidence to support "b" above. Member Schmidt noted that there was no comparison made between the economic benefits of this site being employment versus residential. Based only on construction, the benefits would apply to both situations, though the time scenario may be shorter with residential uses. She stated that she was not sure she felt comfortable declaring a change in conditions to rezone this piece. Member Craig asked Chairperson Torgerson to clarify his statement about the change in conditions in the area. Chairperson Torgerson replied that the truck bypass probably warranted an employment site here and a truck bypass is now not feasible due to an amendment passed by voters. The site has changed also because of the possibility of the interchange not happening. It seems that access would be very difficult for employers Member Schmidt noted that Mr. Crumb was just describing how easy it would be for residents to get to the employment areas. Member Craig stated that it would be nice to have employment near Waterglen rather than having those residents worry about how they are going to get to employment. She stated that her biggest concern with the job -housing balance is that when the analyses are put together, they use the Anheuser Busch employment land as part of the equation and we don't know when or if that land is going to be used for employment. We cannot use this land in the calculations for available employment land. There were several reasons for making this land Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 31 employment, beyond the bypass. Additionally, the Master Street Plan does show an interchange at Vine and 1-25. Member Carpenter stated that the land trade mentioned by Ms. Ripley seems to be fair and it makes more sense to have the employment located by other employment and have this property in with the housing near Waterglen. Member Craig stated that the difference between putting the employment on the north side of the railroad track versus the south side is that when the Mountain Vista Plan was done, LMN was put on the north side of the railroad track so that it would work as a buffer in a neighborhood around the community commercial. Getting an at -grade crossing at a railroad is very difficult. The thought was to put employment down at Vine where you can get the connection to College and you can the connection into the neighborhoods to the south. Moving it over to the other side of the railroad tracks would make access more difficult. Ms. Ripley stated that the current Mountain Vista proposed plan shows this area as LMN. Making it LMN now, ahead of the plan being done, does not compromise that plan in anyway. This site would not develop as Employment any sooner than any of the AB land would. Member Gavaldon stated that this site should stay E because of the railroad crossing and the associated danger. Member Carpenter stated that they are re -doing the Mountain Vista Plan to zone this property LMN. Pete Wray, Advance Planner, stated that staff does not want the property rezoned to LMN for a few reasons. The property was zoned E because it had access to an arterial, the Master Street Plan showed an interchange with frontage road acrress, the potential truck route, and other reasons. Though it is true that certain conditions have changed, the market could change to support employment here at any time. A change of zoning cannot be supported until we see how it all fits in with the rest of the picture in the revised Mountain Vista Plan. Staff is optimistic that the stormwater issues can be dealt with. Member Lingle asked Planner Wray to address staffs position on the possible proposed land swap. Planner Wray stated that the applicant was the first person to propose this idea and look at the property currently zoned LMN as a possible location for the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 32 regional detention. The discussions are on -going as to whether or not that will work. The new Mountain Vista Plan has not been finalized. Member Carpenter asked if the revised Mountain Vista Plan would show this property as LMN. Planner Wray replied that that is what is shown on the plan to date and stated that staff does understand the applicant's reasons for wanting this to be LMN. However, prior to this development proposal, staff was comfortable with the Mountain Vista Plan as it was. Mr. Wray added that staff is concerned about the potential loss of Employment land in the northeast part of town. Member Lingle asked if staff would support a requested rezoning to LMN of this piece if all the other issues were worked out. Planner Wray replied that they would. Member Craig stated concern about having a single land owner for the entire piece. Planner Wray replied that there are a little over 1,000 acres of buildable employment land within the GMA. Anheuser Busch makes up about 47% of that inventory. AB is primarily concerned with residential compatibility with the industrial brewery operations. Member Craig asked if AB would be willing, in the 10 or 15 year time frame, to sell some of their land for employment uses rather than hold on to it for a buffer. Planner Wray did not want to speak on behalf of AB but stated that he thought they would be willing to consider selling some of the land to uses that would support their existing operations. Ms. Toll, attorney for AB, stated that AB does not oppose the ultimate rezoning of its property; they would just like to see the stormwater issues resolved prior to the rezoning. She stated that AB is working with staff to get those issues resolved. Member Craig stated that her concern was whether or not AB was willing to market the land. Ms. Toll replied that she did not have an answer for that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 33 Member Craig stated that she was not comfortable in believing that AB would sell the employment land. Member Carpenter stated that that is a completely separate problem and that the applicant has really been caught up in something outside their control with these issues. These things have nothing to do with the applicant's request. Member Meyer stated agreement with Member Craig but asked what would happen to the employment land when the storm drainage had to go there. Member Gavaldon asked what the staff recommendation was based on Planner Barkeen replied that it was based on the current Mountain Vista Plan. He stated that he did not see any change in conditions that would warrant the rezoning. Ms. Corman wanted to remind the Board that the land swap proposed by the applicant is equitable and would provide a buffer to the residential area and railroad access to the employment area. Immediate City and economic benefits are being lost with this development not starting. Member Gavaldon moved for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of the Trailhead Annexation and Zoning, #43-02, with initial zoning to E — Employment, and denial of the amendments to the Mountain Vista Sub -Area Plan and Structure Plan, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Carpenter stated that she would not support the motion and believed that the potential, land swap was fair. Member Schmidt stated that the trade, acreage -wise, might be close to fair, but if AB decides not to do anything with that property, it is a landlocked piece of employment because it has no access. If it comes together in a whole package with AB, it would be a good situation. However, as a piecemeal thing, it does not seem to solve the problem. Most of the reasons this would be a good LMN piece would also apply to an employment zone. Member Lingle stated that, in addition to preserving the City's inventory of Employment land, it also protects the Sub -Area Plan and its concepts with the residential being adjacent to the community commercial area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 34 Chairperson Torgerson stated that he would not support the motion and stated agreement with Member Carpenter. He added that there are changed conditions on the site and staff is stating the LMN does make sense, though they are concerned about the land balance. The Code criteria for approving or denying this do not include anything about AB developing the property. The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Carpenter, Meyer, and Torgerson voting in the negative. Project: Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 Project Description: Request to annex and zone 2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single family residence (with house and barn) and is in the FA Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning in the City of Fort Collins is LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairperson Torgerson excused himself because of a conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Meyer. City Planner Steve Olt gave the staff presentation stating that staff was recommending approval of the annexation and that the property be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. He stated that the property is eligible for annexation by virtue of the Irish Second Annexation along West Vine Drive, which was a flag pole annexation that was done several years ago to enable the city to annex Irish Elementary. Planner Olt displayed the zoning map and pointed out the properties in yellow around the Adrian property that are in the city and are in the LMN zoning district and also what was still in Larimer County. Planner Olt displayed the Structure Plan map that was adopted by the city in 1997 and stated that the property to be discussed tonight is designated as Low Density, Mixed Use Residential. The requested zoning that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 35 the applicants are bringing before the board is consistent with the adopted city Structure Plan. Troy Jones, M Torgerson Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant. He wanted to respond to a couple of issues that were brought up at worksession. Mr. Jones displayed the site and stated that the subject property and the property to the south as well as the two properties across Impala Drive are not part of the subdivision that is to the south. He thought it was important to maka that distinction clear because there are several properties that are more rural in this immediate vicinity, including this property than there are to the south on Impala Drive. He stated that the area with sidewalk is a subdivision and the area where there wasn't sidewalk, just swales off the side of the road is not included in the subdivision. Mr. Jones wanted to go back to 1997 and look at the issue of when property designated Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood on the Structure Plan was zoned originally back in 1997, one of the fundamental questions was do you zone it RL, Residential Low Density or do you zone it LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The difference between the two is primarily in density. The RL zone allows the smallest size lot to be 6,000 s.f., whereas the LMN can go up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Jones wanted to point out a couple of examples to address the question raised at worksession; which was would it not be more appropriate to zone this Adrian Annexation RL versus LMN. He argued that it would make more sense to zone it LMN. Mr. Jones gave a couple of examples of other areas of the city with similar situations, He stated that it was important to see that in 1997 when this zoning was initiated all of the areas that were zoned LMN were vacant at that point and all of the areas that were zoned RL, already had been developed. The assumption at that point was that if it has development potential and it is designated Low Density Residential on the Structure Plan, go ahead and make it LMN and if it is already developed in the time frame of the Structure Plan and does not have redevelopment potential, you give it RL. Mr. Jones reiterated that the Adrian Annexation site being a piece of property that is a meets and bounds rural type of character that is not part of a subdivision would be appropriate to be LMN. Public Input Dr. Steven Schafer, 601 North Impala Drive read a statement of a petition (Exhibit A) into the record. They request that this annexation be halted immediately and stated numerous reasons. They believe that this could perhaps Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 36 be zoned RL or UE to keep it more in character with the City Code. The Land Use Code, Section 3.5.1 states that "any architectural design and construction carried out should maintain the architectural character and integrity of the neighborhood." They are requesting that a thorough traffic study be done immediately at this point, before this annexation goes through. It should include vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on both West Vine and North Impala Drives, traffic flow on Cherry Street between North Impala and Irish Drive and also on Irish Drive. There is also a stormwater issue in this area and they request that the stormwater drainage issues be resolved before any such annexation is carried out. The proposed annexation site is not presently developed, which means that the precipitation soaks into the ground until its saturation point. After which, it runs off to the south. The proposed units to go on this property, in which they have seen drawings, will cover most of the site with concrete, asphalt and shingles and will impose significant runoff. This runoff, whether detained or retained, or allowed to simply run away, proposes an imminent danger to the residential property directly due south. There is no curb and gutter there right now and if curb and gutter were to go in, you will pose an imminent flooding danger to six residents on Impala Drive because there is no slope to the street. There are already flooding issues in the West Vine Basin. There are no storm drains on Impala Drive. There street cannot handle anymore and as residents of North Impala Drive do not want to stand for this imposed threat and danger of flooding to their homes. Has the staff studiedthe stormwater issues regarding this annexation? There is no mention of this in the staff report. Another major issue they are looking at regarding the traffic study and their request for this is because there are many children that play in the streets over on Impala Drive around Cherry Street and at Irish Elementary. They think that this represents a clear and present danger to their children's safety, pedestrian safety and safetX in the neighborhood. He is under the belief that North Impala Drive is a 30 foot wide street that has a 1,000 vehicle per day maximum usage on it. There are 39 homes on Impala Drive, which is a dead end street. There is one way out on Vine Drive and one way out on Cherry Street where it T's with Impala Drive. They are also impacted by the traffic at the school coming up Impala Drive. He is of the belief that they are already seeing this 1,000 vehicle per day limit and because of any proposed LMN zoning and the density that it would allow, there is two ways this traffic is going to go. One way is out onto Vine and the other is down Impala. He thinks that is just too much at this time to be handled. He is requesting that the Board halt this annexation until this can property be studied, so they do not put the health and welfare and the safety of their children and pedestrians at risk in their neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 37 In summary, this incompatible annexation proposal looks great on the map and fits the colors. If you only would go out there and look at this and see how preposterous this is, you would understand. It is insensitive to and lacks respect for the long standing residents of this Green Acres subdivision and the surrounding neighborhoods. It presents issues of public safety, public health and societal concerns, all of which are undesirable and unnecessary. He again pleaded with the Board to halt this annexation at this time. After all 115 neighborhood citizens have signed a petition (Exhibit A) against this imposition and potential cause for trouble for an otherwise terrific residential neighborhood. Sandra Knox, 2309 West Vine Drive questioned Mr. Jones's statement of how all developed properties were put in the RL zoning district in 1997. They were developed then and she asked why they were put into the LMN zoning district. Ms. Knox stated that she was opposed to the Adrian Annexation for two reasons. First is the stormwater issue and her big issue with that is whether her field will be flooded. Currently the water flow is straight down into her property. She has been flooded numerous times from that field. She wants to find out where the water is going to go. She was concerned that if there is a retention pond about West Nile Virus because they have horses and they don't need more mosquitoes. Another concern that Ms. Knox has is that she has a well on her property next to this annexation. She is concerned about the groundwater and the water table. Her property values will go to zero if she cannot use her well. She has an acre and a half that she has to water. She just read in the paper that someone with an acre and a half, with city water, cost them $1,000 a month. She is greatly concerned about her well and that there should be a complete study done to cover both the stormwater issues and the water issues before deciding annexation. She stated that the Land Use Code states, "that the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage." It says in the Land Use Code that adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage shall be provided. Paul Waxeman, 416 North Impala stated that he was concerned with the condition of the road. He stated that the County or the city does not help fix the road and there are holes already in the road and with the exit traffic the holes will only get worse. He also concurred with previous speakers concerns. John Justice, 2318 Plains Court stated that he also was concerned with the drainage flowing onto his property. He has a small culvert for stormwater for the development that is there right now. His concern is the additional water that will Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 38 occur with asphalt and concrete he will have an erosion issue because he has an undeveloped field on his north side that is about a foot higher than his property. If stormwater does flow through there it will be more that he is able to handle and he will have an erosion issue. Sharon Stockton, 613 North Impala was concerned with the zoning designation and pushing the LMN for future development. Like Ms. Knox stated, all the property is developed other than a couple of properties. The type of development that they have seen proposed there will be no other development unless other houses are torn out. It is an established neighborhood and there is no more room for anything like what is being proposed and it does not make a lot of sense for LMN. Fred Winkler, 624 Irish Drive stated that the reason he has lived a century there is because he enjoys the rural atmosphere there and he opposes this development because it will be detrimental to the character of their community. Ann Rockisnick, 2318 Plains Court stated that she does not want water going through her back yard because she has animals and she does not want to provide a swimming pool for them. Public Input Closed Mr. Jones rebutted that most of the comments heard tonight are very valid comments, however what we are talking about tonight is just a change in jurisdiction from the County to the city and the second part is what to zone the property. The concerns raised tonight are all development review related concerns that once a Project Development Plan is applied for, each and every one of those concerns would have to be addressed before it could gain development approval. Just changing the jurisdiction to the city of Fort Collins gives the city anq the development review staff the chance to apply the standards. When it is under the County's jurisdiction, the city does not have the ability to do anything with reviewing the property. Also Ms. Knox had a question on something he had presented earlier. He clarified that the two examples were in the city in 1997 when the new Structure Plan was adopted, whereas this portion was in the County and is still in the County, therefore the city had no jurisdiction to designate it one or the other zone, it has to wait until it is annexed. Member Craig asked if this property were to be developed in the County today, what would be the density. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 39 Mr. Jones replied that FA zoning is 2 units per acre Member Craig stated that what she was hearing from the neighbors is that their biggest concern is density and with the total deficiency in infrastructure there, why are we looking at LMN. This property is totally deficient in infrastructure and we are bringing in this high density city project that can't possibly address all of these concerns on less than two acres. Basil Harridan, Stormwater Utility responded to the neighbors concerns and stated that as the neighbors have stated, the area is deficient in storm drainage facilities. It was developed in the County but the city does have a long-term solution to bring in a major channel and put in a regional detention on the Forney property. That is the long term solution, but how that will address this particular area and how it will get to the channel through the deficient street, there would have to be a storm sewer put in and retrofit improvements. Currently the infrastructure is not there. Since we don't have a PDP to look at, he cannot address the stormwater issue on this particular property. He is looking at it as a whole basin perspective, the West Vine Basin. That is what they put Master Plans together for. Member Schmidt asked about the future and was he talking 5 years or 20 years. Mr. Harridan replied it was hard because some of it is driven by development. Sometimes we are moved by development and resources are shifted to accommodate that. If there is enough development pressure it could be in 5 years. His sense is that we would do something of a more temporary nature, a short-term fix that will allow these developments to go through before we do the major improvements. There also maybe some interim improvements that would provide some relief, but that is speculation. Member Schmidt asked if this was zoned RL, what would be the maximum density. Mr. Jones replied that the RL does not specify density in units per acre. It is minimum lot size 6,000 s.f. You can have larger lots than 6,000 s.f. but to make it as dense as possible it is a minimum of 6,000 s.f. lots. In this case it would be 5 units per acre. LMN could go up to 8 units per acre. Planner Olt added that it would be a net density of 5 units per acre and 8 gross units per acre. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 40 Member Schmidt asked about a conceptual design for this property. Mr. Jones replied that there is a drawing that is anticipated to be submitted as a development plan, but we would have to wait until it is annexed before the staff has jurisdiction to review that plan. Member Schmidt asked how many units were on the plan. Mr. Jones replied 16. Member Gavaldon thought the Board was deviating from the process and asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to review for the Board the criteria under which they have to make their decision. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the criteria for annexation and zoning for the Board. Member Lingle asked what the density was of the surrounding existing developments are. Planner Olt replied that looking at it from the more rural properties to the east, west and south, there are two parcels to the west just across Impala Drive that are both 1/3 acre in size. To the south there is a property that is about an acre and a half in size. To the east there are two parcels that are still a meets and boundaries description, lands that are not subdivided, one being 1/3 acre, the other 1 % acre in size. As you get to the platted subdivisions in Larimer County to the southeast and west, you are looking at lot sizes to the south of 10,000 to 13,000 s.f., to the west 6,500 to 7,500 s.f., and the subdivision to the east 10,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. To put that in context, if this were zoned LMN, you could have a range of 8 to 13 dwelling units, as standard residential development. Depending on the amount of road network that would have to be included on the site, that would provide for lots anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 s.f. in size. By comparison, a development in the LMN district could be commensurate with the platted subdivision lands to the west, south and east, excluding the larger parcels that are directly adjacent to this property. Those densities would equate to probably three to five dwelling units per acre in those existing subdivisions in Larimer County. Member Schmidt asked if a Project Development Plan came in on this property what would they be required to mitigate as far as the drainage concerns go. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 41 Planner Olt replied that Stormwater Adequate Public Facilities are taken into consideration and those do have to be met before any final plan for any development proposal could be approved. Vice Chair Meyer reminded the citizens in the audience that they were not the final authority in this and that the Planning and Zoning Board was only making recommendation to City Council. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for the Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 that the property be annexed into the city of Fort Collins based on the findings on page 3 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Chairperson Torgerson not voting due to a conflict of interest. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council for Adrian Annexation and Zoning, #42-03 be placed in the LMN, Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood Zoning District as well as the property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commented that she would not be supporting the LMN. After what she has heard tonight and in looking at the area, she feels that she could request RL instead. This area sounds like it has a lot of issues. Even developed at RL, it is going to impact the neighbors, but she thought they would be willing to work at that. When talking about 16 units, she felt that there was a very negative impact in that and she felt that when we did put in the underlying RL zones, we did it with the thought of existing neighborhoods. She was getting the feeling tonight that County people are going to think city people are pretty awful. We involuntarily annex, we force high density down their throats, and we really have not done very many positive things for County residents. She did not think the city is going to suffer in any way shape or form if this was zoned RL. Member Lingle agreed with Member Craig. In looking at the findings, he did not agree with number 4 that it is appropriate for the site based on adjacent zoning. He felt that RL would be more appropriate. Member Gavaldon would be supporting the motion. In looking at the map, there is LMN on the fringe, on the east and south quadrants. There is also LMN over Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 42 by Sunset. He believes the PDP will address the residents concerns. The residents also have a golden opportunity to go to Council if they don't agree with this Board. Member Schmidt also agreed with Members Craig and Lingle. She sees the larger parcels of LMN and when you have a larger parcel of LMN, you have more flexibility where you can buffer and mitigate impacts. When you are just talking about a little two -acre piece you are more limited and it makes the impacts harder. She thought the RL would be more appropriate for this particular piece. Director Gloss wanted to clarify some statements made earlier regarding the density on this property. The LMN zoning district has a minimum density of 5 units per acre and a maximum density of 8 units per acre. Potentially, if it is an affordable housing project, it could be up to 12 units per acre. The Green Acre subdivision to the south is 5 units per acre. So to make it comparable, the developer would have to choose to do the lower end of the density range in order for the density to match the character to the south. Member Carpenter asked what the density would be for RL. Director Gloss replied that it would be slightly less than the parcels to the south and more comparable to the parcels that are immediately to the west. Planner Olt added that in the LMN zoning district there is a qualification, there is an exception to the minimum density in that this property is in the city's defined infill area. In that infill area, and a property is less than 20 acres in size, there is no minimum density requirement, so they are not required, if they do not want to, to meet that minimum 5 units per acre. They could do 1 single family residence if they wanted to. They still have a maximum density of 8 units per acre gross area unless it is affordable housing which could be up to 12. This property could develop anywhere from 1 to 20 units. The 20 dwelling units would be if it was an affordable housing project. The motion failed 4-2 with Members Carpenter, Lingle, Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council on the Adrian Zoning of RL, including the neighborhood sign district. Member Lingle seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 43 The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m. These minutes were approved at the May 20, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Ted She and - Home De of Traffic Issues Page I J From: Eric Bracke To: Ted Shepard Date: 2/19104 9:34AM Subject: Home Depot - Traffic Issues Dear Ted, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Board meeting tonight due to another commitment. However, it is my understanding that some folks from the public may bring up issues regarding traffic, particularly at the intersection of Vine and Lemay. Vine and Lemay currently operates at LOS C, which is acceptable based on the City standards. When the Mulberry/Lemay Crossing project was first proposed, a comprehensive Transportation Impact Study was completed. Based on the impacts of the Center, roadway improvements were constructed in anticipation of the build -out of the project. The Home Depot phase of the project updated the TIS and is dated October 24, 2003. The TIS was prepared by Bowers & Krager, Inc. The results of the study clearly indicated that the original study was accurate and therefore the improvements made previously were appropriate for the development. The existing and proposed traffic from the development are being used in the calculations to determine the Adequate Public Facilities threshold for the intersection of Vine and Lemay. So, in other words, the Home Depot project is not going to push the intersection into the APF requirements. Another issue that continues to surface regards the interruption of traffic flow due to the rail crossing on Lemay. This is not an issue from a City/Traffic Operations perspective. The City of Fort Collins has no standard that addresses transportation impacts due to trains. The BSNF disrupts traffic 8-10 times per day along the S. College Corridor, the Downtown Area, as well as Vine and Lemay. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life in Fort Collins and there is nothing we can do to improve the situation. I trust that this email will clarify any issues that arise at tonight's meeting. Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. City Traffic Engineer (970)224-6062 ebracke@fcgov.com CC: Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer; lliley@lileyrogersmartel.com; Mark Jackson; Sheri Wamhoff; Tom Reiff; Ward Stanford Ted Shepard - Home Depot - Traffic Issues Page 1 From: Eric Bracke To: Ted Shepard Date: 2/19/04 9:34AM Subject: Home Depot - Traffic Issues Dear Ted, I will be unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Board meeting tonight due to another commitment. However, it is my understanding that some folks from the public may bring up issues regarding traffic, particularly at the intersection of Vine and Lemay. Vine and Lemay currently operates at LOS C, which is acceptable based on the City standards. When the Mulberry/Lemay Crossing project was first proposed, a comprehensive Transportation Impact Study was completed. Based on the impacts of the Center, roadway improvements were constructed in anticipation of the build -out of the project. The Home Depot phase of the project updated the TIS and is dated October 24, 2003. The TIS was prepared by Bowers & Krager, Inc. The results of the study clearly indicated that the original study was accurate and therefore the improvements made previously were appropriate for the development. The existing and proposed traffic from the development are being used in the calculations to determine the Adequate Public Facilities threshold for the intersection of Vine and Lemay. So, in other words, the Home Depot project is not going to push the intersection into the APF requirements. Another issue that continues to surface regards the interruption of traffic flow due to the rail crossing on Lemay. This is not an issue from a City/Traffic Operations perspective. The City of Fort Collins has no standard that addresses transportation impacts due to trains. The BSNF disrupts traffic 8-10 times per day along the S. College Corridor, the Downtown Area, as well as Vine and Lemay. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life in Fort Collins and there is nothing we can do to improve the situation. I trust that this email will clarify any issues that arise at tonight's meeting. Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. City Traffic Engineer (970)224-6062 1 ebracke@fcgov.com CC: Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer; Ililey@lileyrogersmartel.com; Mark Jackson; Sheri Wamhoff; Tom Reiff; Ward Stanford PETITION TO: The City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board TO: The City Council of the City of Fort Collins GENERAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE We the undersigned are against the proposed "Adrian Annexation" at West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive and request that the annexation proposal be halted immediately. With reason to believe that such annexation into the City of Fort Collins under the proposed LMN zoning district, without major limitations to the number and style/type of buildings, would impose dangers to human health and safety in the neighborhood not being limited to: ♦ Causing harm to children in our neighborhood who routinely play in the streets. ♦ Increase population density far beyond our present lifestyle. ♦ Destroy homes and property with imminent run-off problems created by lack of proper storm water drainage. ♦ Create dangerous traffic situations and congestion that ultimately will burden us financially and put our safety and welfare at risk. ♦ Increase the amount of air pollution in our homes. ♦ Increase noise coneestion and light pollution in our area. ♦ Increase crime in our neighborhood due to increase in traffic flow and stress due to high -density social imposition. ♦ Be in dissonance with our neighborhood architecture and character, thus going against the city code and devaluing our properties! ♦ Ruin our quality of life, as we know it. We request that any rezoning and/or development proposal be halted immediately until the site can be fully evaluated in terms of 1) A thorough traffic study to include vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on both West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. Traffic flow on Cherry Street between North Impala Drive and Irish Drive and on Irish Drive shall also be studied simultaneously. This study must be conducted during weeks when school is in session in order to be valid. 2) A thorough and complete study of storm water drainage regarding the proposed site and neighboring properties including those located on North Impala Drive, and those properties directly south and east of the proposed site. 3) A study and evaluation of any future development proposal to determine that any proposed architectural design and construction is carried out with respect to Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code so that any proposed development maintains the architectural character and integrity of the neighborhood. PAGE 1 OF 19 1 O a PETITION REPRESENTATIVES NAME ADDRESS 1) Steven L. Schaeffer 601 N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 2) Sandy Knox, 2309 W. Vine Drive, Fort Collins, CO 3) Shelly Neth, N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 4) Sharon Stockton, 613 N. Impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 5) John Angellotti, 605 N. impala Drive, Fort Collins, CO 1) SIG I TUGNRE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED o/ IAWL* PRINTED NAME CITY �TE✓EAR � . �/'�fA�'FFSe FC�fZ% GoGG/�f/S 2) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE � SIGNED � L 3 zg w ✓ �t _ icy Fe1 oy RED NAME CITY ( (f 1 EIF 1-� p h I a w F E M a 2— ± 2'�2 3) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNEDw "/' 4- PRI TE6 IVAI)AE- 1I a� W`�I _ i 6 L/ 5) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE w J. SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY PAGE 2 OF 1 6) S GNATU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ED 2® NP. OIt�G '. �GN4-Olf PRINTED NAME CITY I sa ). AnMwKv_ c�G.cs 7) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED Slla /✓ Jr - PRINTED PAGE 30F 10 l4 l9 2 13) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED -NAME CITY 14) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 11 <) SIGNED 1_i/ �� i✓1CLrm�. f72GL �c� '. 1 rvY 1� lam. - / -/ PRINTED NAME CITY �L-o, WON mw 31 , "moz, W-1. 4 7 ME I'm i�► ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) CITY DATE %6q 16) SIGNAT RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY G rLA &,I I" tr t Ei • L2111�, /ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED / M NAME CITY 18) SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME 19)SIG � Ut�-, 7 PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) 6e A) (,ttI fr /yqF DR, CITY PAGE 4 OF 10 DATE SIGNED 2 DATE SIGNED 20) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED l �rfTJ 2 PRINTED NAME 1 CITY / 21) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 22 PRINTED NAME CITY 2-'� 2S erxn 22) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAML CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED NAME CITY 24) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 3 ,o SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY Oudd &nL uyal= hI% rollin-" 25) SIG NAT RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) PRINTED NAME CITY DATE SIGNED �?'-J0 O 26) GNATUI/2E / ' ADDRESS I(STREET AND NUMBER) �DATE PRINTED NAME CITY, PAGE 5 OF 10 27) SIGNATURE A ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRIN D NAME CITY �J2k1Vl1-s_ U l loz 1((Vs ICJ 28) SIGNATURE �ADDRESS (STREET AND N.yU�MBER)a / G SIGNED 1_ 2� PRINTED NAME CITY 30 3( 32 29) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 1 "4 S - A / SIGNED PRINTED NA �iCITY aale 30) SIG U ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED �PR NTED1`NAME l ], CITY TE 33) SIG UREr y�_„ tF/rv� PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DA SIGNED CITY S ADDRESS ( TREET AND NUUMLBE/R)� 1 % D TE 5n IJ Z1� �( C f lf�lc�SIaSIGNI�/� ,1 CITY PAGE 6 OF 10 AND NUMBER) o AZI 41) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 42) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ✓� ,, SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY o1�ae—1 (?",' A,) 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE )" b. Al, SIGNED 3 PRINTED NAME CITY , 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND UMBER) DATE $G� SIGNED P NJED N E CITY �-P.r)VNILruv-t'ris., „_4 /'n-- _ a-/�aiG 35 m 4/ 45) SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME A w�w�� 'l��ii�. �r�p� ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 1116 Al. 1141 P LAA 2—/ e-01/ CITY W EI X ELNlf{) F! Go1-/-/eys5 DDRESS(4TREET AND NUMBER) DATE H (� SIGNED PRINTED A L L I E k FO JC Y �r6n � W N PAGE 8 01, 10 "'SIGNATUR `ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / `a �C✓ � , / � na+ ,�717i.� SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY �2c� ©4 ,) SIGNATURE `' • ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE _ /)�'�L/�') 40 5 SIGNED —A-2 PRINTED NAME CITY co A n-7 4�-M llo � SIC ATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY orj h) a- 7G— �a.zt 0 S, G- / a SIGNATURE / ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE F(J oRr Coe-i-1 US SIGNED PRINTED NA E CITY 91C14 zouIvG -)1( N, irr✓AgI-X 2JIs oy {&SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 �7M J��I�i�� �DI 3 ( & N '� nPnt SIGNED P TED N E CITY aII s 5 �L s 21 SI NATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NA E CITY SIGNAT E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE /G��� 3 1 % SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY drf Cpl/rS /�l"� PAGE 8 01 10 n 41) TYRE A9PRIN ED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NBER) DATE SIGNED �CITY SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SI NED oa n o i9- I.0� `� N , &r O:ruooc7c� I�c� a ila�o c{ D PRINTED NAME CITY S�2 43 IGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED I�Lift-C&5 c.i —21 1d 11 PRINTED NAME na., Lot, it r 44) SI RE PRINTED NAME CITY A job pe- c:r ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) 22 1 � %U 0Gi!'/,,-J 1 � CITY GLf DATE SIGNED 2-16- cY 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 6✓yAk SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY �1 46) SI NATUR [r --------- - -' ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 bU�Z`biU �'-If fr..f SIGNED PRINTED NAME, CITY 47) SIG U ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY i`�, C _ PAGE 8 OF 10 41) SIGNA RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGN D S/ PRI (TED NAME CITY 42 URE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNT / � you ���l�- P NAME CITY 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED �-q PRINTED NAME CITY 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED XA PRINTED NAME CITY 1 ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE G7% ��� � ,� //� SIGNED CITY r9l L rasa/ ADDRESS.4STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Dr.- N6� CITY 47) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 62 �% A � 1 I G e V SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY sAmut_c G�M�,r, '2.-rG-e� PAGE 8 OF 10 IGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGN D G ci % ^/ hirn�a 1 i�//f1i PRINTED NAME CITY I� (d G- 35) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE rtiic�-lc�� �tiL�A 7 3 2t� L✓. 1/n /�.P ��t (/: ���MrSIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 7 SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE d SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 37) SIG NATU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED /G P IN D NAME CITY 38)SIIGNATURE _ ADDRESS (STREET /ANND NUMBER) DATE ( /1SIGNED , � -0;woi 40�!/�'' 'oy . PRINTED NAME CITY CD 8'c:::�IrZ/ SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Igyt� V. PRINTED NAME CITY 40) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED xku W. DD / oS Zr-,sKA Dr, 7LI PRINTED NAME CITY /I,-/Ar !`'� Cc//fin c Cc, PAGE 7 OF 10 ADD SS ( REET AND N ER) DATE SIGNED �(3 CIT ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE � I � ) o _K r i c-r woo O r d I SIGNED �2 V v PRINTED NAME CITY v 43) SIGNAT ADDRE S (STREET AN NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ('/coo 44) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) S GDATE NED 1y�36 ,l�iuiao9' Y--l� �✓ PRINTED NAME CITY 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 7-A'aft PRINTED NAME CITY ,G..s E.a�crsmu� �9l/'.vim eosai .2-14-041 46.)�SIIGNATURE p ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER)) DATE OF WQ rd//� 6O & %i arioy'Wo [� SIGNED F Ar PRINTED NAME CITY 14,1414sr• D. P,l C0//.;Is Go. g05-2/ 2-14-oy 47) IGNA RESS (yTREND`BER ODATE PRINTED NAME _ ( CITY \J PAOI-' 8 01, 10 m -7-9 41) SIG ADDRESS (STREET CITY DATE SIGNED( 42) URE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED P TF<1 NAMF CITY 43) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED O PRINTED NAME CITY IX 44) SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME GNA SIGNATURE &2 Lk 7,C2 PRI T DME 47) SIGNATURE 1 PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / �Y C_cfaf%lC /4 t/ P SIGNED CITY Fa,A- -1 2-4-ay ADDRESS ?7EET AND NUMBER) I DATEIGNEP / ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE AW SIGNED CITY ��- c�1�tis ?«Ty ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / /fo_ fjiED CITY 4-5r- ao--� & PAGE 8 OF 10 Fam • r i ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE _ -I e /7/ SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 56) S NATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND INUMBER) DATE ✓�LLN,cw;c;i- 6301V, Rr,ao-woAj SIGNED PRINTED NAME ) CITY U0.y( /Ma;rVeC)eWj`rt- 6011j hS Cy ?052-1 57) NIT RU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 0�2 3 / t' /".14 L11' SIGNED P NTED IAME CITY 56) SIGNATURE ,gf%n kog,ytk- 2& PRINTED NAME a.K- --4% /&L&44- ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY F,.!-e4 , S 03a ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 1� zq c, P ED NAME CITY Z �� jN031) A o4r,0DAty ,A-- 60) S GNA RE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) g� PRINTED NAME CITY 61) SIGNATURE r ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) PRINT NAME CITY DATE SIGNED/ ,14 ' /,l i',4 DATE SIGNED ,;P -iz -o Rayvra s�� 2 Gr�l/�z 7zP co//i,-) ci . PAGE 10 OF 10 48) S TU E i PmTED NAME / ADDRESS (STKc-41--)s T AND NUMBER) ZZ 2 � rr CITY DATE SIGNED Z. 49) SIGNAT E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY y 50) SIGNATURE �ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE Zy 9 3c) o, u-i � tl,,� � SIGNED � /C,ZP. PRINTED NAME CITY Sc�Kvt O k cs� �04 51 SIGNATURE YAD-D7RESSS ((STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 6 J / l� �n SIGNED J PRINTED NAME CITY _ 52) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE F��✓� SIGN D .P INTED NAME CITY ems.—_ 3 7 r2. Bnn w /Pp Z, 53) 1 NAU ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNEP PRINT D NAME CITY -14) ",.1 -.-,p - !�. 2j� cc I I., v3z�.p co 40ny 54) IGNATU ADDRE S (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE ■1 (, _ _ _ SIGNED N I.i�11Y l[�/(Nd(Jn,1 �D' PRINTED NAME CITY �&W44-7 PAGE 9 OF 10 41 IGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 59 PRINTED NAME CITY l 42) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED A/)o PRINTED NAME CITY P' /li.fc FTC- `fig ° oNn> 43) SIGNATURE G PRIINTE NAME 49 �U / I 44) SIGNATURE NAME - 45�TURE_ / PRINTED NAME I/ 48) SIGNATL4RE PRINTED NAME W.-P, yelasov� _ 47) SJGNATURE n /ol�r PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 021 & A d SIGNED CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED 6D3 ff t';k Li �. CITY ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 5D D Zr�sh f%!" ' SIGNED CITY fT eol�,;�s oz •�� ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 56 D --T�4jj A DK, SIGNED r CITY j ^� JOO1Q./S 4 4JIL �' ��lC ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED CITY PAGII 8 UI- 10 41) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ` _&eily 111 a." CclItJlS .�•�g-C�{' 42) S AT C� PRINT NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 666 u SIGNED CITY 1ein5 7-a-64 43) SIG ATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE C �.. SIGNED tlog as n PIu , z%/sy o PRINTEDNAME r / / CITY C 44) SIG TU E ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE / C+ SIGNED ` 21 PRINTED NAME ITY / Xt It, c- 01 or -.I On CA I'/ I � 45) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 O a L& PC r tZ f 3l Fes' wOOD SIGNED 6 PRINTED NAME CITY !qwn2c! ��e2 i 3& ni lorru000 led 7LLtsr-cy 48) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ET 47) SIGNATUREADDRESS,S S �✓ s e N�� R) S2?1/ TE PRINTED NAME CITY/ PACT: 8 Ui 10 P3 PRINTED NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 n ^ , SIGNED CITY P,4. cw� J- "b. �&ai a-/ z ADDRESS (STREET AN NUMBER) DATESIGNEE 1 ,23 14 / SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE 1 (� JGr�i/ lt/r /�i+�yaccrpi GOS Z+�yac.o �f-j/ SIGNED G PRINTED NAME CITY Iff SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 6 SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY ObSIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY 10 SIGNATURE ADDRESS (STREET AND NUMBER) DATE SIGNED PRINTED NAME CITY PAUL 8 OF 10 Steve Olt - Adrian Annexation and Zoning #42-03 From: Leonard & Simi <leo.simi@juno.com> To: <solt@fcgov.com> Date: 2113/04 3:41 PM Subject: Adrian Annexation and Zoning #42-03 Hi Steve, I speak on behalf of the neighbors in the 2600 block of West Vine Drive, to the west of the proposed development site at 2333 West Vine Drive, in that we object to the proposed annexation. The West Vine Drive area, west of Taft Hill Road, is one of single-family homes, country -like and farm -like in nature. The proposed annexation, zoning change to LMN, and development is contrary to that country feeling and would negatively impact the area with increased traffic and potentially increased crime. We urge you to review the project carefully when making your recommendations. Sincerely, Polly Bennett & Leonard Pettus Tami & Matt Flach Bill & Irene Dieter Heather Dieter Bartman and Tom Wilson Connie Murray Denny and Sovick and undoubtedly the majority of the other residents in the area The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!