HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/02/19930
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
August 2, 1993
Continuation of the July 26, 1993 meeting
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The August 2, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Walker, Bernie Strom, Jennifer Fontaine, Sharon Winfree
and Jan Cottier. Members Clements -Cooney and Klataske were absent.
Staff members present included Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark, Deputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, and Georgiana Deines.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
A ENDA REVIEW
Chief Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: Item
12 - Paragon Point PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan, #48-91H; Item 13 - Paragon
Point PUD, 4th Filing - Preliminary and Final, #48-91I; Item 14 - Provincetowne PUD - Second
Amendment to the Overall Development Plan, #73-82P (was continued until the September 27,
1993 meeting); Item 15 - Provincetowne PUD - Preliminary, #73-82N (continued until the
September 27, 1993 meeting); Item 16 - Fairbrooke PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan,
#65-82W; Item 17 - Fairbrooke PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary, #65-82X; Item 18 - McDonald's
at Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 2nd Filing - Appeal of Administrative Change, #1-88D.
PARAGON POINT PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, #48 91H
PARAGON POINT PUD 4TH FILIN - PRELIMINARY AND FINA #48 911
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff reports on the two items, recommending approval on
both with a condition as stated in the Staff report on the 4th filing.
Chairman Walker asked about the change that had occurred in January of this year as an
administrative change that dropped the number of units and the density, could he have some
background in that decision making process.
Ms. Albertson -Clark noted that at Member Winfree's request, Staff did provide a set of minutes
of all the previous preliminary plans for Paragon for the Board to look over. When you look
back over the minutes of the first through third filings, you would find that density and the
concept of the variance did not play a major role at that time. This was a topic that has
evolved in importance and recognition by both Staff and the Board in the last several months.
Prior to that time, while we were looking for 3 units to the acre, we saw a lot of projects that
were coming in at three units per acre or the density calculations were being interpreted in
somewhat differently than what we were interpreting them now.
Ms. Albertson -Clark went on to say that she was not directly involved in the administrative
change, but her sense on that was that at the time Staff felt that was the appropriate way to
go with Paragon Point given the fact that there are some unique, site constraints on this area
and at that point, Staff was comfortable with the reduction in density. It became an issue on
this project in May when we saw the 4th filing for the first time.
Chairman Walker stated that they were "batting around" small changes and what was approved
now was 224 units and they denied 226 and now they were looking at 233 and yet the big
change occurred from the original plan at 335 down to 224, and that was done administratively.
Member Winfred asked about the chart on page 2 and the text underneath, there were some
discrepancies in the numbers and could she have clarification on that.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the chart was labeled, "Description of Proposed Amendment,"
and under the amendment section, there should be some data under Parcel B that should be
labeled as "land use as duplexes," three acres with adensity of 5.3 units per acre with a total
of 16 units._ The single family phase under Parcel C should be labeled 9.5 acres for the overall
site, 5.2 dwelling units per acre with a total of 49 units. It is B and C that are under specific
review tonight as the 4th filing, a total of 65 lots, 16 duplex lots.
Member Winfred asked about the January 25, 1993 meeting, the minutes read that Mr. Shepard
of the Planning Department stated, "that it was the intention to have filing four carry the
burden of meeting the overall development plan with the number of units per acre that meets
or exceeds 3 per acre," that was based on the performance of phase four. Then Mr. Sell stated
that, "there would be enough density available in filing four to make the three density units
per acre." Could there be a comment on that.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the fourth filing did meet the three units per acre, with tonights
proposal put it at 1.5 units per acre, it probably would of been very difficult to take the fourth
filing and put enough density on that alone to bring the entire gross site up to three units per
acre. The number of units would have to be doubled.
Member Cottier stated there was a definite need for the calculation of density to be done
consistently and she thought it was still not being done consistently. Her recollection of this
particular project was that the interpretation was to calculate density for this project on a net
basis because of all the undevelopable land that was to be maintained as open space for the
public, not just for this development alone. All along in previous considerations of this project,
she thought the Board had been looking at net density, not gross density. In that regard, it has
always been in the context that this did meet the three dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing developer, replied to Member Winfree's comment on
the minutes and that his comment about making up that density was in the context of net
density, not gross density. There was no way they could of done it on a gross density basis.
Mr. Sell gave a presentation with slides on the projects, giving an overview and review of how
this project has progressed from the beginning and the site characteristics they have had to deal
with, the flood plain, openspace and wetland areas, elevations, steep terrain, Fossil Creek,
bluffs, Natural Resource Management Plan, vegetation in the area west of Fossil Creek, erosion
.problems, flat areas of the prairie, prairie dogs and the Stonecreek Tributary.
2
Mr. Sell went over the improvements the developer has made to the site including developing
a Natural Resource Management Plan. A Master Plan was developed for the park area, the
ponds have been constructed, revegetation and reseeding, the walkways have been constructed,
the project is using raw water for irrigating, the mini park with a xeriscape demonstration
garden on the site.
Mr. Sell reviewed what has been built; Phase I including the park, the infrastructure has been
completed in Phase II but no homes have been constructed there yet, Phase III, the
infrastructure there is in early stages of completion. The greenbelts, the walkway has been
constructed, it would be the first leg through the property of the Fossil Creek Trail. There is
a seven foot wide concrete trail that has been constructed with the exception of the bridges
over Fossil Creek.
Mr. Sell stated that this project had been caught in an area of change that was going on in
relationship to density. In the early stages of the project, they were directed on how to
calculate their density and do it on a net basis, as was discussed earlier. It has been a policy
in the planning process when you down Overall Development Plan that you indicate densities
as high as you might ever anticipate because of the reasons of spending the time to come back
and getting an approval to increase density.
Mr. Sell reviewed what was originally approved on the Overall Development Plan and what the
proposed changes would be and the density on the property.
Mr. Sell handed out a book of supplemental information to the project.
Mr. Sell went over the fencing requirements, due to some concerns; he reiterated that the
fencing would be an open type fencing.
Mr. Sell went over the requirements of the Land Use Policies Plan and the Goals and Objectives
of the Natural Resources Policies Plan and how this project meets those requirements.
Chairman Walker stated that he thought in this case, net density was acceptable. He thought
that the biggest impact of the administrative change approved in January was the removal of
the multi -family completely. What was the rational for doing that.
Mr. Sell replied that the rational was really based on preference more than anything by the
Developer. The problem was the success of the project. They had thought that it would take
four to five years to get to this area of the site. At that point, the developer would have more
experience to deal with a multi -family area.
Chairman Walker asked if the new Overall Development Plan would still have 130 single
family and 65 patio or duplex homes and 21 multi -family.
Mr. Sell replied that the 21 multi -family units was based on not having gone through the
detailed process in that area. It would probably take some work with Natural Resources maybe
wanting to reconfigure the upper wetland a little. He thought 21 units was pretty realistic.
Member Fontaine commented on the decrease in numbers in density and recommended to the
first time developer that he put numbers in his proposals that he aims to meet or at least in this
community plans to go above.
Mr. Sell replied that it was not the developers intention to do that, it was his. The reason for
putting the high numbers was that it was a standard practice in planning a project to use larger
numbers than you anticipate.
Member Fontaine stated that it was unfortunate that the concerns about density in Fort Collins
have come out just recently. She thought that this project, after moving all the numbers
around, was a reasonable development for this property at this point.
Member Cottier commented on the increasing issue of density. She thought that maybe on the
Overall Development Plans they should start giving minimum density numbers as well as
maximum, in terms of the concerns that if projects were coming in with a mix of densities. She
thought it was hard, with the way the statistics were kept, to actually compare single family
units versus multi -family units versus patio homes and acreage devoted to each on an Overall
Development Plan basis. In looking at this project and looking at the Land Use Policies Plan
where there is the policy on residential areas providing for a mix of housing densities. There
were no standards or guidelines on how much should be single family and how much should
be higher density apartments. It was interesting to note that the original rational for this was
to justify higher densities.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Joe Schwartz, resident of Paragon Point and representing the residents in Paragon Point.
He presented a document indicating support from the surrounding residents on Phase 4 of
Paragon Point. He went over the positive aspects of being able to deal directly with the
developer and thought that everything done to date had been well planned.
Mr. Greg Rigen, resident of Paragon Point, stated that agreed with Mr. Schwartz. He thought
that the project was quality and the developer had come through with everything he said he
was going to do and he believed that was in part because of being a first time developer. He
has total faith in anything he suggests and believes that the quality of life was staring them
in the face out there.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED.
Member Fontaine asked about the loss of commercial area. How did it get in there in the
beginning if it wasn't going to meet the transit route and the issues that it needed to have.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that she could only give a best guess on that. When they do an
Overall Development Plan, Staff does not evaluate it against the policies and criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System. They evaluate it against the Land Use Policies Plan. For
commercial areas that are less in scale than a neighborhood shopping center or a community
shopping center, there were no specific policies in the Land Use Policies to tell them where
those kinds of uses should go. What Staff has done more recently was to do a calculation
against the Land Development Guidance Point Charts to get a sense of whether a commercial
plan would be supported under the LDGS at time of preliminary. She did not think that was
done at the time that this Overall Development Plan was looked at. She did not think that the
commercial area was viable because of the Regional Shopping Center including Pace, Builders
Square and Steele's.
Member Fontaine asked about points given for collector and arterial streets and was that
measured by what existed now or was the future given consideration. When it was not going
to meet the criteria for being next to an arterial and a collector intersection. She says, in the
future that surely would be a major intersection and is that measured in the present time or
was it taking the future into consideration.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the future was taken into consideration and if they have at
least a collector and/or an arterial street system planned on an approved Overall Development
Plan, then there is credit given even though it was not existing.
Chairman Walker commented that he would like to see more realistic numbers on Overall
Development Plans. He had some serious questions about the Administrative Change done back
in January and that for total units there was a drop of around 30% and that was done
administratively. He felt that was a very significant administrative change and that something
that large should be brought before the board.
Chairman Walker went on to say that this was a quality project but the issue was the numbers
game that had been played and he was satisfied with the mix of housing that was being
proposed tonight. He suggested that as a policy, he would like to see more realistic numbers on
the Overall Development Plans.
Member Fontaine asked how much of the infrastructure was in now and was what was planned
going to just cover the development plan here or was it going to cover the 335 total units.
Steve Human, TST Consulting Engineers, replied that Phase I,II, and III was complete, Phase
III was lacking some curb, gutter and asphalt. Phase IV infrastructure was set on its own as
far as water lines to the main water line in Lemay Avenue and sewer line tie to the existing
sewer line. He wanted to make clear for the record that the water lines were Fort
Collins/Loveland Water District, the sewer lines were South Fort Collins Sanitation District.
The only infrastructure that was City related were streets and Light and Power. The escrow
funds for Trilby Road and Lemay have been satisfied by the Developer.
Member Winfree commented that the issue with her was not if this was figured on gross or net
acreage. This was a unique property and amenities were being provided and the acreage was
beinggiven over to the open space areas. The impact of the change in density was not from
problems found with developing the properties and she had a concern that when you have an
ODP and 18 months later the Board was seeing something other than what they thought they
were going to get and she did not want to see planning by market demand.
Member Winfree also felt constrained by the administrative change that was approved of
January of 1993. What they were looking at now was an increased in density from what was
approved at that time. She would be supporting approval of this project, but had concerns
with comparing what they were seeing tonight to what was approved in December of 1991.
Member Cottier commented on the administrative change and she had looked up the guidelines
for administrative changes to Master Plans in the LDGS and it stated that any change could
be approved administratively, unless it was a major change. Major change is defined as an
increase in density and there was not any word on decreasing density. Technically it was by
the books. The language in alot of these requirements should be looked at. She thought this
was an example of a project with very good planning and this was the first project that she was
aware of that has a Natural Resource Management Plan.
5
Member Collier moved for approval of the Paragon Point Amended Overall Development Plan.
Member Fontaine seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Member Cottier moved for approval of Paragon Point, Phase 4, Preliminary and Final.
Member Fontaine seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave both the Staff reports on the Amended Overall
Development Plan and the 7th Filing recommending approval of both projects and the solar
orientation variance.
Mark Linder, applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He stated that the City of. Fort
Collins was the owner of the remaining tracts of land in Fairbrooke through a foreclosure of
a Special Improvement District that failed. The parcels were all put out to bid and he was the
successful bidder on a part of Tract D, his intention was to develop the 20 single family lots
on that site. The amendment tonight would allow that with the change from 71 townhomes to
20 single family lots, a historically renovated farm house and an expanded playground for
Bauder Elementary School. There have been meetings with the neighborhood regarding the
barn and the conditions of the corrals and barns. This parceling of the property in this fashion
was what came out of those meetings.
Mr. Linder gave a history of the Master Planning of the Fairbrooke site. He felt that people
plan parcels based on the best available information at that time. At the time of the Master
Planning of Fairbrooke there truly was a bias towards putting as much density on as they
possibly could get. Just a few years after the LDGS had come into force and it was just the
philosophy of the time. Some of the multi -family in Fairbrooke was built. The amendment
reduces the density from 6.9 to 5.2 and was aware that the Board was concerned. The real
change tonight was just on Tract D. The other Tracts had already been before the Board in one
by one in their own planning submittals and the Master Plan was just not updated at that time.
The remaining tracts were all subject to a PUD condition and the Board would have complete
review over them and if they insist on maintaining the density on them, the Board could do
that.
Mr. Linder stated they held neighborhood meetings on this site and received good input. The
primary concern was that the site provide another access point the Bauder School, which it
does. There is a sidewalk connection that was aligned with the existing road. That access
would be built by himself and deeded to the Poudre R-1 School District and they would be
responsible for maintaining it.
Mr. Linder went over the architectural compatibility of the new homes with the existing homes.
He showed slides of the streetscape and what it would be composed of; also, the fencing, the
drainage and streetlights, and the request for a solar variance.
Chairman Walker asked how would the streetscape proposed for Prospect be maintained?
Mr. Linder replied that it would be maintained by the lot owners who own it. He did not feel
the need for a Homeowners' Association for this small development. There is no Homeowners
Association in Fairbrooke. The lot owners would have to maintain it out to the street right-of-
way.
Chairman Walker asked if there were provisions for the homeowner to maintain it as designed.
Mr. Linder replied that it would be in the protective covenants of the subdivision, on those
specific lots there would be that requirement.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Chairman Walker asked about the amendment to the ODP and. how single family homes were
built on a Master Plan that stated Townhomes.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there was no record with either of those Phase Plans to prove
that there was ever an amendment ever done to the Overall Development Plans. At that time,
84 or 85, the staff report mentioned that there was a different land use designation on the
Overall Development Plan. Based on how things were reviewed at that time, the Project
Planner did not feel the need for a formal amendment, and there was not one done. We felt
that it was important to get the record cleaned up in order to give an analysis on Mr. Linders'
proposal and to have the right statistics we needed to have the information updated.
Chairman Walker concurred with the Staff on the recommendation of approval of the solar
orientation variance.
Member Fontaine moved for approval of the Fairbrooke PUD Amended Overall Development
Plan.
Member Winfree seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Member Cottier moved for approval of the Fairbrooke PUD, 7th Filing, Preliminary and the
variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance based on the grounds that the strict application
of this provision would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties.
Member Winfree seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave the staff report and a slide presentation of the site
to the Board recommending denial of the request for an appeal of the staff decision to deny
a request for an administrative change to add parking for the McDonald's restaurant by
reducing the landscape setback along Harmony Road.
Member Winfree asked if they were to be granted the 9 feet for additional parking, how close
would it bring the parking lot to the existing sidewalk.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied there was a 7 foot sidewalk existing and it would be approximately
25 feet plus to the sidewalk.
Member Cottier asked if lot 4 was the lot that had no currently approved plan.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied it was lot 2, which had a standard restaurant and that was
subsequently replace with an auto related use, which has since expired. Lot 4 was the western
most lot that parallels Mason Street. That has a retail and service use proposed there, and has
only been planned from the original preliminary. There has been no activity there since.
Member Fontaine asked if there had been any complaints of the overflow parking.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied she was not aware of any. The Zoning Department would handle
such complaints and would ask the property owner to comply with the parking code
requirements. In this instance, the Highway Business Zoning would not permit operation of
that site strictly as a parking lot. It would need to come through as a Planned Unit
Development.
Member Winfree asked to see the slide of the sidewalk and asked if it was 25 feet to the
parking lot.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the total area is a 40 foot landscaped setback that includes a
7 foot sidewalk. That would leave 33 feet in landscaped area. It 9 feet were taken out of that,
it would be actually 24 feet.
Chairman Walker asked if lot 2 was being used by patrons of McDonald's.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was true and it also could be employee parking.
Chairman Walker asked if the shared parking for the 4 lots concept was an element of the
original approval.
Ms. Albertson Clark replied that was correct and it was processed as a preliminary with only
preliminary detail which then meant that each of the lots could come in as a free standing
final. Each one was set up so they could come in independently in terms of the process. That
maybe on of the problems causing difficulties in parking. There is no parking developed
adjacent to this site.
Member Cottier asked if the cars that would be parallel parked in what now is the median, was
there enough room for their doors to open? Was there any standards?
8
1 9 0
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that technically it could be done. One of the problems was with
Poudre Fire Authority and if there was a need for a fire vehicle to circulate through there.
They need a width of 20 feet. It might be tight but may work there. One concern is that the
maneuvering movements it takes to parallel park, anyone parallel parking there would, for a
certain period of time, be blocking the escape lane and possibly the drive-thru lane. Staff felt
that this was an area where there would be too much congestion with the proposal to offset that
with additional landscaping. The landscaping proposed is better than what is out there right
now, but from Staffs' point of view, it was not an adequate tradeoff and the more important
thing was to try to find another place for the parking needed and maintain the setback along
Harmony Road.
Jim Pickett, with McDonald's Corporation, stated that they have polled the customers of the
restaurant on their parking and asked them to rate it from 1 to 10. The best response was 2.
During .the lunch peak hours, 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, people will
continually park in the dirt area. They have been having their employees park on the street
that goes out to Kensington. For some reason Kensington now is signed for "no parking" on
both sides of the street; that totally limited their parking. If they could get some of the parallel
parking on the side, and what they would do would have their employees park in that area.
That would mean no people would be walking across that area and the sidewalk would be free.
Mr. Pickett stated concerns of other businesses moving into the area, parking would never be
better than now for their business. It's going to get worse. They did not want to go out and
spend alot of money buying additional parking when they felt the lot was large enough at first
to get more parking spaces. This seemed to be the best and most cost effective first plan of
attack for them. He thought that this plan would work and they would find the employees
would park there and would open some spaces on the side of additional customer parking.
Member Cottier asked if employees used to park on Kensington.
Mr. Pickett replied that they did.
Member Cottier commented that was pretty far away for convenient parking.
Mr. Pickett replied that they mandated that because of the lack of space on their lot. By having
their employees park in other places opens 15 to 20 parking spaces out of 60 total. When the
original 70 spaces were discussed it was designed with lower sales than they currently do. They
are currently number ten in sales out of 240 McDonald's in Colorado. That is a reference point
to how busy they are. The fourteen parking spaces would be a great asset and they would like
to see it.
Member Cottier asked what their experiences have been with the spaces on the western side,
which were vacant in the slide.
Mr. Pickett replied that most of the time you would see people parked in those spaces anytime
they are busy.
Member Winfree asked if their employees were currently parking in the paved parking area.
Mr. Pickett replied that was correct.
Member Winfree asked if they were to use these 14 spaces for employees, what have they
accomplished as far as their clients.
Mr. Pickett replied not that much, they have opened up some spaces on Kensington and in the
dirt areas. What their concern was is in the future when there is more development they have
14 spaces for their employees and they wouldn't have to find a place for them to park.
Keith Hensel, Adams Avery Engineers, stated McDonald's had pursued acquiring some of the
property on the north side. They would like to pickup 36 feet on the south edge side to provide
parking. As Ms. Albertson -Clark mentioned earlier, it was not set up to be parking only. There
was quite a cost involved in acquiring the property and it was very cost prohibitive to search
in that area for additional parking. In addition, if they were to acquire the additional 36 feet,
there was some doubts if the remaining parcel would be adequate for future development. It
takes quite a chunk out of that piece of property.
Mr. Hensel stated that they would be reducing the landscaping in that area and enhancing it
in the overall area. With the enhanced landscaping, Harmony Road would not be enhanced as
much as you might think. The sod area on the back might not be missed as much.
Member Fontaine asked who's responsibility, in the existing plan, to pay for the shared parking.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the concept of the shared parking, from Staffs' perspective
was that by doing the preliminary plan for the whole site, it gave the ability to see how the
various uses would fit together and evaluate parking demands for each of those uses. There
was a certain amount of parking approved for each of those uses on their own site and that
what was typically what they would pay for development. However, once you put those
parking areas in and if you have access or parking easements or agreements, then each party
would be able to use each others parking.
Member Fontaine asked if in the plan, all of the Lot 2 parking would be paid for by the
restaurant.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied based on the original plan, yes.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Fontaine asked if it would be feasible for McDonald's to pay for part of the parking
development to the north and have some sort of agreement made with an incoming restaurant.
Ms. Albertson -Clark asked if she was asking if it would be appropriate for property owner to
the north to pay.
Member Fontaine clarified, would it be appropriate for McDonald's.to pay to put in some of
the parking.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was feasible, one of the recommendations Staff has given was
to pursue additional parking off -site regardless of what action this board takes tonight on this
item, parking was still going to be an issue.
Ms. Albertson -Clark added that the property owner to the north and McDonald's would have
to work an agreement, McDonald's cannot force the owner to provide them parking.
10
I
9 •
Chairman Walker commented that most fast food restaurants with drive-thrus locate in a high
traffic and visibility areas and that was understandable. He went over the original approval
of the drive-thru and the concerns of how this site would work with the Harmony Road
streetscaping. He would take issue with the comment made that the view from Harmony Road
would not be impacted. There was no guarantee that it would be employee parking. There was
also the issue of when this site was approved there was a concept of joint parking and that was
still a valid concept on this site. The fact that nothing is developed was a problem. He felt that
the joint parking concept would work here when the site develops. If you are dealing with
employee parking, the employer needs to make provisions.
Member Fontaine mentioned that there was a transit route located at the corner of Harmony
and Mason. She was also concerned with the safety problems on the site.
Member Cottier commented that the high volume of the business attested to the importance of
the intersection and the high traffic volume of that intersection and that justifies extra
concern over how this area is landscaped. She was not convinced that the safety and congestion
issues would be resolved by saying this is "employee" parking. She agreed that the joint parking
concept would work on this site and as long as they were talking about providing these spaces
for employees, her response would be to wait, it would not be an additional hardship to their
clients. It was unfortunate that nothing has happened on Lots 2 and 4 but she thought that the
joint parking concept would work once something happens on those sites. She was not inclined
to support the requested change because of their statements that it was for employees.
Chairman Walker asked if there would be a way, as the site exists now, McDonald's do some
temporary improvements, a temporary parking lot.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the past responses to other applicants has been that there is
no such thing as "temporary", once you have started, unless you have very stringent control, you
have a difficult time stopping. The other question would be if the property owner would be
interested in doing anything like that.
Chairman Walker understood the concept of "temporary". He was looking for a temporary
solution. He could appreciate the applicant's issues. He thought it would be solved'when the
rest of the site develops. .
Member Winfree commented that the increased traffic, congestion, and the altered landscape
setbacks were not mitigated by the additional need for employee parking at this time. She
thought the original intent was to better serve their customers and provide parking for them.
She did not think that this change would alleviate that.
Member Cottier moved to uphold the denial of the administrative change on the grounds that
it would have a negative impact to the appearance of the intersection and also would increase
safety and congestion problems.
Member Fontaine seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-0.
OTHER BUSINES
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
TO: The Planning and Zoning Board, City of Fort Collins, Colorado
FROM: Residents of Paragon Point
DATE: August 1, 1993
SUBJECT: Support for the proposed Preliminary / final P.U.D. for Phase 4
of Paragon Point
I have reviewed the proposed Preliminary / final P.U.D. for Phase 4 of
Paragon Point.
As a resident of Paragon Point, I am concerned about maintaining the
integrity and character of the area and feel that this proposal will
accomplish this.
I urge you to approve the Preliminary / final P.U.D. for Phase 4 as it has
been submitted to you.
I/Iz- ' to(?1 i' z
13, Z "-x u-N--
s�
a-
Ga