HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/19/19980
•
h
1TYJVF FORT,'COMINS
P ING AND 'NI OA
F�
llAeetm mutes ga
u1Aarch ; 1998. ,
Gwen Bell, Chair
Glen Colton, Vice Chair
Staff Liaison: Georgiana Deines
City Council Liaison: Mike Byrne
Members present: Gwen Bell, Alex Chapman, Bob Davidson, Sally Craig,
Jerry Gavaldon, and Karen Weitkunat. Glen Colton arrived later in the meeting.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agendas:
1. Minutes of the February 24, March 10, April 14
(Continued), May 12 (Continued), and May 19
(Continued), 1997 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval.
3. Resolution PZ98-3 Easement Vacation. (Continued)
• 4. #6-98 Schaulin Annexation and Zoning. (Continued)
Discussion Agenda:
5. #8-98 Larimer County Detention Facility Expansion - Site Plan
Advisory Review.
6. #26-97 Pedersen Auto Plaza Subdivision - Project Development
Plan, (Replat of a Portion of Tract B, Fossil Creek
Commercial Plaza).
7. #9-95B Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase 1 - Final (Continued)
Moved by Gavaldon, Seconded by Weitkunat: To approve Item No. 1,
Minutes of February 24 and March 10, and Item No. 2, Modifications.
Motion approved unanimously.
Larimer County Detention Facility Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review.
#8-98:
Staff gave a report on Item 5. This was a request to expand the existing Larimer
County Jail also known as the Detention Center. The expansion included the
addition of a four-story housing intake facility, 144 new cells, new office space,
support areas and parking lot. The site is 14 and a half acres in size, located at
2405 Midpoint Drive. The new construction equals approximately 70,000 square
feet. Zoned E, employment.
0
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 2
This is a unique land use request in that this facility is exempt from Chapter 29 of
the Zoning Code. The request is known as a Site Plan Advisory Review. The
review criteria is the City Plan.
When staff evaluated the site, it was agreed that the location and character of
the expansion was appropriate. There is a problem with the sidewalk which
does not continue along the frontage of Midpoint Drive and does not meet the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Dave Spencer, Director of Facilities for Larimer County and Larimer County
representative, discussed the issue of the sidewalk. He pointed out that this is
an extremely unique situation in that this facility is the only one of its kind in the
County. He supported alternate modes of transportation, including the
pedestrian way, but discouraged foot traffic close to the grounds of the facility
due to security and safety reasons.
Mr. Spencer further explained why foot traffic is not encouraged. He stated the
County has offered to assist in the completion of the walkway on the other side
of Midpoint Drive. He recommended a street crossing be provided by the facility
on the southernmost point of the property to provide a safe crossing for
pedestrians. The facility would also provide landscaping and urban -friendly
signage that would discourage foot traffic.
He further commented that there is no walkway at that location at the present
time. The additions proposed to the facility are at the rear of the existing building
and would not encourage traffic along Midpoint. He proposed that the facility
would provide a sidewalk leading to the bus stop and would increase the size of
the pad at the location of the bus stop. Mr. Spencer requested that a sidewalk
not be constructed.
Mr. Chapman asked what prevented people from walking where there was no
sidewalk? Mr. Spencer responded that foot traffic will be discouraged by
signage and landscaping. If citizens invaded the fenced off space, there would
be manned security cameras on the inside of the facility.
Mr. Gavaldon asked several questions regarding the crossing points, closed
circuit cameras and fenced in areas.
Mr. Davidson questioned security and fencing issues.
Ms. Weitkunat asked for clarification on the proximity of the fence surrounding
the facility. She also asked about inmate recreation in the area of the fencing.
Planning and Zoning A •
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 3
Mr. Terry Fareby, the Security Manager, explained the security at the facility and
the reasons why a sidewalk would not be appropriate.
The Chairman asked for pictures to depict the foot traffic in the business area
surrounding the detention facility.
Staff expressed concern about the lack of sidewalk continuity around the facility.
It was stated that while a sidewalk is not in place at this time, future businesses
might be required to put in a sidewalk to meet the level of service standards.
Mention was made by Staff that since a sidewalk would be on a public right-of-
way, under Chapter 24 of the City Code, the developer is obligated for its street
portion including the sidewalk. The path site located south of the detention
center is a potential future development site which would add more businesses
to the area. A collector street would be extended south to Drake Road so there
is a possibility of more foot, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. The crossing is a mid -
block crossing which is not the safest crossing, and some foot traffic would still
use that crossing. A raised crossing is not feasible due to drainage problems.
Staff related a conversation with Dennis Harrison, the Police Chief, in which he
felt a sidewalk should be placed at the facility. He stated it would be safer to
have pedestrians on the sidewalk than in the street.
Mr. Davidson stated he had a hard time justifying the sidewalk due to the
reasons stated by Staff. He suggested the facility move the fence toward the
facility 30 feet.
Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Mr. Gavaldon: To recommend to the
Board of Commissioners that (1) location of the proposed additions to the
jail are appropriate; (2) the character of the proposed additions to the jail is
appropriate; (3) that the lack of a public sidewalk along the full length of
Midpoint Drive places the expansion request in noncompliance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board
recommends that the jail be denied.
Mr. Chapman acknowledged that the expansions to the facility are needed but
that the security concerns associated with a sidewalk should be handled within
the confines of the facility.
Mr. Davidson asked a question about the property on the south side of the
detention facility. He expressed concern that the facility's fence was too close to
the shared property line.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 4
Mr. Gavaldon supported the recommendation to deny the jail. He expressed
concern for the citizens crossing at Midpoint Drive. He would like to see the
facility look at their internal controls with better planning and internal security.
Ms. Weitkunat spoke as a citizen and expressed concern for the security of the
citizens of the community. She supported the idea of not having a sidewalk to
deter people from getting close to the facility. She was against the motion.
Mr. Eckman proposed an amendment to the motion. He suggested changing the
wording from "recommendation" to approval or disapproval. He also stated that
the Board of Commissioners could overrule the P & Z Board by a two-thirds vote.
He also suggested that the Board find the request violates Section 24.95 of the
City Code, which is the code provision that requires a sidewalk.
Mr. Chapman stated that he stood corrected on his motion in using the word
"recommend" and would use the word "deny." He also supported the other
changes suggested by Staff.
Mr. Gavaldon stated he agreed with the changes to the motion.
The Chair appreciated the statements of Staff but asked if there was another
solution to the fence and sidewalk problem. Staff responded that there have
been several internal meetings regarding the issue. The feeling was the
sidewalk was needed to provide for pedestrian traffic in the area.
Mr. Colton commented as to the security issue.
Motion passed 7-1.
Pedersen Auto Plaza Subdivision - Project Development Plan, (Replat of a
Portion of Tract B. Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza). #26-97:
Steve Olt, City Planner, related the following information: This is a request for a
project development plan regarding an auto -related use located west of Harmony
Road on Mason Street. The property is approximately three and -a -half acres in
size. The building is approximately 30,000 square feet.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and considered the provisions under the Land
Use Code. Screening and landscaping standards have been considered by Staff
to be met. A 12-foot wide pedestrian access easement is on the south side.
The City has initiated a multi -modal corridor system along the Burlington
Northern Railroad tracks. Money as been set aside to implement a study in
Planning and Zoning Be •
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 5
terms of how this corridor will function. It is anticipated that within eight years a
plan will be implemented for multi -modal transportation use. The Applicant has
agreed to dedicate that 12-foot wide easement for a future bicycle/pedestrian
trail. Such access easement would be dedicated along with the project.
There are three exceptions to the Land Use Code that have not been met. They
include: (1) Building Orientation, Section 3.5.1(d); (2) Orientation to Build to
Lines for Street Front Buildings, Section 3.5.3(b)(2); and (3) 3.5.3(b)(2)(b).
Staff found that the project as submitted based on land use and architectural
compatibility to the surrounding land uses is neither detrimental to the public
good nor impairs the intent and purposes of the chapter of the City Code. It will
also protect public interests and purposes of the standards for which this
modification is requested equally as well than would a plan that complies with the
standards for which the modification is requested.
The last request had to do with a 5-foot setback requirement along the side and
rear property lines. The Applicant will be constructing a 6-foot high solid fence
along with south side. The implementation of the 12-foot wide easement
precludes the ability to provide a 5-foot wide landscape setback. Because the
Applicant has agreed to dedicate a 12-foot wide access easement for a future
trail, Staff recommended that the 5-foot landscape setback be waived and the
parking lot be built to the north easement line. The Applicant would construct a
fence along that property line once the trail is constructed.
The Applicant, Dana Lockwood, Architect for the project, gave an overview of the
project and addressed concerns by the Board at an earlier work session.
Some of those concerns addressed by Mr. Lockwood were as follows:
1. The Board wanted to know why the existing facility on Troutman Parkway is
being moved and how the move will affect the operation of both Pedersen
facilities. Mr. Lockwood explained that the sister facility located on Troutman
Parkway works closely with the dealership on College Avenue. Cars are
transported from one facility to another. The high volume of car traffic to and
from the facilities has resulted in a number of accidents. He stated that safety
has been one of the primary reasons for moving the facility. The proposed
facility will be less than a block from the existing facility on College Avenue.
2. Noise. The owner of the facility has invited a neighborhood spokesperson to
be involved in the placing of any outdoor or exterior speakers. The
0
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 6
representative will be able to contact the architect and will be involved in the
decision -making process.
3. The buffer on the west side of the building. The Board was given a layout of
the proposed landscaping.
4. Internal parking lot circulation, conflicts between cars and pedestrians, no
crosswalks or sidewalks to building from parking areas and the protection of cars
leaving the building.
The Architect explained the owner's first priority is safety. He explained the
various routes customers and technicians will take around the facility. He stated
the speed limit within the lots is posted at 5 miles per mile. The parking lot is
managed so that pedestrians and cars are safe.
5. Why 102 parking spaces were provided beyond the maximum parking spaces
allowed. Mr. Lockwood explained there are 141 spaces allowed. The facility will
provide 130 to accommodate the business but does not accommodate the
automobile sale lot.
6. Strategically placed berming and landscaping. The Board felt they wanted to
mitigate the visual effect of the site from Mason Street. The Architect cited
Section 3.2.1(e)(4)(a) and Section 3.2.1(e)(4)(b) from the Land Use Code. He
stated that the requirements have been met accordingly.
7. The buffer between parked cars and the trail system. Mr. Lockwood stated a
fence will be built as a buffer. Shade trees will be located close to the easement
line to provide a canopy effect for the trail system. The bench area, intended to
be a buffer and not a courtyard, will be provided as seating for employees and
customers.
8. Crosswalks are painted instead of raised or bricked. Mr. Lockwood stated
the Land Use Code made a painted crossing viable. He stated in the event the
Board insisted on raised or bricked crosswalks, the owner would defer to their
preference.
9. The Board wanted to view 3-D renderings of the building. Mr. Lockwood
stated the facility will be of similar construction as the existing building on
College Avenue. The proposed building will be taller to provide better screening
for mechanical equipment on the roofs.
Planning and Zoning Boa •
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 7
• 10. Rationale for the build -to -line modification. It was stated that the site is
located on a curve making it difficult to build consistently to the line. Access
points are limited. The business is single -focused towards automobiles.
No public input was given.
Mr. Davidson expressed a concern with pedestrian crossways and hazards
associated with facility traffic. Mr. Lockwood advised that a customer's car would
be brought to them after service was performed. To look at display cars,
customers would have to cross certain lanes of traffic. Mr. Davidson questioned
whether there would be an identifiable crosswalk across the entryway. Mr.
Lockwood explained the various customer thoroughfares.
Mr. Davidson also expressed a concern regarding an outside employee break
area. It was explained that the interior break area was very accommodating to
employees and an outdoor break area was not incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Davidson also asked about automobile transfers from one facility to another.
He wanted to know what elements went into the traffic study. Mr. Davidson was
• particularly concerned with shuttle trips between facilities. It was again reiterated
that the owners felt safety was a primary issue and they would do whatever was
necessary to keep safety a priority.
Mr. Gavaldon brought up the fact that the appendices were not included in the
traffic report. He asked if the traffic study included demo drives and parts
deliveries. Mr. Lockwood assumed they were included in the traffic study.
Mr. Gavaldon also questioned the frequency of employees walking back and
forth from each facility and if there would be a marked route to ensure safety. He
also questioned the intensity of the traffic, car and citizen, going through one
intersection. He didn't feel the traffic study addressed those issues and would
like to see more data. Mr. Lockwood acknowledged there was not a traffic
engineer available at the meeting to address those issues. He felt the amount of
traffic did not encourage a dangerous situation.
The Chairman reiterated she felt the Applicant had stated on a number of
occasions that he felt the plan was safe. If the Board felt differently, criteria in
the Land Use Code should be looked at.
Ms. Weitkunat advised there were three issues in the Land Use Code that had
not been addressed. She stated she had no problem with the standards but
• wanted to be clear on what was being asked.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 8
Ms. Craig wanted clarification on routes for semi tractors. Mr. Lockwood
explained the maneuvers semi tractors would be able to make. She also
questioned what would happen with extra persons waiting for service. Mr.
Lockwood showed on a drawing where customers would wait.
Mr. Colton wanted to address the modification for the build to lines. He asked
why the standard needed to be modified. Staff explained the standard to the
Code and the exemption it related to. It was stated the nature of the project
justifies the standard.
Mr. Colton asked why there couldn't be more than two access points. Staff
explained an effort had been made to put together a shared access point.
Businesses were not willing to participate in a cooperative access point. Staff
also pointed out that criteria needed to be met because of safety issues. The
undeveloped parcels around the facility and the existing access point to Target is
too close.
Mr. Chapman discussed the intent of the City Code regarding pedestrian and
auto traffic.
Ms. Craig wanted information regarding fire truck routes to the facility. Staff
informed the Board that since semi trucks can maneuver around the site, it is
assumed a fire truck could. There are also the required sprinkler systems.
The Chairman wanted clarification on the noise issue. It was stated that the loud
speaker equipment had not yet been chosen and that a neighborhood
representative is welcome to give input.
Ms. Bell also discussed her concerns with traffic problems. Staff explained the
various routes available to automobile traffic. Ms. Bell noted she would have like
the modification written to include numerous pedestrian walkways around the
facility. She questioned the wording in the modification regarding the pattern of
existing buildings.
Mr. Gavaldon asked if the 12-foot easement included the utility easement. Staff
advised that the 12-foot easement including the utility easement. Mr. Gavaldon
also questioned Staff on the sidewalk around the facility. Staff felt there was a
good effort made to mitigate pedestrian/vehicular traffic.
The Chairman requested Staff rational for request for modification. Regarding
the first modification, Staff explained the rational was in the Staff Report, Page
10. The rational for the second modification was on Page 12. The rational for
Planning and Zoning Bo• •
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 9
•
the third modification was on Page 13. The Code requires specific explanations
by Staff for modifications.
Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the
request for Alternative Landscape and Tree Protection Plan in accordance
with Section 3.2.1, Alternative Compliance. The rational is as stated by
Staff. Motion passed unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the
request for modification to standards as set forth in Section 3.5.3(b)(2) the
orientation to building to lines for street front buildings. The rational is that
the modification would neither be detrimental to the public nor impair the
intent and purposes of this chapter. And that the plan as submitted would
actually mitigate the traffic and pedestrian issues. Granting or
modification of the strict application of any standard would result in a
substantial benefit to the city.
Mr. Davidson asked if Mason Street will remain a two-lane street according to
the 20-year plan. Staff explained it would remain as a minor arterial.
• Ms. Craig suggested that painted signage could be changed to actual signage or
a raised or bricked entryway.
Mr. Davidson suggested there be a crosswalk on Mason Street over to
Kensington Street to simplify pedestrian traffic. Staff informed there will be a
ramp on the west side that lines up with the corner to facilitate pedestrian
crossing. Staff is anticipating when the path is built, the crosswalk will be
marked. Mr. Davidson pointed out that Pedersen's was triggering the increased
pedestrian traffic, and they needed to address that specific issue.
The Applicant felt Mr. Davidson's point was well taken and would concur with his
suggestion of painting the crosswalk.
Ms. Weitkunat expressed that she had no doubts that Pedersen's would have
the highest regards for pedestrian and customer safety.
Mr. Chapman corrected his rational stating that by placing this facility close to the
present facility, it will eliminate cross traffic on College Avenue when shuttling
cars from one facility to another. He supported the concept that the building will
be set back further than the Code calls for.
40
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 10
Mr. Colton was concerned about the building conforming to the proposed
sections of the Code and that granting variances might not be the best idea in
this case.
Mr. Davidson felt granting variances would not be necessary if the site was more
conducive to the business rather than the site trying to conform to the facility
plan.
Mr. Gavaldon stated the City Plan was designed to be flexible but felt there could
have been better planning regarding the scale of the building and the scope of its
missions and operations. He also stated that future traffic problems needed to
be studied. He felt the facility might be too intense for the space involved.
The Chairman asked if there were any traffic signals placed in the area. Staff
responded there were none planned at this time but they will be added on an as -
needed basis.
Motion passed 5 to 2.
Moved by Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the request
for modifications set forth in Section 3.5.3(b)(2)(b), the build to line of the
Land Use Code. The rational being that granting of the modification will
neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and
purposes of this chapter. And that the plan as submitted will advance and
protect the public interests and purposes of the standard. And the
granting of the modification from the strict application of any standard will
result in a substantial benefit to the City.
Mr. Colton stated he did not support the motion for the same reasons cited
earlier. He also agreed with Mr. Gavaldon's observation that the facility is too
intense for the site.
Motion passed 4 to 3.
Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To Recommend the
approval of the Pedersen Auto Plaza Project Development Plan No. 26-97.
Ms. Craig stated she would not be supporting the motion due to the fact that the
pedestrian walkways adequately addressed according to Section 3.2.2C(5)(a).
She stated there were no pedestrian accesses to the display room and around
the parking lot area.
Planning and Zoning Board •
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 11
0
Mr. Davidson concurred with Ms. Craig's remarks and stated his biggest concern
was with pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Gavaldon stated he would not support the motion. He had great concerns
about Mason Street and future traffic problems.
Ms. Weitkunat stated she felt it was a workable project and it was an appropriate
use according to the standards of the Land Use Code.
Mr. Colton wanted clarification about the grounds for rejecting the motion. Staff
suggested the vote should be based on the reasons stated in the motion and not
on the modifications because certain members did not approve the
modifications.
The Chairman asked if the Applicant had any solutions to the pedestrian
accesses in terms of continuity and traffic flow. Mr. Lockwood stated there could
be signage or texture treated pavement to help with the traffic flow. He felt that
from experience such standard is not essential but it could be accommodated.
Ms. Craig asked if Staff would be amenable to working with the Applicant on
internal pedestrian access from the service bays to the display areas.
Ms. Bell stated the Board would like to help the Applicant find a solution to the
Board's concerns.
Staff suggested the Board make a condition on the final. If the Board was
adamant about reviewing proposed the solutions, they would need to be
reviewed at a future meeting. Staff reiterated that the conditions needed to be
very specific to give clear directions as to what the Board wanted in the way of
changing the pedestrian and traffic flow. Staff suggested the Board either deny
the motion to provide the Applicant a chance to appeal or to table the motion to
give the Applicant an opportunity to submit another proposal to incorporate
suggestions given by the Board.
The Chairman asked the Applicant to address the concerns made by the Board.
Mr. Lockwood stated they were on a time schedule and requested the Board
made a decision at this meeting. He also stated he would be happy to work
through any conditions.
Ms. Weitkunat asked the Board if they could give specifics as to what the
problem with pedestrian traffic was.
0
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of March 19, 1999
Page 12
Mr. Davidson explained there were two concerns. There were no identifiable
crosswalks between the north and south parking lots. There was not a
continuous sidewalk or identifiable crosswalk to the display vehicles or the
maintenance area. There also needs to be sidewalks on both the north and
south side of the building.
The Chairman recommended at this point that the Board not get into designing
the sidewalk. Staff agreed and clarified the traffic flow situation. Mr. Davidson
suggested that not all possible traffic flow situations were being adequately
addressed.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To withdraw the motion
to approve and ask for a continuance to reassess the pedestrian accesses.
The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chairman asked to have the pedestrian access changes be brought before
the Board at the next meeting. She stated that the accesses would be the only
issue brought up at that time.
There was no other business
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Community Planning and EnvironmentteServices
AMR
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
To: Gwen Bell, Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Board Members
From: Steve Olt, Project Planner
Ref: Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final - #49-95B
Date: March 19, 1998
The Harmony Ridge Overall Development Plan (ODP) and Phase One, Preliminary Plan
were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996. On the ODP
the applicant presented a "bicycle path connection" to the south, presumably to cross the
Trilby Lateral and a portion of the proposed Cathy Fromme Prairie and connect to the
City's future bicycle/pedestrian trail in the natural area. The location of the path on the
Harmony Ridge site was in (future) Phase Two of the ODP. This location was shown
schematically and somewhat arbitrarily. The Phase One, Preliminary Plan does not show
a physical trail location but contains a statement that says:
"Future bicycle path provisions shall be made to connect to the City trail system at
one point each on the East, West and South. These connections will be made when
50% of the residences are occupied."
The City has since acquired the property to the south of the Harmony Ridge developable
area and is in the process of constructing the bicycle/pedestrian trail in the Cathy Fromme
Prairie Natural Area.
City staff has determined that the appropriate location for a public trail access from the
Harmony Ridge development to the City trail is from the east side of Morning Dove Lane
(across from the four-plex building on Lot 21) down to the west end of the proposed dam
for Pond 6 on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Final plan, which currently shows a
trail for Trilby Lateral Ditch Company Access only in this location. This location is most
desirable in that it will provide trail access at a point nearest to an intermediate point
approximately '/2 mile from both the South Shields Street and South Taft Hill Road
• trailheads, and will provide a direct linkage for persons living in the square mile to the north
of the project site. The chosen desired location also assures that a connection is made in
association with the development of Phase One of the Harmony Ridge project and utilizes
'-81 North Aver,',,' ' P.O. Box 5K • r,,rt Couins, CO M522-0580 • (070) 221-6750 • PAX (070) 416-2020
terrain which allows for a smooth and direct connection to the Cathy Fromme Prairie
Natural Area trail, thus helping to minimize the establishment of informal trail connections
by local residents.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One -
Final that states:
The developer shall provide a public, handicapped accessible
bicycle/pedestrian trail, with easement, from the east side of Morning Dove
Lane to the south property line at a location near the west end of the
proposed dam for Pond 6, as shown on the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One -
Final Site Plan. The exact alignment and design of the trail must be finalized
prior to filing the PUD documents. Sufficient signage and markings to identify
the trail as a public access must be provided.
March 18, 1998
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Larimer County Detention Center Expansion
Dear Members of the Board:
• We are pleased that the Larimer County Detention Center is expanding its facility in
Prospect East Business Park. We have co -existed in the business park very effectively
over the years, and have had a relationship with the County that has been mutually
beneficial.
In the past, we have successfully worked together with the County to design landscaping
on their property which is somewhat similar, though certainly on a significantly smaller
scale, to what we require in the remainder of Prospect East Business Park.
It is our understanding that the Detention Center is exempt from all Zoning requirements,
including landscaping requirements; and that further, the County has recently submitted to the
City a position statement which indicates that because of security concerns they will not
be planting trees on the expansion site. Although we understand the obvious concerns
relative to dense landscape surrounding such a facility; we, of course, are concerned that
we maintain the quality image of the business park. This image is created, to a major
extent, through the landscape requirements.
RF(v(t
V
"A RAGING THUNDER LIZARD COMPANY"
1600 Specht Point Drive Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970/482-4800 FAX 970/221-5009
Bill Reynolds, a principle owner of Prospect East Business Park, is offering to retain
a landscape architect and pay for his services to design a landscape plan for the expansion
facility which would take into serious account the County's security concerns, as well as
our concern that the quality image we have worked so hard over the years to create
is not jeopardized by such a large user having no significant amounts of landscaping.
We know that public/private partnerships of this type can be very successful. For example,
the W. W. Reynolds Companies has successfully worked with Poudre School District,
another zoning -exempt jurisdiction, for the successful completion of the joint planning
and development of the new Fort Collins High School/Tower Shoppes, PUD project.
We would be very excited to be associated with such an effort, and respectfully request
your assistance in facilitating this public/private partnership among Larimer County,
The City of Fort Collins and The W. W. Reynolds Companies.
Respectfully submitted,
Advanced Energy Itidustries, In
Air Resource Specialists
ENSR �_4
hihaus n esearch
naOV V' )� A
ERM
46 91/_J
Applied gomputer Technologies
Xtrix Laboratories
HESKA
) m X601
Sedden Oaks
4d�
The W. W.
•
FLAGSTONE PATIO HOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
4540 Larkbunting Drive, Unit 2A
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Alton L. Scofield, President
Linda Reynolds, Vice President Rita Steving, Secretary
W.R. Pittman, Treasurer Wilma Schlitt, Director
March 16, 1998
To: Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins, CO
From: Flagstone Patio Homes BOA
RE: Peterson Auto Plaza, Project Development Plan
Flagstone homeowners are located to the west of the building site of
the projected Peterson Auto Plaza and are on the west side of the
railroad tracks. This puts our homes and occupants in very close
proximity to the Plaza.
. There has been much discussion on three very significant points in
relation to such a business and how it will affect each of us as
homeowners in this area. We would like consideration and attention
given to our concerns in this matter.
1) The existing open area will be filled by a three-story
building which will eliminate that which we have enjoyed
thus far. We realize we cannot escape this problem.
2) After studying the landscape plans, we see our view being
limited to a parking area and the back of the building which
provides no enhancement.
The only solution to this problem as we presently see it is
to request a row of evergreen trees (12' tall) be planted
close enough together to form a barrier between the west
side of the building and our homes. Also, the trees could
probably be quite effective in reducing the reverberation of
the train whistles which would bounce off the building.
3) We are also concerned about the possibility of paging
speakers being installed and directed to the west. If such
are to be placed on the outside of the building, we highly
recommend that they be directed to the east, rather than to
the west, to reduce noise pollution.
•
bA
r
r�
• r�
r
0
4-j
U
C�
N
U
bA
3
0
.s:�
U
c�
N
cd
PSI
O
U
N
PT't
�U