Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/21/2003Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone:(H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Craig, Colton, Schmidt, Gavaldon, and Torgerson. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Barkeen, and Defines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the April 17 and July 17 (CONTINUED), 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #29-94C Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One, Project Development Plan. 3. #14-03 Golden Meadows Business Park, 2"d Filing, Project Development Plan. Discussion Agenda: 4. #10-03 Timberline Village community Shopping Center, Project Development Plan. 5. #6-03A Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards Recommendation to City Council: 6. #2-03 Vineyard Rezoning. City Planner Ted Shepard informed the Board that they should have three letters, new since worksession, regarding the Christ Fellowship Church project. Member Craig asked that Item #2, Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One Project Development Plan, be pulled from the consent agenda. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Item 1, less the July 17, 2003 Minutes, and 3. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 2 Project: Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One, Project Development Plan, #29-94C Project Description: Request for an 8,700 square foot church on 3.58 acres located on Lot One of Christ Fellowship Church Subdivision. The site is located at the southeast corner of Ziegler Road and Charlie Lane and is zoned UE, Urban Estate. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, City Planner, stated that the gist of the letters received regarding the project are primarily related to the on -site child care center. He stated that the child care center is a permitted use in the Urban Estate zone district. It is a Type II use and is part of the approval tonight — to approve or deny both the church and the child care center. The land use is permitted by the zone district. Member Craig asked if the traffic issues could be addressed given that the site is a church, child care facility, and possibly a school. Planner Shepard replied that there is no school use; it is just a church and child care center and suggested that the applicant's traffic engineering consultant answer the questions. Matt Delich, 2272 Glenhaven Drive, the applicant's traffic engineer, made himself available for questions. Member Craig asked about the traffic congestion on Ziegler Road and how a child care center will affect that. Mr. Delich replied that the child care center will hold about 120 children at its upper limit and calculations were used assuming that number. He stated that at the intersection of Ziegler and Charlie, the minor street movements operate a level of service B during peak hours. That level is certainly acceptable. The site traffic includes not only the day care facility but also the church administrative offices. The short term future for the studies is 2008. Without the day care facility, the intersection of Ziegler and Charlie will stay at level of service B during the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 3 peak hour and be at level of service C at the afternoon peak hour. With the day care center, the intersection will stay at the same level of service categories despite the fact that the delay may increase some due to the increased number of trips. Member Craig asked if Ziegler was only crowded at the PM peak rather than during the day when most of the day care traffic will occur. Mr. Delich replied that counts were done at the AM and PM peaks and that those are the same peaks for the day care center. He stated that he suspected the level of service during the day to be at B or better. Member Craig asked if C was the lowest level of service in the calculations during the short term. Mr. Delich replied that it was. Member Schmidt asked if Charlie Lane would remain a dirt road or if part of it will be paved. Planner Shepard replied that they will be paving Charlie Lane to the eastern limit of Lot 1. Public Input Robert Schutzius, 3208 Mesa Verde Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that his street is the northernmost street in the Woodland Park Estates subdivision. He stated that he shares a fence line with the Church. He stated that he wanted to express unconditional support for the project, both the church and day care facility. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked about a quote in one of the letters which discussed a phase two and stated that it would create 1,000 trips per day. Planner Shepard replied that when the neighborhood meetings were done for the subdivision in 1994-1995, there was the proposal that there could be a school facility. That could potentially be a second phase in the future but it would have to come back through the review process and will be reviewed with respect to traffic at that time. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 4 Member Schmidt asked if Charlie Street ends in a cul-de-sac. Planner Shepard replied that it actually makes a "T." It is an emergency second point of access for the Woodland Park Estates subdivision. Member Schmidt asked if we were anticipating that people would use that as an alternative way to get back down to Ziegler. Planner Shepard replied that was not anticipated. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of Christ Fellowship Church, Phase One Project Development Plan, File #29-94C, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Craig seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she hoped the Board had addressed the letters and issues raised and noted that concerned neighbors should be watching for hearing and meeting notices with respect to the school. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Timberline Village Community Shopping Center, Project Development Plan, #10-03 Project Description: Request for a 109,583 square foot community shopping center on 15.87 acres. The anchor is an Albertson's Supermarket with 52,443 square feet. The site is located at the northeast corner of Harmony and Timberline Roads and is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is a request for the final and largest phase of the community shopping center in the Harmony Corridor. There are nine buildings in the PDP, including the Albertson's. The PDP represents a neighborhood service center component of a planned mixed -use activity center. This area was originally Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 5 master -planned as Harmony School Shops. The site is at the northeast corner of Harmony Road and Timberline Road in the Harmony Corridor zone district. Rob Beery, Director of Design and Entitlement for Miller -Weingarten Realty, 850 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO, introduced the applicant's company. Joe Carter, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the nine buildings are placed around the site to screen the internal parking lot and buildings along Harmony comply with the 80-foot setback requirements. The buildings along the back of the project help screen the parking lot from the residential uses. Landscaping has also been included to screen the buildings and loading areas. There is a large detention pond which provides a significant buffer behind building nine. The pedestrian circulation pattern through the site includes the sidewalks along Timberline and Harmony as well as internal circulation adjacent to the building frontages as well as through the parking lot. Connections have been provided to the adjoining neighborhoods as well. There are future transit stops in front of Buildings 5 and 6. Vehicular access into the site is on Harmony Road — a % intersection which allows a right in, left in, right out. There is a full movement intersection located between the Diamond Shamrock and Building 7. There is a right in, right out access from Timberline Road that is existing. At Milestone and Timberline, there will be a protected T-Intersection. Mr. Carter stated that the architecture generally follows the materials and colors of existing buildings adjacent to the site including the Harmony School which has a brick building material. The colors are indicative of the Diamond Shamrock, the Harmony School, and the PVH Harmony Campus building. Albertson's has a new prototype store, this is the first time is has been used. There are a variety of colors and building materials and landscaping and windows allow for a more urban feel. An arbor has been planned for the north side of the building. The other architectural elements show pretty much the same elements as were included in the Albertson's. Public Input Bob Tyler, 4436 Stoney Creek Drive, gave his testimony to the Board. He asked about the lighting on the back of building 9 as it is directly across from his home. Anthony Garcia, 4348 Winterstone, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated concern about traffic on his street and it backing up on Milestone Drive. Mike Fitzsimmons, 2119 Winterstone Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He asked if a liquor store was going to be permitted in the center. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 6 Public Input Closed Mr. Shepard stated that the lighting on the back of the center will be cutoff lighting, as required by the Land Use Code. Chairperson Torgerson stated that cutoff lighting is lighting that will not go beyond the boundaries of the property. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, addressed the question about traffic on Winterstone. He stated that there is a possibility that traffic could go onto that street and in the Winterstone subdivision. That was one of the reasons that the channelized "T" intersection came into play at Milestone and Timberline. This will provide protected access to encourage that route to be used. Until some other connection gets made to adjacent properties on the east, that was the best solution to minimize cut -through traffic in the neighborhood. Member Craig asked if Planner Shepard could illustrate how going through the neighborhood would not be very direct. Planner Shepard replied that the site map shows that Milestone "T's" very quickly. Just past the Milestone Shopping Center driveway, Milestone "T's," which is traffic calming. Turning right at that T, you will stay on a local street network until you have to turn left. There is no gain to turning right into Winterstone. There is not advantage to going through the neighborhood. There is natural traffic calming there. Mr. Garcia stated that Milestone can be avoided all together by going through the neighborhood. He illustrated his point on the site map. Mr. Stanford stated that the neighborhood would provide an access out but that it is going to contend with the volumes of traffic that are traveling on Timberline without any kind of protection. The channelized T provides a protected intersection. That will not completely stop the neighborhood use but it should help. Mr. Stanford stated that there should be minimal stacking on Milestone and that will not create much of a delay. With respect to a liquor store being a permitted use, Planner Shepard replied that it is a permitted use. The applicant stated that a liquor store is a planned use in the center Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 7 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated an example of a T intersection in Loveland which functions very well. He stated that it will save money and time as opposed to a stoplight intersection. Member Schmidt asked about the lighting on the backs of the buildings. Planner Shepard replied that there will be lights at the exit doors for the retail spaces. Mr. Carter replied that the lighting on the back of the buildings is primarily for security. They are under the canopies associated with the access doors and are low-level, down -directional, cutoff fixtures. There are no street lights on the back sides of the buildings. The only pole lights are in the parking lot on the other side of the building. Chairperson Torgerson asked about lighting on the loading area. Mr. Carter replied that there is ambient lighting on the loading area. Planner Shepard replied that there is parking lot lighting on the east side of the Albertson's and that loading is restricted under big box standards and guidelines but there will be some operations during the darker hours of winter. There is a combination of building and yard lighting at the loading dock. All of them are down -directional and there is no light spillage off the site. Brian Baudin, 4417 Silverstone, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that his home backs directly to the loading area. He asked about the time frames for loading and unloading as well as hours of operation. Member Craig asked if Mr. Stanford ever went on site to determine the traffic issues at Milestone and Timberline. Mr. Stanford replied that some timing work has been done there for the past month and that video cameras have been installed along Harmony Road, one at Timberline. Member Craig asked if Mr. Stanford was confident that there would be no stacking problems at Milestone. Mr. Stanford replied that he did not think there would be any problems. There may be more trouble at high peak times, such as the holidays. The average weekday traffic should not create a problem. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 8 Member Craig asked how far the distance would be to go through the neighborhood to get up to Timberline. Mr. Stanford replied that it was several blocks distance. Even if it is longer, drivers may view it as being more convenient. That is why there likely will be some traffic going through there. That is why we've given drivers an outlet at the T intersection to minimize the cut -through traffic as much as possible. Member Craig asked if the neighborhood had the option to put in speed bumps if they had a majority vote within the neighborhood. Mr. Stanford replied that was correct. The neighborhood traffic program can address those kinds of issues. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the cameras on Harmony Road were for Mr. Stanford replied that they will monitor the streets for backup and congestion, or accidents, to help put up verbal messages and to help alleviate the problem as it is happening. Chairperson Torgerson asked about signage at the Winterstone neighborhood. Mr. Stanford replied that he did not believe the neighborhood had any frontage or entry residential signage. Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was any signage that the traffic department might put up. Mr. Stanford replied that there are signs that can be put up to indicate to drivers that they are entering a residential area. Neighborhoods may also be allowed to put up signs outside the right-of-way. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the process of traffic calming being separate from the PDP. He stated that neighbors need to get together to work it out and asked if other projects had required signage in neighborhoods. Mr. Stanford replied that other projects had involved putting in signage in neighborhoods. Director Gloss replied to the question about timing of deliveries. He stated that the limitations do not appear in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. They are in the Large Retail Establishment standards and state that there is no delivery or Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 9 loading or trash removal permitted between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM unless the applicant would submit evidence that the decibel level would be 45 decibels or less as measured at the lot line. Chairperson Torgerson asked what the process would be if the store wanted to extend those hours. Director Gloss replied that they would have to submit evidence that the decibel level would be met. The process would likely be done through a minor amendment so neighbors would not be notified. Planner Shepard stated that there are 5 proposed light fixtures on the back of the Albertson's. They are pole -mounted fixtures. According to the lighting plan, the foot-candles are reduced to 0.1 at about 20-25 feet past that line. They get down to 0.0 at about 20 feet beyond that. Member Craig asked about the two lights closest to the mobile home park. Planner Shepard replied that the foot-candle measurement at the property line is 0.1. Foot-candles are measurements of how much illumination occurs on one square foot of ground. Member Craig asked about the pedestrian connection from Harmony School to the site and if there would be some kind of reference to the crosswalk on the street. Planner Shepard replied that there had been no request for that but that staff was thinking that children walking to the school would probably be coming from the neighborhood, not from the site. Harmony School is a private pre-school and staff did not believe that kids would be walking there from the west side of Timberline Road. Member Craig stated that the site plan did show some kind of painted walkway there. She asked about the cottonwood trees which are scheduled to be removed at the detention pond. Mr. Carter replied that they met with Tim Buchanan, City Forester, on site, and identified the trees that were to be removed. He stated that they were going to replace those trees at a ratio that would be acceptable, likely either 2 or 3 to 1. So, if a 6-inch cottonwood is lost, it would be replaced with 2 or 3 other trees. The new trees will be located either adjacent to the backs of the structures, or adjacent to the neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 10 Member Craig asked why the trees were to be removed. Mr. Carter replied that the detention pond, as it currently exists, is undersized for the proposed development. With the increased storm flow numbers from the City, the pond needs to be increased in size. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked what the amount of distance was to the nearest home in the mobile home park on the east side of the property. Mr. Carter replied that it was 35 feet. There is a 6 foot berm as well as evergreen trees placed 20 feet on center for the length of the back of the building. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked for a cross-section. Mr. Carter replied that he did not have one. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the increase in the detention pond could be done on the east side providing a generous buffer, as was done on the north side with the single family homes. Planner Shepard stated that the buffering on the east side is significant and meets the big box standards and guidelines which is one of the more strict prescriptive standards in the Code. The buffer has to have the evergreens on 20 foot centers and has to have the berm. Staff feels it is sufficient. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated concern about the buffer on the east side and wanted to make sure the east buffer was as generous as the north. Planner Shepard replied that this is a substantial buffer. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there was any way to keep the lighting away from the mobile home park. Planner Shepard replied that the applicant has met the lighting code and are not spilling off -site. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the neighborhood meeting included the mobile home park. Planner Shepard replied that the owner of the mobile home park was notified but that he was unsure of what the owner did to notify the residents. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 11 Chairperson Torgerson asked if the material on the Albertson's would be brick. The architect replied that it would be brick and concrete block in a complementary color. Chairperson Torgerson asked which areas were brick and which were block. The architect replied by illustrating the materials on an elevation slide. The Albertson's, despite having a different architect, will be very similar in style to the other buildings. Member Colton asked about the traffic pattern for delivery trucks. Mr. Carter replied that trucks will be coming off 1-25, circling through the site, backing in to the loading dock, and exiting out. (Mr. Carter illustrated the flow on slides). Bob Fancook, Albertson's Store Director, stated that this store will likely have the same volume as the College & Willox store. There will be about 4 or 5 full size semi deliveries four days a week and smaller delivery trucks, up to 20 per day, five times per week. The Albertson's trucks shut the engines down but refrigeration trucks have a unit that does run. They are muffled well. Member Schmidt asked about the fact that if the trucks do not want to turn right on Harmony, do they go onto Milestone and head out that way. Mr. Carter replied that was correct. At staffs request, the building will have signage directing the trucks to shut engines off. Member Carpenter asked for confirmation on the brick on the Albertson's. The architect replied that where the elevation shows red, it is brick. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Timberline Village Community Shopping Center, Project Development Plan, File #10-03, citing the findings of fact and conclusions of the staff report, adding the condition of Ted Shepard's memo dated August 20, 2003. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 12 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the project but that he would like to make sure the evergreens, buffering, and berming on the east are adequate. He commended Planner Shepard and the applicant. Chairperson Torgerson complimented the architects on their sensitivity toward the historic Harmony School. He stated concern about the notification of property owner process citing that none of the residents of the mobile home park were notified specifically. Director Gloss stated that was one of the recommendations, to expand notification to renters, in the upcoming Land Use Code revisions. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #6-03A Project Description: Request for a modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 175 to 160. The site is located at 1113 W. Plum Street and is zoned Community Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner, gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He stated that this is the second modification request of this nature that has come before the Board. The site is just north of the Campus West commercial site between Plum and Elizabeth, fronting on Shields and Plum. The existing complex has 102 two -bedroom units and the applicant has anticipated a forthcoming project development plan that will add 18 additional dwelling units; 6 two -bedroom units will result from a conversion of the existing pool house complex and 12 three -bedroom units that will be in a newly constructed building. The unit count has not changed from the previous modification request. The Planning and Zoning Board granted the modification request the first time to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from 213 to 175. The current request is to further reduce that number down to 160. Some Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 13 unanticipated design restraints came up as plans were being created for the PDP, resulting in a loss of some of the anticipated spaces. Staff is supporting the request to further reduce the parking spaces. Planner Jones discussed the history of the zoning district and sub -area plan for Campus West in his discussion of the reasons for staffs support. He added that the demand for parking also supports the request. If the Land Use Code standards were applied to the new three -bedroom units and the current demand for the two -bedroom units, the number of parking spaces needed would be lower than the requested 160. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the request would allow 1.33 parking spaces per unit and that unofficial studies have shown the demand to be 1.03 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Brookshire explained the reasons for the requested reduction in parking spaces and re -iterated many of Planner Jones' points. He noted that the parking lot is controlled and signed so that only residents can park in the lot. Mr. Brookshire noted that the development is infill and the addition will provide much -needed housing for CSU students and will address some of the ideas and goals that City Plan embodies. Chris Ray, the property owner, spoke regarding the historical use of the parking area. He stated that about 45 parking permits had been issued thus far and that 75 were expected to be issued. Public Input There was no public input Public Input Closed Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that the Moby Gym parking lot to the east is now going to be more controlled and he asked how many people did not pay to park at Cambridge House and parked instead at Moby. Mr. Ray replied that he did not believe that was happening but that there was no definite number. He added that there have been no complaints from neighbors regarding parking off -site. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that Cambridge House will be selling 181 parking permits for 160 spaces and asked if Cambridge House would have more demand than spaces with the new restrictions at Moby. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August21, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Ray stated that all residents will sign a disclosure letting them know that there are 160 spaces. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked how many students were in each apartment on average. Mr. Ray replied that most units have two people. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated concern over the possible lack of parking. Mr. Ray replied that he did not believe it would be a problem. He stated that the previous owner never gave out more than 100 permits for parking. He stated that many people live there so they do not have to have a car. Planner Jones stated that he was initially concerned as well but, through site visits, discovered that the parking was not a problem at this site. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the project would be able to go through in modified form if the parking were left at 175. Mr. Ray replied that it would not work the way the building is and the project would not be feasible. Member Schmidt asked if a variance to the landscape design to increase parking would allow the project to work. She asked about the commercial aspects of the property and whether or not people would have to go on Plum and through the parking lot to get to the parking spaces for the commercial. Mr. Ray replied that he was unsure as to the exact commercial uses but didn't expect a great deal of traffic. Member Schmidt stated that the Board did receive a letter from neighbors indicating that parking has been a problem in the area. Mr. Ray replied that he had never heard from Kathy Nichols (letter author) about any of the parking problems and that there were no complaints at all at the first hearing. He stated that he had never heard any complaints from any other neighbors. Member Schmidt stated concern about the general congestion of the area and asked about potential parking sharing. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Ray stated that the previous apartment owner did not charge for parking permits and the number of cars in the lot was still many fewer than the number of spaces and that parking sharing is occurring now because there are additional spaces. Once the number of spaces is reduced, he feels it is not his responsibility to provide parking for the adjoining businesses. Member Carpenter stated that she was very concerned about this given that the major problem with the Campus West subarea plan was parking. It has historically been a terrible place for parking. She asked how the parking standards came about. Planner Jones replied that they were a carry-over from the LDGS. In some cases, the parking standards are not great enough. It appears that this site is different because it is right across the street from campus. The renters here are a different type than those who rent more expensive units father away from campus. Member Carpenter asked how the parking standards were put together. Director Gloss replied that the number of spaces per bedroom as required by the Land Use Code is very typical for other communities nationwide. Member Carpenter stated that, if anything, this area near campus would be an area in which we would be increasing parking requirements per bedroom because of the fact that two or three unrelated people of driving age are usually occupying these units. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the second floor of the new building would be commercial as well as the first floor. Mr. Ray replied that the second floor is residential. Chairperson Torgerson asked if parking would be set aside for employees of the commercial. Mr. Ray replied that there are garages associated with that space and those would likely be reserved for the commercial people. They are part of the parking count, despite the fact that commercial does not require parking. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the commercial would then take up some of the residential parking as well. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Ray replied that it would. Chairperson Torgerson asked about an adopted policy that stated that 'charged for" parking spaces could not be considered as part of the required number of spaces. Planner Jones replied that he would look it up and get back to the issue. He believed that it had to do with garages. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the new building would be fire sprinkled. Mr. Ray replied that it would. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the fire lane behind the building was actually required by the fire department. Mr. Ray replied that it was, likely because of the height of the building. It could be explored as to whether or not it would be necessary. Member Carpenter stated that she had requested an alternative plan for reducing some of the numbers of apartments. Planner Jones replied that he understood that Member Carpenter simply wanted the applicant to be able to address the question about reducing the unit count. Member Carpenter stated that she wanted the applicant to look at other alternatives to meet the Land Use Code. Mr. Ray stated that they did get a variance from engineering on some setback requirements and that increased the number of parking spaces. Member Carpenter asked how many bedrooms would have to be eliminated in order to meet the requirements. Mr. Ray replied that three two -bedroom units would have to be eliminated. Member Carpenter asked if that were a possibility because the project is a good one. Chairperson Torgerson stated that if the second floor of the building were commercial, that would eliminate the problem as well. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Ray stated that in order to get the 15 spaces back, land area was needed for not only the parking but for the drive aisle associated with it. That would virtually eliminate the entire footprint of the new building. One solution would be to increase the parking under the building. However, part of the approval of the first modification was to incorporate the first floor commercial space. In so doing, the ground area for parking has been lost. Member Carpenter stated that she was wondering if the applicant could reduce the number of bedrooms to somehow come into compliance with the requirements. Mr. Ray replied that the idea from the beginning was to use the main, or ground, floor for parking. It does not seem to be the ideal location for a mixed -use building anyway. Member Carpenter asked if he would be willing to drop the commercial but not cut back on the apartment units. Mr. Ray replied that from a practical standpoint, it makes more sense to put the parking under the building because it is a questionable commercial space anyway. Member Schmidt asked if any of the traffic studies had addressed the concerns of the Lutheran Church in terms of their traffic using the parking lot to get out onto Plum Street. Mr. Ray replied that he had agreed to work with the employees on some shared parking ideas. Member Schmidt asked if there was a divider between the lots. Mr. Ray replied that there are some trees and perhaps a curb Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Member Carpenter would be open to a continuance to get some alternative designs from the applicant. Member Carpenter stated that it was up to the applicant if they wanted the Board to vote or request a continuance. Mr. Ray replied that he would rather have a vote than go back to the drawing board on the design. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 18 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the second modification was being requested. Mr. Ray replied that a different architect was being used and that the original architect had not taken into consideration engineering setbacks or any planters He assured the Board that this would be the final modification request. Chairperson Torgerson asked Planner Jones about the paid -for parking spaces and if they count as meeting Code requirements. Planner Jones replied that the Land Use Code states that "spaces that are located in detached residential garages, but not including parking structures, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental purchase cost beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price." This section was written to prevent apartment complexes from having a certain percentage of parking in lots and a certain percentage of parking in garages and requiring tenants to pay extra for the garage spaces. Chairperson Torgerson stated that about 30% of the spaces at the project are compact spaces. That is the maximum allowed in the Code, when the parking is long-term use. He asked if this parking lot was long-term. Planner Jones stated that residential uses are considered long-term uses. Member Colton asked if there was any data from other communities on parking near college campuses versus further away from campus. Director Gloss replied that he had not seen any studies that differentiate parking rules based on distance from campus. He added that the transit system and alternative modes are important considerations and that the alternative transit modes here are limited. Chairperson Torgerson asked about CSU's dorm parking standards. Director Gloss replied that it depends on the type of dormitory — freshman versus upper class. Car ownership was found to be significantly lower at dorm housing facilities. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the parking demand from the commercial uses. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 19 Planner Jones replied that there will be an increased demand in parking from the retail but that the likely retailers will be those with limited trips to and from them. Mr. Ray stated that usually 75-100 parking spaces are sold at Cambridge House per year. Member Carpenter asked what the applicant would have to do if the modification were denied or if they wanted to go back and take some commercial out. Planner Jones replied that there has not been a PDP submitted so if the modification request were denied, they would still have approval for the first modification for 175 spaces. They could come back with a different modification request for eliminating the landscape islands, for example. Member Carpenter asked if they would have to include the commercial aspect on the existing approval. Planner Jones replied that they would have to build the commercial on a portion of the first floor of the building in order to be able to utilize the original modification request of 175 spaces. Chairperson Torgerson asked if Mr. Wray had considered tying the parking lot that is located to the south in with his. Mr. Ray replied that he had not because shared parking spaces are not counted toward parking space requirements. Chairperson Torgerson replied that he would consider granting a modification for that and asked about reducing the number of units to meet the 175 space requirement. Member Schmidt moved for denial of the Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #6-03A, citing that the request does not benefit the public good. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman asked if Member Schmidt was essentially stating that the request would be detrimental to the public good. Member Schmidt replied that was correct. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 20 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he had been very comfortable with the 175 but was concerned about the constraining factors that led to the request for 160. He stated that a compromise could make a successful project. He stated that he would support the motion. Member Colton stated that he was not present for the first modification hearing. He added that it may be a good idea to take a tally of all the residents as to whether or not they have a car. Member Carpenter stated that she thought this was a good project but that the demographics of the apartment complex could change and result in more cars. She stated that she would support the motion. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he thought it was a very attractive project and hoped it would be pursued. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Vineyard Rezoning, #2-03 Project Description: Request to rezone a portion of a tract of land located at the northeast corner of East Vine Drive and Interstate 25. The parcel is 78.6 acres in size and is currently zoned I, Industrial. The proposed rezoning would rezone the eastern 43.8 acres of land from Industrial to Urban Estate residential, the remaining 34.8 acres of land adjacent to 1-25 would remain zoned industrial. The parcel is designated as part of the 1-25 Special Corridor Study on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Bob Barkeen explained to the Board that this item was previously heard by the Board on April 17, 2003 and continued until the approval of the 1-25 Subarea Plan. The idea being that we did not want to go ahead and consider this rezoning until it was supported by the 1-25 Subarea Plan. On August 19tn Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August21, 2003 Page 21 City Council did adopt the Subarea Plan, which this rezoning request is now in compliance with that adopted Subarea Plan. He stated that there has been some neighborhood opposition to this rezoning. An adjacent owner of industrial property next to this rezoning is raising compatibility questions Public Input. Steve Woodward, Fort Collins Feed, 1020 NE Frontage Road spoke to the Board about his concerns. His property adjoins this property and he has an industrial property. He has concerns with the 18-wheel trucks that run on Vine Drive, his property and trucks being vandalized and children's safety if they find their way onto his property. He stated that when they put these houses in, he is going to put in lighting because he is going to make sure his trucks are safe. His safety concerns will cause him to ask for a very high fence and even barb wire because he does not want anything to happen to one of his trucks or one of his trucks to run over a child. Mr. Woodward addressed the noise of his trucks. His secretaries complain about the noise when the trucks are idling out front. You can hear the trucks backing up with an alert noise. The trucks then blow a whistle when they are then going to go forward. The trucks have to idle 15 or 20 minutes just to get the air built up. He complained about theft and vandalism and having to pay for it. Mr. Woodward also has concerns with the canal and someone jumping into the canal and that he would be responsible for their death. Dave Ferrin, 4336 East Vine Drive spoke to the Board about his concerns. He stated that the reason he bought out here is because it is or was in the country. The industrial sites sometimes make some noise and sometimes the highway makes noise, but in the last two years there must be about 200 houses build out here where it used to be all field. Just to the south of him, there is a development proposal underway, he went to a couple of meetings but is unaware where it is in the process. All of a sudden he is not going to be in the country anymore. He stated that a lot of the trucking companies use East Vine Drive to get across town from North College and head east on Highway 14. It is a very heavily traveled road by large trucks. The speed limit is 55. He has not seen any plans on what would be proposed, but he assumed that the only place for access would be off of Vine Drive. He was concerned with adding any more traffic. He would like to see before this rezoning is approved any plans for the property and improvements that would be made to Vine Drive. He wondered if people would buy homes on this place and then complain about the industrial uses in the area. Mr. Ferrin was concerned with adding more housing out here and that it might become another Waterglen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 22 Ken Crumb, 802 Waterglen Drive and owner of approximately 150 acres to the west and adjacent to Waterglen. He has set through numerous hours of debate regarding the 1-25 Subarea Plan and he believes that the dollar amount was about $300,000 to bring that Plan forward. A lot of professional time went into the Plan from both staff and consultants. He believed that the city has adopted and supported a good Plan. It is important that as the Plan develops it develops appropriately. He was here tonight to support the staffs recommendation on this property as it relates to the Subarea Plan. If appropriate buffering is used, it is a legitimate concern with industrial and residential, that he would support the Plan. Public Input Closed Member Schmidt asked about the property previously being an elk ranch. She was just wondering if this were to be residential, would there be a chronic wasting disease on this property. Citizen Woodward responded that the elk on this property and a year and a half ago the Fish and Game Department came and destroyed them. Member Gavaldon asked for Planner Barkeen to review the buffering standards. Planner Barkeen replied that the adjacent industrial owner indicated that he would likely put up barbwire if a residential project would go in. That is possible in the industrial zone district, barbwire is permitted. Staff would certainly like to work with the adjacent property owner if a project is submitted to come up with some buffers between the two uses to minimize the noise impacts that may be affected on this new residential area. Also to come up with some ways to discourage children from going on to the property. Perhaps there would be some techniques as to where sidewalks are located, where some fencing may go to discourage people from crossing the ditch. Those are things that we would look at when staff does actually get a site plan that we can review. Chairperson Torgerson asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman to summarize a memo that he had written regarding buffering when residential moves in next to industrial. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that it was a different project, but again it was a neighboring industrial and the question was whether or not there was any law that protected the existing industrial. He found in the State Law an agricultural protection provision, but it does not extend to the industrial use here which is a trucking operation. So you can expect conflicts between the residential and the industrial uses. We had the same experience with the pipe Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 23 manufacturing on Timberline Road. He would anticipate that the same thing will happen with this project. Chairperson Torgerson asked that at present is there nothing in our Code that would protect the existing industrial use. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that you could anticipate that neighbors will be complaining. We do have a noise ordinance in the city that would be insisted on by the neighbors to be enforced against the trucking operation if the noise left the site of the trucking operation. Director Gloss added that we do have some design standards, that call for some discretion on staffs part, on the design of land use transitions where you have very different land use categories right next to each other. Although if you read through those sections, it is generally geared toward the opposite condition where you are adding an industrial use next to residential areas as opposed to the condition that we have here tonight. It does give some latitude in terms of how that transition is made. It does not give a set horizontal distance. We have some things in the language regarding scale, form, materials and colors. Also some of the operational things like lighting and how it is handled in the transition area. Director Gloss addressed the comment this evening regarding lighting. He stated that we require cut-off fixtures and there is a specific amount of lighting that can be provided on the site. There is no light trespass onto adjacent property. If lighting was to be added to the existing industrial use, it would have to abide by the city standards, so there would be no glare and light trespass. There would be some regulations to that affect. Deputy City Attorney Eckman added that it was reported in the memo he sent that the City Council and the Health and Safety Committee decided not to pursue a law that would protect industrial or high intensity uses from residential uses that move to it. That could be done, in fact the provision that Director Gloss was referring to could be strengthened so it would protect better, the existing uses which have compatibility problems with residential uses. It would take the Council's willingness to change the Land Use Code to do that. Director Gloss stated that with the Urban Estate Zoning would give the property the opportunity to cluster the development. That type of design would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Board. Two units per acre would be the maximum density, and they can cluster. It would be the Board's discretion whether they have done it in a way that protects the natural features and does Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 24 the type of buffering needed. The issue here is that we would typically not condition the approval on a cluster development coming in. It would only be if the property owner "chose" to do a cluster development. Chairperson Torgerson felt that there is a large hole in our code. It was curious as to why they would not pursue a law. It was almost like they want residential to drive industrial uses out of the city. He was sort of reluctant to approve a residential use change next to an industrial for fear that it would cause them to be forced out. Deputy City Attorney stated that the dilemma is that the Board and City Council have approved the 1-25 Plan. The 1-25 Plan calls for this to be Urban Estate which is different than Waterglen. Here we are now with this dilemma and do we think this is good planning? If we don't why did we approve the 1-25 Plan and it is a difficult decision for the Board. The zoning needs to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and the problem with that is the 1-25 Plan is now part of the Comprehensive Plan and it calls for this zoning. Member Craig stated that in going over the minutes of April 17`h it bothers her that at that time it was asked of staff to start looking into or bringing it up at worksession the discussion of criteria. She agreed with Mr. Eckman that we are backed into a corner because the Board said that the Subarea Plan is o.k. and the Board said that the UE zoning was o.k. She thought that the Board also felt very strongly about the fact that we wanted some kind of criteria to protect the existing industrial. She feels that it fell through the cracks and is disappointed that it wasn't followed through with. That was back in April and here we are in August and nothing has been done to address it. She doesn't know how it can be remedied because the 1-25 Plan was adopted. On the other hand she wondered it there was something that could be put into the code before a project comes before the Board on this piece of property. Director Gloss replied that that specific topic has been added to be addressed in the fall Land Use Code changes. The second reading for those changes would be in December. Member Colton understood that there are some concerns with compatibility, but if we leave this all industrial then we are going to have compatibility issues with the FA-1 in the county as it develops in low -density housing. He thought that there is going to a conflict one way or the other. Frankly the Board had the chance to talk about this when we talked about the Subarea Plan but just went right through the Plan and approved it when there were some concerns to be addressed. He thought that at this point in time, he did not support everything about the Plan, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 2003 Page 25 but there are areas all over the Subarea Plan where there is Urban Estate up against Industrial. In fact there are areas allover the city and most of them have worked. He thought there needed to be a buffer and he thinks that the Board should go ahead and approve this because it is consistent with the Subarea Plan. Member Colton moved to recommend approval of the Vineyard Rezoning. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the motion. He felt there are compatibility issues. He felt that it would be easier to buffer into the County. He wants to see this stay Industrial because there is a canal there and the potential for risk. He would hate to see the industrial owner put up barbwire and stuff like that. He thought that keeping this industrial is the right thing to do. Member Craig was going to support the motion. She has two issues. One issue is when the Subarea Plan did come before this Board, we had a chance to address it then and we did not for whatever reason. One was that they were cut off before we could get into all the issues. Another is that we just did not bring it up. She felt that would have been the appropriate place to look at leaving it industrial and that is when that message should have been sent to Council. We did not do that. She thinks that it is "imperative" that we put other things aside as a Board and sit down at worksession and really get serious about getting some criteria. It is not only are we going to have trouble with this piece of property, but as the Mulberry property comes in that was changed from industrial to residential we are going to keep running into this. She felt that it seriously needs to be addressed because it is not fair for industrial businesses to always look over their shoulder because we might change some zoning. They are our base jobs and we want to keep them. The second concern she has is that Mr. Ferrin did not know anything about the I- 25 Subarea Plan and yet he lives right there on Vine Drive. For whatever reason she does not know, but she would appreciate if staff would get in contact with Mr. Ferrin so he can understand how this came about. Chairperson Torgerson would not be supporting the motion even though he did support the Subarea Plan. The criteria that we are judging this by asks if it is compatible with surrounding land uses and given our current code it is not. We don't have anything in the code to make it compatible. He would support a code amendment to address the issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August21, 2003 Page 26 The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Gavaldon and Torgerson voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Approved by the Board February 19, 2004.