HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/17/1992• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
December 17, 1992
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:34 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Laurie
O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Chairman Bernie Strom and Member Joe Carroll joined the
meeting at approximately 8:15 P.M.
Staff members present included Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark,
Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Janet Meisel, Joe Frank and
Georgiana Taylor. Planning Director Tom Peterson joined the meeting at 7:45 P.M.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda
included: Item 1 - Minutes of the November 16, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Fire Station #10 PUD -
Preliminary and Final, 059-92; Item 3 - English Ranch Subdivision, 2nd Filing - Final, 075-86H;
Item 4 - The Gates at Woodridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #55-87H; Item 5 - The Overlook at
Woodridge PUD, 3rd Filing - Final, #55-87I; Item 7 - Rocky Mountain Battery & Recycling
P.U.D. - Extension Request - 2 years; Item 8 - South Glen P.U.D., Third Filing - Extension
Request - 2 years; Item 9 - PZ92-19 Access and Utility Easement Vacation; Item 10 -
Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 11 - Appleridge PUD, 2nd, Amended Final.
Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Resolution PZ92-18 Adoption of the Prospect Road Streetscape
Program Design Standards and Guidelines as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan - 49-
91; Item 13 - Choices 95 Shields Street Improvements from Laurel to Prospect, #59-92 Item 14 -
Fort Collins Senior Center P.U.D. - Preliminary, #146-79L; Item 15 - Greenstone P.U.D. -
Overall Development Plan, #54-92B (Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting); Item 16 -
Greenstone P.U.D.- Preliminary, #54-92C (Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting); Item
17 - 424 West Oak P.U.D. - Preliminary, #40-92A; Item 18 - Amigos at Shields PUD -
Preliminary, #47-90A; Item 19 - Overland Hills West - RF Site Plan Review, #38-90D
(Continued until the January 25, 1993 Meeting).
Vice Chairman asked if anyone from the Board or the audience would like to pull an item for
discussion.
There was none.
Member Klataske moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
I
Janet Meisel, Senior Planner gave the staff report. She also addressed issues that have been
resolved at this point and issues that the Board needed to take action on tonight.
Ms. Meisel stated that Staff had met with homeowners on Monday night, December 14th and
they did have issues that are not and cannot be addressed within our program. Their issues
dealt with the speed of the traffic that moves along Prospect Road. They had questions,
evaluating the safety at the intersection of Summit View and Prospect Road and requested that
the City do an evaluation in terms of possible traffic lights and street lights at the intersection.
There were issues discussed on the realignment of Summitview Road and problems with ice
buildup along the edge of curb.
Ms. Meisel stated they felt most of the issues had been resolved or could be resolved outside of
the Prospect Program.
Ms. Meisel reviewed the issues that the Board needed to take action on tonight being the
architectural standards and guidelines and the setback width within the Urban Developed
District. Staff recommended that the setback be reduced from 50 foot to 35 foot for several
reasons. Staff reevaluated the existing setback along the corridor and determined that on the
south side of Prospect Road, consistently, a 50 foot setback was used. The only exception was
Sutherland Lumber Company. The setback was interpreted with the zoning in the area, and
the 50 foot setback was measured from edge of curb. The WW Reynolds property has chosen
to measure the 50 foot setback from edge of right-of-way. This is consistent with their ODP
and their existing buildings. On the north side of the road, the setback varies from 18 feet up
to 100 feet and it is only at one point at a parking lot corner that comes within 18 feet of the
curb. The Staff determined whether the design style, which is the Business Park style for this
area, could still be developed within a 35 foot setback versus a 50 foot setback from the edge
of right-of-way. It was determined that a 35 foot setback was able to accommodate the design.
It would still be consistent with the existing developments within that district. Those would
be the only two changes that the Staff would like to focus the Board's attention to.
Member Clements -Cooney asked about the meeting with the neighborhood and their concerns
about the traffic impact. Did they talk to them about who they could take their concerns to
regarding excessive speeds and road alignment?
Ms. Meisel replied that the correct person was at the meeting, Eric Bracke and additionally,
Elaine Spencer from the County. It is a City/County joint problem.
Mr. Eric Bracke of the Transportation Division replied the meeting focused on the realignment
of Summitview and Prospect Road and currently Staff or the County have no plans to realign
that roadway. There was discussion about a potential signal at Summitview and Prospect Road
at this time there are no plans, but the neighbors were told that it would be investigated. There
were a number of issues about speeding, and they were directed that it was an enforcement
issue and there was not much they could do about it at this time because it was in the County
and partly in the City. They were going to work with the neighborhoods in the coming months
to see if Staff could help them out.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked if what they received modified the architectural design criteria.
Ms. Meisel replied at this point the Board needed to make a decision on which of the three
options they would prefer to put into the program.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked what do the handouts tonight reflect?
Ms. Meisel replied the handouts they received tonight included setback revisions in the Urban
Developed District which change the setback from 50 feet to 35 feet. There were also handouts
regarding the lighting revisions, eliminating the high pressure sodium statement within that
standard, also a letter received from Peter Kast, and a page which was omitted from the Draft
Appendix.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked for a review of the architectural design options.
Ms. Meisel reviewed the options for the Board as referenced in Exhibit 11 in the packet. Option
I, recommended that the three standards that are similar to the Harmony Corridor architectural
standards remain as written and stay as standards in the Prospect Program. The other
architectural standards should change to guidelines and any other guidelines should remain as
guidelines.
Ms. Meisel read and reviewed the three standards that occurred in the Harmony Corridor Plan.
(See Exhibit 11, attached).
Ms. Meisel stated that Option II, of the Architectural Standards, recommends that the three
standards that she had just described remain as written and stay as standards in the program
and that the remaining architectural standards and guidelines would be omitted.
Ms. Meisel went on to the third and final Option and it was to change some architectural
standards and leave some as standards. This combination works with the Natural Shrubscape
and Interchange styles only.
Member Cottier asked if there were any changes made to the wording of the architectural
design guidelines with respect to materials.
Ms. Meisel replied no.
Member O'Dell asked about the letter from Peter Kast at GT Land whose suggestion is that the
Board support Option II. There was discussion about the Riverway District and architecture
of buildings and adding visual interest to the Corridor and it mentioned building material
finishes for this area that should promote the unique elements of the area; including wash
cobble, washed boulders and historic grouter, stucco materials, etc. etc. What was the advantage
in Staffs opinion of either having just that or also including guidelines to suggest that those
particular materials be used in architectural design.
Ms. Meisel replied that the advantage of guidelines was that they tended to be recognized more
readily than if it was just as a descriptive paragraph.
Member Cottier stated she thought the introductory descriptive paragraphs were sufficient to
set the tone for what they wanted to accomplish out there. She did not believe they should be
getting into more descriptive design guidelines.
Member Cottier moved to approve Option II.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he was sympathetic to this Option because it appears in the other
Options that they were trying to set some kind of architectural style. His feeling was that if
there was a unique style that could be followed that would enhance something that already
existed, he would be inclined to support that. He believes that prescriptive guidelines were
trying to create a style that does not exist there.
Member O'Dell thought what they were trying to do here was develop a streetscape program
and part of the streetscape includes the street, landscaping, setbacks, parking, signs and
architecture. She thought it was reasonable to include some guidelines, not standards, about
the type of architecture that they believed appropriate out there. She recommended Option I
and would be voting no on this part of the motion. This is an opportunity to develop a "theme"
in that area.
Member Clements -Cooney agreed with Member O'Dell and thought they had gotten caught up
with the wording "style" versus "theme" and thought what they wanted to create here was a
theme. She thought they needed to keep with the guidelines in creating this theme. She would
support Option I and not Option II.
Ms. Meisel reviewed Option II, the standards and guidelines for all of the styles for the Board.
(See Exhibit 11, attached).
Member Cottier added that they questioned the wording of alot of the material guidelines and
as they are written she did not think they covered what they really want to see there. She did
not think they were very clear and omitted materials that would be appropriate to be seen in
the Corridor. She was not opposed to encouraging a theme out there but she did not think the
correct way to do it was give a limited specification of materials.
Vice,Chairman asked what the rational for removing building siting orientation and should
be sensitive to views guideline in Option II. Was it because it was not part of the Harmony
Corridor Plan.
Ms. Meisel replied if they choose to leave that in, they would be choosing Option III or a
modification of Option III. In this case, Staff would recommend that they maintain the three
standards that the Harmony Corridor has and then choose or select certain guidelines that they
felt were important to maintain.
The motion failed 0-1 with Member Cottier voting yes.
Member Clements -Cooney asked for a clarification of differences between Options I and III.
Ms. Meisel replied that the major difference in Option III was it provides a choice to leave the
height restriction or height requirement in the Natural Shrubscape style. Staff recommends
CI
0 0
retaining this as a standard. Staff felt that the rest of the standards regarding building finish,
should be to changed to guidelines.
Ms. Meisel stated the other major differences occur in the Interchange style. They would retain
some of the standards that Member Walker was speaking about in terms of the building siting,
clustering, and the view guideline.
Member Cottier asked Ms. Meisel to repeat her explanation of building height.
Ms. Meisel restated that in Option III of the Natural Shrubscape, they had chosen to remove the
standard pertaining to the building material finish because the Board felt that the description
paragraph gave enough information. The next guideline that occurred was, "the location of all
buildings in this area should be sensitive to the views of the river with articulated walls
fronting on Prospect Road or the river". That would remain as a guideline. The second
statement would remain as a standard and the third one was the height restriction. The Staff
felt it was important to retain the height restriction as a standard because the views from the
river within the Corridor, or to the river and from either direction, and to the foothills was
important to maintain and the height restriction was the best way to do that.
Member O'Dell asked if that was recommended to be a standard.
Ms. Meisel replied yes.
Member O'Dell wanted to comment on the architectural building material finish and she
believed it was inconsistent to take it out in this particular style and if any place it was most
important to have a guideline for the types of building material finishes in this area. She
believed this was the most sensitive area, ecologically and historically and educationally. She
requested that it be put back in.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend Option III for the Natural Shrubscape and Interchange
sections and that they add back in that predominant building finish be of stucco, masonry
material, concrete, washed river rock and large cobbles may be used in walls, foundations,
signage or retaining walls and that be a guideline.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Ms. Meisel asked Member O'Dell if the motion read that she recommended Option III for the
Natural Shrubscape and the Interchange Styles, and for the Natural Shrubscape she would
retain the building material finish as a guideline and leave Option III as written for the
Interchange Style.
Member O'Dell replied that was correct.
Vice Chairman Walker stated his concern was with the notion of sensitivity to views and
heights were important because if they were trying to establish an architectural design,
standard or guideline, that was what they had in this area. He was still a little troubled by
trying to suggest the type of finish, he was not sure if being that prescriptive was a good idea.
He thought that suggesting a performance standard in height and view sensitivity was
reasonable but was not convinced of the predominant building material finish as a guideline.
Member Cottier stated she would not be supporting this, she did not like the idea, even as
guidelines, restrictions of building materials or other things that they could adequately deal
with through the PUD process. She thought once they were in a document as a guideline, they
tend to become interpreted as exactly what they want. Once it is in a document, she did not
think it could be a guideline. She was opposed to prescribing building materials or height that
they could do that through the PUD process.
The motion passed 3-2 with Members Klataske and Cottier voting in the negative.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend Option I for the Business Park style and the Prospect
Gateway style which would include the standards that are consistent with the Harmony
Corridor Plan and change the others to guidelines.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Ms. Meisel explained Option I for the Business Park Style and the Prospect Gateway Style.
The motion passed 4-1 with Member Cottier voting in the negative.
Member O'Dell moved that they recommend to the City Council approval of the Prospect Road
Streetscape Program with the Option III as amended for the Natural Shrubscape and
Interchange area and Option I for the Business Park Style and Prospect Gateway Style.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell commented that the Staff had done an incredible job and they had come up
with something that was going to improve the area and was very forward looking.
The motion passed 5-0.
CHOICES oc SHIELDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM LAUREL TO PROSPECT
Mark Sears, Project Engineer, gave the staff report, stating they would be improving Shields
Street from Prospect on the south to Laurel Street on the north. He stated there were 26
residential homes of which 13 were rental units and three had home occupations.
Mr. Sears went over the needs for the project including areas that lack sidewalks and the areas
that did have sidewalks, the majority of them were very inadequate, 2 to 3 feet wide sidewalks,
bike facilities to accommodate the volume of bicycle traffic and sidewalks to accommodate the
high numbers of pedestrian traffic. Added to that was the traffic congestion, between
Elizabeth and Laurel due to the fact that Shields carries the combined east/west,
Laurel/Elizabeth Street traffic.
Mr. Sears went on to the project description, as defined by the Choices 95 committee back in
1989 and was shown now as Alternative I, which would add a 10 foot sidewalk on each side of
Shields Street that would serve both pedestrian and bicycles. There also would be a right turn
lane added at Laurel for north bound traffic and southbound traffic turning west on Elizabeth
Street. Mr. Sears spoke about the originally formed design team and how they had reviewed
Alternative I, the 10 foot wide sidewalks and how it would not meet the community needs.
2
r
A Staff felt the bicycle traffic needed to be on street or have separate facilities. What Staff did
was come up with a couple of other Alternatives that would meet those needs, Staff came up
with Alternative II which would provide separate off street bike lanes on the east side of
Shields. Alternative III, which would widen Shields, provided on street bike lanes and
sidewalks on both sides for pedestrians.
Mr. Sears stated they took the three Alternatives to the community and the neighborhood for
input and what came out of a years worth of citizen's input was they were caught between
Alternative I and Alternative III. What it has amounted to was on street versus off street bike
lanes and neighborhood values versus community values. Those were the two most distinct
issues that needed to be decide on before they could complete the project.
Mr. Sears stated City Staff, along with Air Quality Task Force, Choice City Cyclists,
Transportation Board, CSU Transportation Committee, the CSU Planning Staff, many CSU
Students and Community residents were recommending Alternative III. They felt that
Alternative III would best serve the community interests and values, those primarily being to
develop alternative modes of transportation, encourage bicycling as an alternative mode of
transportation as well as walking, improve air quality, decrease traffic delays, and provide a
long range solution to what has been a long term problem in this area.
Mr. Sears also reviewed the neighborhood interests and values. Staff felt that the primary
impact to the neighborhood had already occurred, being the 26,000 vehicles a day that use
Shields Street. Staff felt that this project would try to soften that by improving the capacity
at the intersections so they could alleviate some of the traffic congestion and that they could
provide the facilities needed for the pedestrians and bicyclists which also tend to connect the
neighborhood at this time by not being able to use the street properly.
Mr. Sears went on to say the some of the other concerns or impacts Staff felt they would have
to deal with were the gas station at the corner of Elizabeth and Shields, and the four homes on
the east side of Shields, just north of Prospect.
Mr. Sears closed with saying that as they had worked through the design of Prospect Street in
the last year. Alternative III was the Alternative for the cross-section that would be used on
Prospect and there had been more impacts to the residents along Prospect due to this cross
section than there would be to the residents on Shields Street. The process Staff has used to
deal with the 59 property owners on Prospect was to develop an overall streetscape plan, which
they felt would provide some contiguity and provide some enhanced character to their
neighborhood. Staff has sent landscape architects out to meet with the property owners to
identify their impacts and hear their concerns and then they are turned to a plan to restore
their landscaping, mitigate the site impacts and develop a streetscape plan. The City has
reached agreement with 50 of 59 property owners on Prospect.
Ms. Rita Davis, Transportation Department, discussed the Shields Street bike project. She spoke
on the history of the bikeway program. She stated that shared bikeway facilities like
Alternatives I and II were known nationally as well as locally to have the highest accident
rates. This was due to multiple conflicts such as different modes and speeds of traffic as well
as visibility problems. Alternative III provides on street bike lanes and sidewalks for
pedestrians and was clearly the safest manner to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. The
on street lanes provide consistency in the overall bikeway network and meets future plans to
connect to the other street facilities in the area.
7
Ms. Davis went over how this was inter -related to the existing facilities and future plans for
the surrounding area relating to putting bikes on the roadway and development of on street
bike lanes between Shields and Taft Hill Road on Prospect Road. This was a crucial link in
providing on street facilities and getting some consistency in the program. She stated that
Alternative III meets the Transportation Departments policies and promotes cycling as an
alternative mode of transportation. It was consistent, it meets the future plans in the area and
without a doubt the safest Alternative.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked about the width of the lanes and was it standard of arterial lanes?
Mr. Sears replied II or 12 feet. If the lane was to be adjacent to a curb, which would be
Alternative I, there would be a 12 foot lane. When they add a bike lane, then it would be
reduced to l I foot and gain the extra foot to add to the bike lane.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked if there was any intent to introduce a bike lane on Shields north
of Laurel.
Ms. Davis replied that at this point, the area was so constricted there was no ability to provide
on street bike lanes. There was a viable option which was the Loomis Street corridor.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked about the 3 foot splash strips and where the concept came from
Mr. Sears replied that splash strips exist on all sidewalks and it was an area of the sidewalk that
contains many things like fire hydrants, street lights, street signs, traffic signals. It was an area
of the street that people shy away from if the sidewalk is wide enough to allow a little buffer
between the traffic and the lane next to them. They tend to shy away 2 to 3 feet and that was
the area they generally use for the street facilities. The splash strip was the area they could
utilize to windrow snow during the winter. It provides a little buffer for the debris that
splashed by cars.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if in Alternative III, the entire bike lane would be concrete
Mr. Sears replied that was what they were currently looking at and they intended to do that on
Prospect, that way you don't have the seam between the bike lane and the curb which in
essence reduces the 6 foot bike lane down to a 4 foot asphalt bike lane and 2 foot of gutter.
Vice Chairman Walker asked about sections along Shields and how the sidewalks would fit and
work around existing trees.
Mr. Sears replied that around CSU, they have the room, due to their existing landscaping and
the setback of their parking lots and the fence along the athletic fields, to detach the sidewalk
and in some cases put it back behind the row of trees. The only place that would not be true
would be in a block where they would have a right turn lane, then a splash strip and then a
sidewalk but the other large sections, they would be able to detach the sidewalk and would not
even need the splash strip.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked if that was what they intended to do or was it just an option at
this point.
Mr. Sears replied that was what they had discussed with CSU.
Vice -Chairman Walker asked for comment on the west side of Shields in the northern section
where the fraternities and the alumni center were.
Mr. Sears replied that the option they would have from Birch Street to Plum Street was there
were seven very large trees located behind the existing curb. In that area, they would have the
option of taking the bike lane off the street, behind the trees and bring it back on the street
before you get to the Plum Street intersection.
Member Cottier asked if in that particular area, would the sidewalk and the bike lane be
together.
Mr. Sears replied they would be side by side.
Member O'Dell asked if further south on Shields, would it be signed where the bike lane was
and that bikes would not be allowed on the sidewalk, or would bikes be allowed on the
sidewalks.
Mr. Sears replied that throughout Fort Collins they do allow bikes on the sidewalks. They
would encourage them and hope they would use the on street bike lane, but there would still
be a certain number of bicyclist that would not feel comfortable on the street.
Member O'Dell asked with an 8 foot sidewalk proposed on the east side, was Staff encouraging
bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk.
Mr. Sears replied, that because CSU is on the east side of the street, and there are a large
number of apartments along the east side of Shields further south of the campus, that there
iswould be a number of bicyclists that choose to remain on the sidewalk and that they would not
be able to persuade them to cross the street and get on there. That was why they recommended
a little larger sidewalk from the campus onto Prospect Road. CSU had already requested along
their property that they wanted an 8 foot sidewalk.
Member Cottier asked if Alternative III proposed an 8 foot sidewalk on the east side, south of
the CSU property.
Mr. Sears replied yes, it had been recommended. They would put an 8 foot sidewalk from
where CSU ends all the way to Prospect Road.
Member Clements -Cooney asked for a synopsis of bicyclists on sidewalks and why they prefer
them to use the road facilities.
Ms. Davis replied that on sidewalk facilities there are the highest accident rates. Both
nationally and locally. What happens was that at every intersection along a sidewalk there was
a potential point of conflict. The question was, who has the right-of-way. Did the bicycle or
the automobile coming up to the intersection have the right-of-way. You also have conflict of
what they call car/car conflicts where you have an automobile that stops at the cross street and
cars behind them do not anticipate them to stop as far back from the intersection as they are
and often times contributes to rear end accidents. Then you also have on sidewalk facilities
the conflict between the bicyclists and the pedestrians. Sidewalk facilities do create more
conflict than if the bikes are on the roadway.
0 9
Vice Chairman Walker asked about a streetscape program to landscape the street because of the
changes and how were they going to approach the project.
Mr. Sears replied that as they widen the street, regardless of which Alternative they go with,
they were going to have to remove a number of trees. Staff felt that going through and
selectively removing the appropriate trees and going back in and adding a more appropriate
tree to Fort Collins. One that can be maintained, one that could provide a variety of color.
They could create an enhanced streetscape. They could also provide a streetscape that could
provide an identity to the neighborhood.
Member Klataske asked about all three Alternatives showing Shields street in one form or
another for bike paths. Most of the bike traffic is generated from CSU and had there been any
thought about a bike path from one end of CSU to the other taking them off Shields Street.
Mr. Sears replied that it would only accommodate to a certain point and that you would have
to bring them back onto Shields at some point to get them down to Prospect. They have looked
at the area east of Shields in trying to find some kind of likely corridor to bring them back to
the Prospect/Shields intersection. To date they have not found a likely corridor that would
answer all the problems. This is a very critical bike route location, so yes they would be able
to meet CSU traffic needs if they were able to develop an off-street bike system. Then they
would not be serving the community as a whole and the commuter bicyclists that would also
be needing to use the Shields Street corridor to get to Laurel.
Member Klataske did not understand that from the standpoint of most of the traffic was either
going to or from CSU or housing associated there with. With the speed and amount of traffic
on Shields there should be a better alternative and safer one than to try and develop on along
Shields.
Mr. Sears replied they were not able to identify an alternative corridor.
Member Klataske asked if it had been researched.
Ms. Davis replied that one of the things they had tried to accomplish with this project was to
keep it a community wide bicycle facility. As mentioned in the Transportation Plan Goals and
Objectives it was their intent to provide alternative transportation options for the entire
community so they could make a choice and arterials and collectors provide them with that
opportunity.
Member Klataske asked if there was hesitation by CSU to allow the public to bicycle across the
campus.
Ms. Davis replied not to her knowledge, having bicycled through the CSU campus herself, she
would much rather be on Shields Street. There is alot of congestion and alot of
misunderstanding of the rules and regulations internal within the campus and for commuter
purpose it actually slows you down.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association stated that they
would only support Alternative I of the designs proposed. Alternative III and modifications
of Alternative III would have unacceptable, irretrievable effects to the affected property
owners on Shields Street, which is a major arterial that crosses their neighborhood.
10
They have long supported improvements on Shields Street, indeed they actively supported the
recommendations of the Choices 95 street sub -committee. They felt the intent of the Choices
95 sub -committees was to improve Shields Street for the safe traverse of auto, pedestrian, and
bicycle traffic in a sensitive manner which would have the least impact upon the affected
property owners.
Their understanding of the Choices 95 committees recommendations are as follows:
Shields Street improvements would be added with a minimum of impact on the affected
property owners properties.
2. The recommended improvements for Shields Street would be 10 foot bike
path/sidewalks along both sides of the street.
Negative impacts of the Shields Street improvements from Prospect to Laurel would be bore
by their residents, property owners and businesses. These affected property owners would
suffer impacts of their living and business, loss of privacy, increased noise and auto pollution,
decrease property values and the loss of business opportunities.
Due to smaller setbacks, individual property owners along the east side of Shields Street,
particularly between Lake Street and Prospect Road would severely be impacted to the point
that it was fair to say that their quality of life would be irrevocably altered and their property
values would be drastically reduced.
Approaching this from a financial reality. All Alternatives are over budget. Alternative I,
comes closest to budget and would certainly be the wisest use of the money obtained from the
• 2.5% sales tax for the Choices 95 projects. The spending of $435,000 over budget for
Alternative III was not a decision that they would like the City to take lightly.
Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association would urge Planning and Zoning Board Members
to vote approval of Alternative I for the following reasons:
1. Shields Street improvements must be added with the minimum impact on the affected
property owners.
2. Shields Street improvements must not irretrievably destroy the fragile residential
character that remains on Shields Street.
3. The recommended improvements for Shields Street should be the 10 foot bike path and
sidewalks along both sides of the street as recommended by Choices 95 committees and
approved by voters of the City of Fort Collins in March of 1989.
4. Affected property owners along Shields Street are willing to sacrifice some of their
property for the voter approved design recommended by the Choices 95 Street sub-
committees by favoring Alternative I.
5. City projects with proposed budgets that are approved by voters in good faith should
be built as close to budget as possible, otherwise the City loses credibility.
11
Hal Worth, 1501 South Shields Street, property owner at that location for 23 years. They were
concerned as residents and property owners about the form this project would take. He had
an additional concern that he was a member of the Choices 95 street sub -committee that
recommended this to the voters in 1989. He was particularly interested in seeing that the
integrity of the Choices 95 process was sustained and the will of the public expressed in the
subsequent election was honored.
Discussions to date around this project have tended to revolve around two main points. The
effect it would have on the neighborhood and the accommodation it would provide for bicycles.
Neighborhood residents and business owners almost universally want to minimize the impact
on their property and living conditions. Organize bicyclists and the City Staff pay for a
solution that encourages bicycle use as an alternative to autos, and make it more safe and
convenient, both were the goals.
Pedestrian safety and convenience had occasionally surfaced as a secondary consideration in
this debate but it has no organized advocacy. In these discussions, most property owners have
conceded that better provisions for pedestrians and bicyclist are needed. Accidents and near
accidents are numerous and growing. Few pedestrians that brave the sections of the street that
have no sidewalks or only narrow paths immediately next to auto traffic are in constant peril.
At present there are no safe continuous routes for these users from Prospect Road to the CSU
campus. To improve these conditions, the majority of the property owners are willing to
sacrifice a portion of their property for better facilities. However, owners and residents think
the City Staff and bicyclists were expecting too much when they propose to expand these
facilities in this long established neighborhood to standards similar applied to arterial streets
in undeveloped or developing areas.
Given these circumstances, they believe the Choices 95 solution approved by the voters in 1989
was an adequate way to solve the main problems faced by the street users. The design
designated by the City Staff was essentially what the voters approved was a compromise
between the owners interest and good of the community and it was a solution that most
property owners and residents were willing to accept.
The argument put forth by the City's Engineers and supported by organized bicyclists was that
designated bicycle lanes on the street was the only way bicycle traffic could be reasonably
accommodated.. Even though only a very few years ago, the City mandated shared bicycle and
pedestrian ways as was now the situation on both sides of the street between Prospect and
Drake Roads and on the west side between Prospect and Bennett Road. The most recent idea
was that such shared use was dangerous and inconvenient and should not be permitted in Fort
Collins. However, shared bicycle and pedestrian use of the City's recreation trails was still
standard practice. There seemed to considerable confusion about whether separation of
bicycles and pedestrians was really essential or merely more desirable from the standpoint of
convenience. Opponents further argue that separate fast lanes for bicycles would encourage
more people to use this alternative to auto transportation. A goal which many of them support.
Because of these ideas, the City's Engineering Staff and a coalition of bicycle riders are
pushing for Alternative III, which calls for widening the street another nine to eleven and a
half feet.
Who was right and what was best for the City was questions the City Council must answer.
They must decide for the protection of the neighborhood, which was already in a delicate
balance was more important or furthering the technical transportation of the goals of the City
12
r 0
• should take precedence. It was obvious that these goals were in conflict and they as property
owners see no way to find a mutually agreeable resolution within the project design framework
that had been established. By acceptance of Alternative I, they have already conceded a
substantial part of their property rights in the interest of the City's general good. Alternative
III, with its widening of the street in such a way as to inevitably destroy the livability of at
least four of their best residences and make it impossible to salvage at least 15 mature, high
quality trees and only due the neighborhood irretrievable damage.
In referring this project to this board for recommendations, the City's Staff evidently expects
them to provide guidance on the land use consequences of the Alternative designs. The Board
was not a stranger to conflicts in this area and should be in a position to render a valuable
service to Council if all the facts and points of view were carefully considered. He would like
to reiterate what they had received in writing, that there has been persistent Staff
preconception on the nature of this project since it was first presented to the Choices 95 sub-
committee. However, the original Staff proposal has now been represented by Alternative Ill
was explicitly rejected by the Choices 95 subcommittee and the executive committee as being
too costly and too evasive of the neighborhood. The principal that was involved here as to
whether this project should follow the Choices 95 recommendations as accepted by the Council
and confirmed by public vote or whether it should yield to professional judgement of City
Staff and special interest groups not concerned with the viability of the neighborhood.
Since there are a number of policy and funding considerations on the debate of this subject,
that go beyond the Board's normal jurisdiction, they would hope that the Board could be very
objectively detailed in its advice to Council on those areas where it has expertise and frame it
in such a way as to leave the Council the latitude it needs in dealing with the other decision
elements. In other words, they would hope the Board would not make this a simple yea or nea
. vote on the two Alternative design proposals.
Edie Thompson, 623 Del Norte Place, spoke on her concern of the neighborhood. It was her
belief that the strength of Fort Collins would be nurtured and upheld only as long as
neighborhoods are attractive, living, viable entities. Many Fort Collins neighborhoods are
sheltered behind 6 foot palings and neighborhood life is lived behind those barricades. Perhaps
that was the tidiest way to build a City. They were stuck with the East Side, West Side and
Prospect/Shields Neighborhoods, and although they have the strengths of history and
establishment, they were very fragile because their lives are exposed along arterials and
collectors. People in neighborhoods like to walk to cross the street to see neighbors, to go to the
branch Post Office. They like to ride their bikes. As long as the arterials and collectors which
transect the neighborhood are working tools in aiding traffic, they could exist. If however, the
arterials and collectors become wide streams of fast vehicular traffic, the neighborhood is
severely impacted.
Therefore, to protect existing neighborhoods, she urged adoption of design Alternative I. In
addition to neighborhood protection, number one should be the choice for the following
reasons:
1. The plan most closely resembling the citizen proposals put forth in Choices 95.
2. Alternative III should be rejected because the bike lanes are on the roadway, and they
compromise traffic entering Shields from intersections and driveways.
13
3. The pedestrian crossings of Shields Street should be no longer than the existing
distances. A wider roadway will tend to strand pedestrians midway.
Although residents of the West Side Neighborhood would like to walk to Campus and West
Elizabeth shopping area, existing problems are a severe barrier to walk in and she requests the
Planning and Zoning Board to address these further ideas:
1. Reduce the speed of vehicular traffic on Laurel and Shields. The Cordin Study of 1989
identified 8,700 pedestrians arriving and departing the CSU Campus. Over half of the
pedestrian crossings occur at Shields and Laurel and was sure the number had increased
with the housing of students at the Bull Farm. There was no reason for a 30 mph speed
limit in an area where thousands of students, staff and faculty were biking and walking
to and from campus.
2. Change the cycle of stop lights to include a walk light in every cycle. Pedestrians would
be more likely to use the walk lights when they know the light would be in their favor
and then a longer period of walk would be necessary where additional right turn lanes
were being added.
3. Prohibit right turns on red at the major intersections. Those of them that walk the area
have experienced cars turning right in spight of the pedestrian in the crosswalk and
even though the pedestrian has the right-of-way. It becomes a conflict of fender and
flesh and was a very uncomfortable position to be in. In addition, prohibiting right
turns on red opens up vehicular traffic down the street, thereby allowing cars, bikes,
and walkers a chance to cross the street.
In summary, she urged them to recommend design Alternative I to the City Council and along
with the design, the Board should recommend pedestrian and bike friendly plans at the
intersections of Shields, Elizabeth, Prospect, Lake, Plum North and Laurel.
Dan Gould, stated this was an area that was a sub -community of our City that was moving
toward alternative transit modes the most quickly. Mass transit route was very heavily used
along alot of the residential and commercial areas to CSU. There was very heavy bike traffic,
even under the adverse bicycling conditions that already exist. The pedestrian mode was also
very heavily used. It seemed to him that there could be some significant questions raised about
the feasibility of adding additional lanes for automobile traffic.
For the short term, the additional right turn lanes would probably help traffic flow and tend
to relieve congestion that has been shown many times, in many different situations. The added
lanes that supposedly would decrease congestion and do decrease congestion in the short term,
actually increase traffic loads in the medium and long term. It seemed that the considerable
amount of money spent in this project allocated for additional lanes for automobile traffic,
will in the end, probably result in an overload capacity anyway because the lanes were an
incentive for increased automobile growth and in the end we would have high traffic and
similar levels of congestion. The only thing we would have gained would be increased traffic.
This seemed to be a policy issue that was actually driving the whole transportation growth
pattern in our City right now. Our level of automobile growth was something like 30% higher
vehicle miles traveled than our actual population growth has been. This aspect of this plan was
the focal point of this kind of public policy decision. It seemed that the attention should be
paid to deleting these lanes, stabilizing traffic growth in this area at the present level, and
saving resources to promote increased pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit.
14
Ruth Moyer, 620 S. Shields Street, has lived there since 1959, her only consideration was to
• recommend Alternative I for all the previously given and well substantiated reasons.
There are a specific number of vehicles that move north and south on Shields Street, but
do they have a specific number of bicycles, and the pedestrians that move north and
south on Shields Street?
2. There are five affiliated houses on the west side of the campus. The Beta House, if they
took off 10 feet, they would have less than five left.
3. $1,438,000 over budget on Alternative III would seem to be very embarrassing to
everyone involved with it.
4. As to the fact that the impact was already happening on Shields Street, why has it
happened? Who permitted it to happen? If it was the Planning Board, what about this,
could it happen again?
5. The Alumni Center is on the 600 Block, why was it being involved?
How would the Board like to live in a house that was 10 feet from the traffic on Shields Street
or anywhere else. We live in a community and a neighborhood and if we could not improve the
quality of life in the neighborhood, then she would ask, what is the special task force trying
to achieve.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Vice Chairman Walker asked for numbers on bicycles and pedestrians on Shields
low Mr. Sears replied presently they have counted a maximum of 1,000 bicycles on Shields. That
number may be deceptive in the fact that, it may be 1,000 at one point along Shields, and there
may be a different 1,000 bicycles on another portion of Shields in that area. So although, the
highest count they had observed to date, that was in one particular area. Pedestrian traffic was
the same way, the highest count was between Lake and Prospect, they have 200 pedestrians.
There may be a different 200 pedestrians also using Shields from Elizabeth to Plum. Although
the count is 200, the actual usage may be 400 pedestrians per day, in different locations.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he served as the Chairman of the Choices 95 streets and
transportation sub -committee and was very familiar as to what was decided. The committee
felt that the improvements in this area should have a minimum impact on the affected owners.
Therefore, Alternative I, the 10 foot sidewalk/bikelane was what was suggested by the Choices
95 sub -committee. He thought it was important for the Board to keep in mind that, as was
indicated, the intent of Choices 95, for a variety of reasons, that was what was put before the
voters as to what was going to happen there.
Vice Chairman Walker thought what they had gone to from Alternative I to Alternative III was
Alternative III being a maximum engineering approach, where there was a wide space of
concrete. It seemed that one way to look at it was feet of concrete in this situation, Alternative
I added 10 feet of concrete from the existing curb. Alternative III would add, considering the
bike lane in the street and moving the curb back 5 feet, plus a splash strip, plus a sidewalk, you
have 16 feet of concrete. In the residential part of this area, especially on the east side of
Shields between Prospect and Lake, every foot makes a big difference percentage wise because
of the location of the homes.
15
Vice Chairman Walker thought it was interesting to note that the City had decided on Shields
Street, north of Laurel, was too developed to consider any kind of widening or something such
as this so the proposal for the thru bike lane was to go to Laurel and cut over to Loomis which
could be used. In a sense, they have suggested that part of Shields Street, north of Laurel was
unworkable for this bike/pedestrian solution and yet the other stretch to Prospect was O.K. and
he would argue that there was some factors that needed to be looked at as concerns. The
residential strip along Shields closest to Prospect mirrors the situation north of Laurel. The
volume of traffic of all types fronting CSU makes this area difficult to deal with.
The Board has heard that Alternative I did not work because it was better to have bike lanes
on the street and in fact the system south of Prospect on Shields has or will have bike lanes on
the street that will connect to the system along Laurel and Loomis that will have bike lanes on
the street. He thought that it was a very convincing argument to say that if you keep bicycles
in a place where their role was understood as a vehicle, it may minimize some of the conflicts.
Vice Chairman Walker went on to say that when you look at Alternative III, he thought, went
against the notion that was put forth by Choices 95 and that was to have a minimum impact
on the affected property owners. He felt that the character of the area was being compromised.
Vice Chairman Walker also had concerns about the splash strip and he thought they were
looking for the ideal solution with the splash strip and it works other places without it and
there were some sensitive issues with the residences and they needed to look at how much room
was being taken. He also took exception to the 8 foot sidewalk on the east side, everything
along there now has a 6 foot sidewalk and they proposed 6 foot on the west side and he
questions that. He felt that there was ways of making it work without the splash strip.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he was concerned with the initial intent of this and was a little
persuaded as to the advantage of on street bike lanes, but also there was a need for a minimum
of impact on the neighborhood. He suggested a 6 foot bikelane and 6 foot sidewalk with taking
1 foot out of the existing traffic lane, you would be moving the concrete back 11 feet from the
existing curb, Alternative I moves it back 10 feet. He was suggesting this as something that
might be workable, yet the spirit of what Choices 95 suggested. He thought beyond the
residential area, beyond CSU, the alternatives were fine if the they could pull the sidewalk
back off of the street.
Member O'Dell asked if he was suggesting that the sidewalk be reduced on the eastside to six
feet along the residential area and then eliminating the splash strip on both sides of the street.
Vice Chairman Walker replied that was correct.
Member O'Dell stated that it would be reducing the right-of-way by 8 feet so it would be 80
feet of right-of-way and yet Alternative I was 84 feet of right-of-way.
Vice Chairman Walker replied there was a splash strip in there that could be taken out and end
up with 78 feet.
Member O'Dell felt the splash strip was optional.
Mr. Sears stated that if you have an attached sidewalk of whatever width, Staff felt that if you
have a 4 foot sidewalk, in essence it is only a foot or two wide, people are going to shy as far
away from that street as possible. If you have a 7 foot sidewalk, it really is a 4 foot wide
16.
0 !
sidewalk because you give up the inside couple of feet. When you get to the large volumes of
pedestrians and cycle traffic that they were trying to accommodate on Shields Street, you end
up with wider facilities. People traveling in both directions, you have to incrementaly go up
in the width of the sidewalk. Along this corridor, they feel that the 6 feet along the west side
would be adequate and that was what they were going to be putting in on Prospect on both
sides of the street.
Member O'Dell asked how wide the bike trails were along the Poudre River and Spring Creek.
Mr. Sears replied 10 feet.
Mr. Sears went on to say that the splash strip did allow room for signs, street lights, fire
hydrants and so on.
Vice Chairman Walker commented that some of the reasons for a splash strip were minimized
when you have a bike lane acting as a buffer between pedestrians and cars. If the cars were
right next to the sidewalks as you have in some places, people will want a sense of a buffering
and his suggestion was that the bike lanes might provide that.
Member O'Dell asked Vice Chairman Walker, as a member of the Choices 95 sub -committee, did
he feel that this was in any way deceitful to the people who voted for this, or not consistent.
Vice Chairman Walker replied that it was a compromise position, he thought there were two
arguments, one was to have a minimum impact on the area and the interpretation of moving
the curb back for a bike lane versus putting them on the sidewalk.
• Member Clements -Cooney asked if CSU had been approached about helping the City with this
project financially.
Mr. Sears replied they did not approach them directly, indirectly they have. They have been
asked to contribute to the realignment of North Drive and Plum Street which he did not bring
up, it was not necessarily a recommendation Council wanted the Board to review. They would
be presenting to Council an option to realign Plum Street at a cost of $50,000. CSU will be
participating to the tune of $25,000 for that. CSU, you may consider it participation or you
may not, by granting the use of their land for the use of the sidewalks at no cost. They will
take over the maintenance and the repairs of the sidewalks and facilities once we have built
them and they would also take care of the snow removal on those facilities.
Chairman Strom asked what was the basic reason for the cost difference.
Mr. Sears replied that Alternative III required more extensive street reconstruction in the fact
that they would have to remove the curb and gutter and widen the street by feet. Also, the
difference between Alternative I and II, in right-of-way acquisition and the amount of
concrete, 10 foot of sidewalk versus 14 foot of additional width on the west side and 16 feet
on the east side. Cost or impacts, damages to property values, really does not vary much
between Alternative I and III, the impacts were pretty much the same.
Chairman Strom asked if a big chunk of it was reconstructing curb and gutter and the paving
being to street standard instead of sidewalk.
Mr. Sears replied that was correct.
17
Member Cottier stated she was receptive to some of the neighborhood comments and was
concerned about applying optimum design standards in an area where it was a question of
retrofitting and trying to squeeze something in and especially when they hear about above
Laurel Street was not workable and then they hear that on both sides of Prospect they have a
6 foot sidewalk, but here they want an 8 foot wide. She thought that in the older areas of town
that are very developed it was a real trade off between optimum design and maintaining a
viable neighborhood. She thought that was something that was emphasized in the Eastside and
Westside Plans and unfortunately this area was not covered by those plans. She thought there
was precedence being given for commuting bicycles and yes that was a goal that we all ascribe
to but did not know anywhere where it was acknowledged that it should have priority. She was
more inclined to go with what Vice Chairman Walker was suggesting, some compromise type
position that really focuses on minimizing the impact in the neighborhood.
Chairman Strom asked if there were different bicycle numbers north of Laurel. Was there a
sense that there was a greater demand south than north?
Ms. Davis replied that when you look at the housing developments in the area south of Laurel,
you have a high concentration of multi -family as well and single family orientation. That did
provide a high option of bicycle traffic in the area. The area north of Laurel, there was some
alternatives, although not the greatest solutions, they have other alternatives that provide
access into the campus area. One that was mentioned earlier was the Loomis Street connection.
Also, there was the Plum Corridor that they have prioritized bicycle traffic on Plum Street
from Shields Street all the way over to Elizabeth through the Constitution area so you could
funnel the bicycle traffic to that area. When they mentioned the area north of Laurel, they had
no plans in the future to provide bicycle facilities, it was not to say that should an opportunity
come forward that they would not explore it as an opportunity. Right now their opportunities
set before them were a segment of Shields Street between Prospect and Laurel and making the
connection on a bike facility and the future plans for Laurel Street to convert it to a bike lane
did provide significant connection points throughout.
Ms. Davis also addressed, in the Fort Collins Area Transportation Plan, it did give special
emphasis to bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation and Council has adopted the plan
and was looking and exploring ways to be able to provide alternatives to single occupied
vehicles. They do have some priorities associated with looking at alternative modes.
Member Cottier replied that what she meant was that no where had anyone prioritized bicycles
over livability and neighborhoods. Yes, in terms of transportation, bicycles were a priority.
Vice Chairman Walker asked when the City was going to start maintaining bike lanes for
bicycles as a year round option.
Ms. Davis replied that was a point that Transportation had advocated for some time was that
the bicycle facilities did need to be opened up for year round maintenance. That was a
situation they were working on with the Streets Department to help prioritizing curb to curb
plowing.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the budget amount for the project only covered widening
the street for the bike lanes and sidewalks or did it include monies to put in the turn lanes, and
acquire the gas station property.
1s
• Mr. Sears replied that the amount of money that they have estimated in their budgets would
include the right-of-way acquisition, street widening, right turn lanes, all the facilities that
they had proposed.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if they had looked at only putting in the bike lanes and not
putting in the right turn lanes.
Mr. Sears replied they had looked at that, and putting in the right turn lanes was a costly item.
They were in the Choices 95 original scope. He had not received a great amount of input to
eliminating them. Our transportation policies did recommend that they do a level of service
of C or D and presently the intersections were operating at levels of E and F the majority of
the time. In an attempt to meet their own transportation guidelines, they were recommending
the right turn lanes be left in the plan.
Member Clements -Cooney asked about no rights on reds in the area.
Mr. Sears replied that he believed they were already signed "no right on red" during the hours
of 8 and 4 p.m.
Member Clements -Cooney asked who citizens should contact about their concern.
Mr. Sears replied they should contact the Traffic Operations Manager at the Transportation
Department.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if that was something that should be included as an Alternative,
the notion that there should be restrictions on free right turns.
Mr. Sears replied that now that they have that input, they could take it back and look at it.
They would be reducing the traffic signals at all three of the intersections as a part of this
project. They could look at the signing and phasing and cycling of the lights.
Mr. Gary Diede, Director of Engineering suggested it was appropriate for them to look at and
it was appropriate for them to look at but to make that restriction, they really have not
conferred with the Transportation Department and what impacts that would have.
Member Carroll was troubled by the discussion of the Board because they as a Board had
acquired some expertise in land use planning. Here they were involved in a transportation
issue where he thought had some land use planning connotations. He was persuaded by the
Transportation Department when they say that splash strips are a good idea and 8 foot
sidewalks were a good idea. It sounded reasonable to him. He thought all the arguments which
ha ventured forth for Alternative III made perfect sense to him in terms of transportation
issues. If the Board was dealing with Lemay and Trilby or Shields past the Vo-Tech Center it
would be a perfect place to do this because on each side of the ground, you have nothing but
fields. Here you don't and you do have homes and businesses and mature trees and he thought
as a land use board they were always asked to do balancing as to what was in the best interest
of the public and the best interest of the landowner and hopefully most of the time, they come
out with a balance that was in the best interest of the City of Fort Collins and the landowners.
As far as a transportation issue was concerned, he did think it was best to get the bikes on the
roadway. He thought the area from Prospect to South Drive needed special attention and that
the whole thing not get any wider in that area than proposed in Alternative I, with the
exception of maybe the configuration could be changed.
• 19
Chairman Strom stated that the neighborhood people had come to the point where they would
accept Alternative I which was 84 feet of right-of-way. It seemed that there were some
arguments in favor of putting the bikes on the streets instead of on the sidewalk. As the basic
standard they were looking at 84 feet of right-of-way and do the best job they could within
that 84 feet. Council would have to wrestle with things like the budget differences. The other
thing was that when talking about making land uses compatible, in other situations, and that
was what they were talking about here, making a street compatible with the neighborhood.
You look at mitigating measures and landscaping and a key part of retaining viability in the
businesses and residences was what kind of landscaping was going to go in and could you save
the big trees and could you work your sidewalks around the back side of them in certain
situations and maybe could you put some screening in at crucial locations. It seemed to him
that in a PUD we would call this a preliminary. Final would have to come up with a final
landscape plan and the landscape plan really was part of the final design on the streets and
sidewalks and where you put the trees and shrubs and how many big trees you could save. He
did not know if this Board needed to be involved in that but would certainly suggest that it be
done in the process of developing detailed plans for this project.
Vice Chairman Walker commented that there would be streetscaping done to mitigate this issue
and they had heard from the neighbors concerning preserving the character of the
neighborhood and the neighbors have agreed that there needs to be something done here and
have agreed to Alternative I and are willing to make some sacrifices.
Member O'Dell stated she was concerned with doing away all together with the splash strips
for the fact that if they want curb to curb plowing to keep the bike lanes open for alternative
modes of transportation they would need the splash strips in those areas.
Member O'Dell stated if they were looking at this just to think about what was best for the
community as a whole, she thought Alternative III as it stands was great, but retrofitting was
different than putting it in a new area. She also believes that any improvement in the area
would be an incredible improvement. She believes there needed to be some compromise in the
right -of way.
Vice Chairman Walker asked for clarification from the Neighborhood Association on
Alternative I and was it with or without the splash strips.
Emily Smith, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association stated when they made their
presentation for the worksession for Council, they went in support of Alternative I without the
splash strip, however, they were told that it was not a viable thing, it was not acceptable to go
without a splash strip. They modified Alternative I, their first preference was without the
splash strip.
Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services, commented that in
their view, placement of bicycles on the street and placement of the curbline was the most
important things and the width or the presence or the absence of the other elements was
considerably less important and could be modified overtime in the midterm and the long term
at considerably lower cost than going back in and reconstructing a portion of the street and
reestablishing a portion of the curb line. That was the critical portion, it gets the bikes back
on the street and handles the one time cost all together and then to design within that right-of-
way and eliminate the splash strip, reduce the size of the sidewalk, meander the walk, those
sorts of design elements were very possible and much lower in priority in their view.
20
Member Clements -Cooney moved that this Board recommend to City Council, Alternative III
• with the potential modifications looked into regarding reducing the width of the sidewalks and
reducing the splash strips in order to maintain 84 feet of right-of-way as was presented in
Alternative I.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Member Carroll stated he would be supporting the motion and since it was a recommendation
to Council, his thoughts were that the 84 foot right-of-way maximum was especially important
from South Drive south to Prospect. That's where he would like to see Council and
Transportation hold to the 84 feet.
Member Clements -Cooney agreed, as it pertained to the residential area, excluding in front of
CSU and north down Shields.
Member Cottier asked for an amendment to specify a maximum right-of-way of 84 feet with
consideration given of even further reduction if possible to be consistent with the original
consideration of Choices 95.
Member Clements -Cooney stated she had some concerns that she did not want to restrict
Council or Staff to the point where they were not going to be doing any better than what was
already there.
Member O'Dell stated certainly the option of Council to further reduce if so inclined
Member Klataske stated it there was to be an amendment at all it should be made in front of
CSU, to make it wider. He thought that Alternative III was the ultimate design but restricting
• it to their right-of-way.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if they would be asked again to look at this, was this a
preliminary plan before them and there was alot of items that still needed to be looked at and
alot of considerations to be made.
Mr. Sears replied that this was a combination of the conceptual design process. As they work
throughout the preliminary design process on into the final they would be working with
individual property owners to mitigate impacts as it addresses individual properties, whether
they be commercial or residential. What they were trying to establish right now, was the
overall concept, what was the generic approach they were trying to achieve, bike lanes on the
street, and the sidewalk. Widths were still compromisable with individual property owners
with certain blocks. He stated that the 84 foot right-of-way suggested was certainly was a
workable solution and we would end up with a very functional facility if that was what was
recommended. However, north of Lake Street things do open up considerably, and the situation
was not quite as tight north of Lake Street.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the neighborhood would continue to be involved.
Mr. Sears replied they have had a very active citizen participation over the last year and the
Neighborhood Association has played a very active part right up to the last few days and they
would continue to be a very important part.
Chairman Strom asked if they needed to put something in their recommendation that gives
them the extra boost to go out and look at the curbs around the trees and save the big trees or
21
were they feeling strong that they would do that in any case and they don't need to worry
about it, so they don't see trees coming down and wish they would of done something about it.
Mr. Byrne replied that they welcomed that comment from the Planning and Zoning Board and
one of the things they have tried to do with this project was integrate the Staff's of the
Planning Department, Transportation Department and the Engineering Department and come
to the Board with a conceptual design that all of us could support and a process of working
with the neighborhood and individual property owners as the project was actually put on the
ground.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he was still not comfortable with the 84 foot right of way issue,
what came out of Choices 95 in fact was suggesting 78 feet of right-of-way. The neighborhood
in effect initially was agreeing to that. The 84 feet came about because of the 6 feet of splash
strip that was added as a desirable alternative. He was not convinced of the need for it.
He asked for an amendment to the motion in the residential area to lower the right-of-way to
80 feet, it was closer to what Choices 95 proposed and it was workable to the kind of
development there that would be satisfactory.
Member Clements -Cooney replied that she would like the motion to stand at 84 feet of right-of-
way with the comment that should Council feel that they would like to reduce it to 80 feet it
was certainly within their authority.
Member Clements -Cooney restated the motion that this Board recommend to City Council that
they consider Alternative III with potentially modifying the sidewalks and splash strips as
needed to maintain 84 feet of right-of-way within the residential district on Shields Street.
The motion was approved 7-0.
FORT COLLINS SENIOR CENTER PUD - PRELIMINARY 0146-79L
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval of the
project.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated that the Raintree Site had been selected by City
Council and they were very excited about that decision because of the opportunities that the
Raintree site has to offer from a design standpoint for the facility.
Mr. Vaught went through site plan and building orientation on the site.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Carroll moved for approval of the Fort Collins Senior Center P.U.D., Preliminary.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
P*A
•
420-424 WEST OAK STREET AND 120 SOUTH SHERWOOD STREET P.U.D. -
PRELIMINARY, 040-92A
• Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval.
Member Carroll asked if the at 420 use would stay the same.
Mr. Olt replied yes.
Member Carroll asked if a home was going to be built at 120 S. Sherwood.
Mr. Olt replied yes.
Member Carroll asked why the Sherwood Property and the property at 420 W. Oak part of the
PUD.
Mr. Olt replied that the residential property on Sherwood was included because the three lots
were under one ownership and they wanted to include them all so they could identify the uses
on the three properties at this time with this PUD. The residential property on Sherwood could
be a use -by -right, 420 W. Oak was included in this PUD at this time because there are shared
parking requirements. The off-street parking requirements for the office uses straddle the
property line. For the two properties to use these common parking spaces, 420 had to be
included in the P.U.D.
Member Carroll asked what physical changes were going to be made to 424 W. Oak.
Mr. Olt replied that the plan did not suggest any changes, that it would remain in it's present
state. Externally you would not see any changes to the property.
• Member O'Dell asked if there was access to 120 S. Sherwood from the alley in the back, and was
there a garage that opens at both ends.
Mr. Olt replied that there is a recorded access easement off of the alley down into the property
into the parking area as defined on the site plan. There is a drive-thru garage. 120 S. Sherwood
has a driveway off of Sherwood and they also have access off of the alley to the back of their
property.
Chairman Strom asked if the easement also served properties on the north.
Mr. Olt replied it was partially on those properties as it was described. The recorded easement
straddles the property lines. There is 8 feet on the properties being 416, 420 and 424 West Oak.
There is 5 feet on the properties to the north. Larimer County is the first property off the alley
and then single family residences.
Chairman Strom asked for the applicants presentation.
Shane Arington, representing the applicants, stated they support the recommendation by the
Planning Staff for the approval of this project.
Mr. Arington stated that this project embodied the spirit and principals of the West Side
Neighborhood Plan by encouraging revitalization of the neighborhood and that revitalization,
they felt was accomplished by the ongoing renovation/refurbishing of the old houses and
23
creating a new residence that reflects the historical character of the area. Also, by
strengthening the economic basis of the neighborhood through the proposed conversion of 424
West Oak to low intensity office use, thereby giving this structure a continuance and providing
incentive to others to work or live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Arington stated that in their effort to maintain and reflect the character of the
neighborhood, they have adopted a plan design that they feel was sensitive to adjacent
properties in terms of architectural compatibility, landscape conservation and improvements
and impact minimalization. There were no proposed architectural changes to the building
structure to 424 West Oak, they were conserving the structure of what was now a residence and
proposing an alternate use of the structure to be limited to professional use with the exclusion
of medical and dental uses. All existing trees were to remain, the off street parking area would
remain a greenspace through impervious turf paving block, which would allow grass to grow
up through the paving blocks and decreasing the drainage run off toward the downtown core
of Fort Collins and diminishes the commercially intrusive look of a big asphalt or concrete
parking lot area.
Mr. Arington went on to say that in their effort to conserve the structures, at the same time
want to improve the quality of life for the inhabitants, therefore, at 420 they intend to improve
safety with an approved addition, adding access to basement and mechanical systems from both
the upstairs apartment and the first floor architectural office. Both 420 West Oak and 424,
they have proposed the addition of handicapped access ramps located at the rear of the
buildings.
Mr. Arington stated that at the proposed residence at 120 S. Sherwood reflected the Victorian
style common to the area. It has been designed to be energy efficient and received an energy
score rating of G93. This proposed structure would be the most energy efficient home
evaluated to date by the energy score program, boasting heating costs of only five cents per
square foot per year.
Mr. Arington closed by saying that they felt the project represented the best interest of the West
Side Neighborhood Plan in that it allows existing buildings to survive, it also offers economic
incentive for the neighborhood to survive and also it created a new forward thinking residence
that also respects the character of the neighborhood and it's historical appearance.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if the garage was 800 to 900 s.f. that the building took up.
Mr. Arington replied about 800 square feet.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if there was any intent of making the top floor of the garage an
apartment. He was concerned about the intensity of the site.
Mr. Arington replied that at this point in time, they have no desire to have it other than for
storage.
Mr. Don Richmond, owner of the property stated it was designed to have it called a carriage
house style garage with storage of about 600 s.f., and they were reusing materials on the
exterior to make this new garage.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he was concerned about the grass crete material and the wear and
tear on it.
24
Mr. Richmond gave an explanation of the products used and stated that it provided a much
• better surface.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if it would go all the way to the alley access.
Mr. Richmond replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if there were any slides of the proposed house.
Mr. Olt replied that there was not, but they did have a rendering on a board.
Mr. Richmond provided the Board with a rendering of the proposed house at 120 S. Sherwood.
PUBLIC INPUT
Elizabeth Nance, 209 S. Sherwood, stated that she read the West Side Neighborhood Plan and
was confused about how proposed office conversion could maintain the residential character
of the area. She was also confused about the owner saying that it would help stabilize the
neighborhood. She had been watching the past couple of years and every piece of property in
the neighborhood had been snatched up within a week by a family wanting to live in the
neighborhood. It was a very desirable place to live. She would not like to see 424 West Oak
turn totally into office space because it was a very nice home and if it was put on the market
a family would like to live there.
Ms. Nance went on to say that in the West Side Neighborhood Plan, one of the sentences that
stuck in her mind was, "actions taken now as well as in the future would have a significant
impact on the characteristics of the population and the stability of the neighborhood". Another
. sentence was, 'every effort should be made to preserve the existing stable residential character
of the neighborhood". This plan to her would be a point of no return for this block. If she
were to buy one of these properties in the future, she would not be very attracted to the
parking set up. This would be an office space block if this goes through and would not attract
families anymore. She did not have a problem with the new home being built, and she did not
have a problem with 420 remaining 1/2 office space. She has a very big problem with a lovely
old home at 424 West Oak being converted to office space. The parking situation in the back
will change the character of the neighborhood.
Dan George, 425 West Mountain, stated he was in back of the proposed project. He stated that
as far as the West Side Neighborhood was concerned, the idea was to conserve the structures.
Being it was a low intensity use, he did not think it affected the spirit of the neighborhood.
As far as the parking access, it traditionally has been an alley back there to access the
properties adjoining and any improvements would be gladly welcomed because right now it is
a gravel area and it would be nice to have some gravel back there so it would not be so muddy.
He was in favor of this project.
Susan Wholey, 123 S. Sherwood Street, asked that the Board not consider the plan as currently
written and that the two story building at 424 West Oak Street remain a single family residence.
Although the City Land Use Policy Plan has promoted mixed use development, creating
opportunities to work, live, shop and recreate within a close proximity to each other, she sees
this PUD proposed as allowing a place to conduct businesses and allow professional services to
be conducted within a walking distance from one another. She also saw that the plan was
pushing out of the block people who live there and would frequent those professional services
25
because of being of walking distance. She would disagree that the existing and proposed
residential/office buildings would maintain a residential character of the neighborhood.
Paul Reese, 123 S. Sherwood Street, has some concerns about this PUD with the parking and
the ineloquent way to access the businesses. Part of his concern was, although these specific
uses of the business at this time were considered to light intensity uses, in the future they
gradually creep to more intense uses. There would be the need for signage in the front of the
businesses, or in the front of the alley and that would very much change the character of the
frontage on West Oak Street. Would there be a way of protection in the existing zoning that
would prevent that from happening or at least regulate it? The broader issue was related to
what Member Carroll had asked earlier, why were they looking at the three properties in this
diagram. To him the specific use of these properties was not so much the issue and certainly
the owner intends to preserve the structure and keep it within the West Side Plan but what he
sees happening was a composite use of property. Where we have a garage that straddles the two
existing properties, access to this garage at the back of this property, someone using this garage
by coming through the alley and the parking lots of the businesses. To him, in the future, if
this collection of properties were to go on the market it seems like it would appeal to someone
that would be less committed to the residential character of the neighborhood and see this more
of an overall office complex. He would submit to them, if they were moving to some sort of
office complex that must be different than the idea of preserving residential character. His
concern was in the future, where someone who did not have the commitment of Mr. Richmond,
who has done wonderful things to improve these two properties, might come in and see this
whole corner of the block as one existing opportunity to have a slightly higher density use and
something different than what was proposed tonight. He wanted to be reassured that it could
not happen without further review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Bob Getz, 131 S. Sherwood Street, had concerns about the plan. He did not have that much of
a problem with the conversion of the other house to office space. He liked the idea of the
residential house in the middle of the block on Sherwood. They were losing a residence but
gaining a nice new residence that could be compatible with the old. The drive-thru garage
sounded crazy to him. It was a covered bridge that would give access from Sherwood Street to
the parking lot back there. He was concerned that the lot overlaps with the parking area. He
was also concerned that there was not enough landscaping behind the new house to make it a
separate and distinct property from the commercial property.
Chairman Strom asked for the question on signage be addressed and the question of what
would it take to increase the intensity or change the PUD.
Mr. Olt replied that there was no signage indicated on the site plan before the Board. With the
final submittal they would have to look at signage more closely.
Chairman Strom asked if there were maximum limits.
Mr. Olt replied that it was subject to code and in a commercial setting there were limitations
as to how much signage was allowed.
Chairman Strom asked if it fell into the new signage guidelines.
26
• Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, replied that he was not sure whether it did. It may not because
of its proximity to downtown. There would be a response to that at final.
Mr. Olt replied to the intensity question. He stated that the PUD before them tonight addressed
the properties at 420, 424 West Oak and 120 S. Sherwood. 420 W. Oak has an approval for multi-
use there, being an architectural office, and it has limitations. It limits the uses from the
professional office standpoint and it limits that structure to one dwelling unit upstairs. What
the PUD was specifically asking for at 424 W. Oak was 1800 s.f. of professional offices. It did
not identify the offices use yet, however, if they were to go to City Code there was a specific
definition for professional offices. This PUD excludes uses that are allowed in that definition,
being medical and dental offices. The PUD also indicates that there would be a maximum of
5 employees in the building. 120 S. Sherwood was being identified as a single family residence.
Therefore, to try and incorporate other properties, and increase the intensity of uses would
require the applicant to come back before the Board, evaluate the uses that would require an
additional approval. To increase the intensity outside an approval with this PUD would not
be able to happen without going through the process again.
Member Cottier asked if parking on the street there was allowed.
Mr. Olt replied that, parking on the street was allowed as an overflow situation. The primary
minimum parking for these kind of uses have to occur on site. For the number of employees
identified at 424 W. Oak, they would need 4 parking spaces, off-street. The existing
architectural office has 3 employees plus the residents upstairs that would require another 4
spaces. They need 8 parking spaces off-street. This plan indicates 10. Parking is allowed on -
street, but not as a primary source.
. Member Cottier asked about the clientele for services. They would be expected to park on the
street then?
Mr. Olt replied that the possibility was there.
Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, also replied that steady clients would probably pull in the
back. Architects offices were not notorious for a large number of customers to come to it. Most
people would probably use the street to do business and that was allowed.
Vice Chairman Walker stated that it was a correct perception that what they were creating here
was a set of buildings that work as an office complex. His concern was they were creating an
office complex. He did not think that they were maintaining residential character.
Member Clements Cooney shared Vice Chairman Walkers concerns and she felt that what
needed to take place was preserving the family character or the neighborhood character in this
area. She agreed that this was converting a block into an office complex and did not see how
that was going to enhance the neighborhood stability. She also has concerns about the parking
in the back of the building.
Member Carroll did not share those concerns He looks at neighborhood character, residential
character as something different. It was very simple for the plan to say it shall be preserved
residentially. That was not what it says. It says residential character, which means you could
have other uses in the are besides residences. He thought that 424 W. Oak maintained
residential character. He was not concerned with the parking and the garage. He did not share
the office complex, if you define three offices that are in a row. He just did not see it.
27.
Member Cottier stated she was more concerned with the property on Sherwood and the
likelihood of that converting to office also and the lack of landscaping in the back.
Member Carroll agreed that the Board could not say that 120 S. Sherwood could never be
converted to an office and no future Planning and Zoning Board could ever convert it to an
office.
Member O'Dell agreed with Member Carroll. The structure itself was not changing and the
restrictions on the type of office could be reasonable based on its proximity to the existing
offices. This plan was reasonable and acceptable in terms of the LDGS as well as the West Side
Neighborhood Plan.
Member O'Dell moved for approval of 420, 424 West Oak and 120 S. Sherwood Street PUD -
Preliminary.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Cottier stated she would be supporting the motion, but would like to see some
additional landscaping added to the back of 120 Sherwood.
Member O'Dell stated she would add that as a condition of her motion.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Chairman Strom stated he would be supporting the motion and relied on the PUD process and
requirements to give a certain degree of protection to things they don't want to happen.
The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative.
AMIGOS AT SHIELDS PUD - PRELIMINARY 040-92A
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval with 5 conditions.
Member Carroll asked Ms. Clark to outline the changes from the previous plan which was
tabled and this plan presented tonight.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the major change was there was a joint right -in curb cut on
the north edge of the Amigos property that would be shared by both Amigos and Campus West.
Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, stated that the main change was the agreement between
Campus West and Amigos to work out a shared curb cut. They also had picked up some
additional landscaping. They did not have any problems with the conditions Staff had put on
the project.
Mike Henninger, Amigos Restaurants, stated they were willing to dedicate the land in order
for the Choices 95 plan to work and they were willing to make their design consistent with the
Choices 95 plan. He felt that they have addressed the issues.
PA.]
• Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer, stated he had done the traffic study on this site. Operationally,
all the key intersections would be acceptable and in fact they were reducing a number of
movements at a number of accesses.
PUBLIC INPUT
Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Group, commended the
cooperative efforts of Amigos and Campus West towards resolution of the traffic related
concerns which would be created by the change of uses at this site. The present plan appears
to be a substantial improvement over the previous plan. Since the traffic congestion at the
Shields/Elizabeth intersection will never be of less intensity than it currently is, they would
encourage Amigos and Campus West to continue to work together towards a solution of their
mutually shared traffic problems.
CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT
Vice Chairman Walker asked if they needed to add as a condition the wording for Amigos to
work and conform with the street and sidewalk design of the Choices 95 project.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied it would be good to make certain that it was very clear.
Vice Chairman Walker suggested they add to item 5, where it says, "the design of the shared
right -in right -out access" and "street bike lane and sidewalk design".
Member Cottier asked if the condition meant Amigos could not get final approval until City
Council had decided on which alternative.
• Ms. Albertson -Clark replied yes.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if this proposal came in without a drive-thru, would it be a
use by right?
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was correct.
Member Clements -Cooney asked what else could happen on this property as a use by right.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the BL zone, Limited Business zone allowed a variety of uses
such as retail uses, office uses, there was also a shopping center category, standard restaurants
are allowed with the exclusion of drive-thru. There were a variety of uses that could vary in
terms of intensity.
Member Clements -Cooney stated she still had concerns about adverse traffic impact. Her
concern was that there was talk tonight about eliminating left hand turns. People were going
to turn left there unless there was a median. Her understanding was there was not a median
proposed there.
Eric Bracke, Transportation Division, replied that was correct, there was not a median that was
proposed on Shields Street at this time. They will not eliminate all the left turns. There will
be people that violate the left turn in, primarily during the off peak hours. During the peak
hours it will be more difficult to make the left turn in and left turn out and the majority of
the people will obey it.
Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, asked if there was design room to put a median in some day?
Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a median proposed in the Choices 95 project
coming up.
Mark Sears, Engineering Division, replied there was no median proposed as part of the Choices
95 project. There was a likelihood that a median could be included in the Choices 95 project,
but that has not occurred to date and was not being recommended to Council on January 5th.
It could be a project that Transportation decides was necessary, and if it goes through the
public input process to implement it and then it could be implemented as part of Choices 95.
It was not being included at this time.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she would like it noted that it was of concern to her as
a member of the Planning and Zoning Board and as a member of this community that drives
that road everyday and sees potential accidents everyday and that it be looked into.
Member O'Dell stated she still has concerns about this project with it maybe a little to intense
for the site, but she recognizes the constraints of the particular piece of property. She
applauded the efforts to cut down the number of access points which would cut down, in some
ways, the intensity, at least the amount of potential conflicts between cars. She thought this
was a much improved design.
Member Carroll moved for approval of Amigos at Shields PUD - Preliminary with the first four
conditions as stated by Staff and the fifth condition to be amended to state, "at the time of
consideration of final PUD, the design of the shared right -in, right -out access, curb line,
bikelane and sidewalk must to conform to the selected design criteria of Choices 95 Capitol
Improvement Project.
Member Cotner seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
Chairman Strom announced that he would be resigning Chairmanship of the Planning and
Zoning Board but intended to continue being on the Board.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
M
G. T. LAND COLORADO INC.
December 11, 1992
Members of the Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Tom Peterson, Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Board:
Stanford Plaza
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 100
Fort Collins. CO 80525
Fort Collins — 303-223-3933
Denver — 303440-3433
Longmont — 303-651-6336
Facsmdle — 303-223-467I
I have had an opportunity to review City Staff's options regarding the
"architectural" standards and guideline section of the Prospect Corridor
Program. Of the three suggested alternatives I would recommend that you
support Option II.
"Option II recommends that the three standards that are similar to
the Harmony Corridor Architectural standards remain as written and
stay as standards in the Prospect Program. The remaining
architectural standards and guidelines would be deleted (see Option
II)."
This option provides the essential ingredients necessary to maintain a
quality streetscape while leaving the flexibility of planning and design
to the building owner. By communicating the intent of the policy, while
leaving the execution of that policy to the building owner and Planning
and Zoning Board through the LDGS process, creativity is challenged, not
stifled.
Option I and III provides more guidance than Option II in the form of
guidelines or standards. These may tend to restrict owners, staff and
board members to thinking of implementing the "safe" solution, i.e. those
proposed by the guidelines, and thus restrict a wider range of
expression. I think the LDGS process has demonstrated that the -greater
degree of flexibility the better the result. The ability, to bring
creativity to land use issues has made Fort Collins the leader in this
area that it Is.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. I Zook forward to the
completion of this program to a future Prospect Road streetscape which
will be a positive addition to our community.
Sincerely,
Peter C. Kest, CCIM
Vice President Marketing dr Sales
PCK/dan
PROSPECT ROAD SETBACKS
The purpose of the Setback Zone along Prospect Road is to provide enough
area between Prospect Road and the adjacent development to achieve the
Business Park Style. The major elements in theSetbackZone are landscaping,
berming and sidewalks. All three elements work together to create an
attractive landscape that appears spacious and provides design continuity
along the Prospect Corridor.
Developments located along the Prospect Road frontage, between Riv-
erside Avenue and the Cache La Poudre River, shall provide a minimum
My (50) thirty five (35)-foot setback from the future edge of the right-
of-way, as determined by the city. (+)
This area shall be referred to as the "Setback Zone". Seepage 12 for setback
requirements on arterial and collector streets.
Required Setback Zone
Providing positive drainage away from a building shall not be considered
as the basis for a hardship in the Setback Zone. (+)
In situations where providing berms and a meandering sidewalk interferes
with establishing positive drainage away from structures, drainage require-
ments must be met outside of the Setback Zone. Providing positive drainage
away from the base of structures is not a valid reason for failing to create gently
rolling berms, landscaping and a meandering sidewalk within the Setback
Zone. Ifmore than €fly{S8} thirty five (35) feet is needed to create the desired
landscape effect and also achieve positive drainage, the additional setback
must be provided.
HIM
c�✓��vy �� I rlrf— J �c
•
• LIGHTING
The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to encourage
consistent light qual ity in the Corridorand to reduce conflicts between public
street lighting, private lighting and tree placement.
When development occurs, public street lighting along the Corridor will
be standard City fixtures on 30 foot high, bronze tone light poles. Unless
precluded by physical restrictions, light standards will be alternatingly
placed on both sides of the road. The lighting level will be in accordance
with City engineering design standards. These design standards would
result in lighting levels no greater than 1.0 Footcandle for the Developed
Urban District along Prospect Road. The light source shall be high
pressure sodium lamp consistent with the City electric utility standards
then in effect. (+)
Trees with maximum heights above thirty (30) feet shall be spaced at least
forty (40) feet from a streetlight. (+) (See City Planting Standard for
additional detail.)
• Trees with a maximum height of less than thirty (30) feet maybe planted
As close as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+) (See City Planting
Standard for additional detail)
N to USA (. `vhIc-v 17rK�11A Vt7 s�Tj Lt
LIGHTING
The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to encourage
consistent light quality in the Corridor and to reduce conflicts between public
street lighting, private lighting and tree placement.
When development occurs, public street lighting along the Corridor will
be standard City fixtures on thirty (30) foot high, bronze tone light poles.
Unless precluded by physical restrictions, light standards shall be
alternatingly placed on both sides of the road. The lighting level shall be
in accordance with City engineering design standards. These design
standards shall result in lighting levels no greater than .6 Footcandle for
the Riverway District along Prospect Road. The light source shall be blo
pressure sodium lemp consistent with the City electric utility standards
then in effect.. (+)
In the event that more intense development is allowed in the Riverway District
than the intensity of development upon which this standard has been based,
the City reserves the right to increase the Footcandle level to the City
engineering design standard appropriate to the higher level of development
to address public safety concerns.
Trees with maximum heights above thirty (30) feet shall be spaced at least
forty (40) feet from a streetlight. (+)
Trees with a maximum height ofless than thirty (30) feet maybe planted
as close as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+)
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high
quality architectural design within the Riverway District, so that the archi-
tecture of the buildings adds to the visual interest of the Corridor. The
architectural character of this area should reflect the influence of the river
and the natural character of the valley. This area has been impacted by many
different influences, from flooding and agriculture to gravel mining opera-
tions. Building materialsfor this area should promote the unique elements
of the area and include washed cobble, large river washed boulders and the
historic grout or stucco materials used by the early settlers of the river valley.
Y_ r
4-
V\j rT
• When development occurs, public street lighting along the Corridor
shall be standard City fixtures on thirty (30) foot high, bronze tone light
poles. Unless precluded by physical restrictions, light standards shall be
alternatingly placed on both sides of the road. The lighting level shall be
in accordance with City engineering design standards. These design
standards shall result in lighting levels no greater than 1.0 Footcandles
for the Highway Corridor area and no greater than .6 Footcandle for the
Rural Residential area along Prospect Road. The light source shall be
consistent with the City electric utility
standards then In effect.. (+)
In the event that more intense development is allowed in the Rural Residential
area than the intensity of development upon which this standard has been
based, the City reserves the right to increase the Footcandle level to the City
Engineering Design Standard appropriate to the higher level of development
to address public safety concerns.
pressure sodium Hghi semi alga. (0
Trees with maximum heights above thirty (30) feet shall be spaced at least
forty (40) feet from a streetlight. (+)
• Trees with a maximum height of less than fifty (30) feet may be planted
as close as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+)
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high
quality architectural design within theHighwayCorridorand Rural Residen-
tial Districts, so that the architecture of the buildings adds to the visual
interest of the Corridor.
Buildings shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include architec-
tural detail and enhancement, rather than placing heavy emphasis solely
on the front elevation and Ignoring the need to apply aesthetic enhance-
ments to the other elevations. Any accessory building or enclosure shall
be similar to the principal building In design and materials. (+)
For all business, commercial and industrial uses in the Highway Corri-
dor area, the predominant architectural building finish shall hould be
of brick, tile, other masonry or concrete. The first story shall should be
bermed into the landscaping. (+} (0)
•
S- U
When development occurs, public street lighting along Prospect Road
and the I-25 frontage roads will be standard city fixtures on 30 foot high,
bronze tone poles. Unless precluded by physical restrictions, fight
standards will be alternatingly placed on both sides of the road. The
lighting level will be in accordance with City engineering design stan-
dards. These design standards would result in fighting levels no greater
than 1.0 Footcandles for the Highway Corridor area along Prospect
Road. The light source shall be high pressure sodium lamps consistent
with the City electric utility standards then in effect. (+)
In the event that more intense development is allowed in the interchange area
than the intensity of development upon which this standard has been based,
the City reserves the right to increase the footcandle level to the City
Engineering Design Standard appropriate to the higher level of development
to address public safety condems, but not to exceed 2.0 footcandles.
G=
�sisien! use of Melt -
Trees with maximum heights above thirty (30) feet shall be spaced at least
forty (40) feet from a streetlight. (+)
Trees with a maximum height of less than thirty (30) feet may be planted
as close as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+)
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high
quality architectural design within the Highway Corridor District and the I-
25 frontage road areas, so that the architecture of the buildings adds to the
visual interest of the Corridor.
Buildings shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include arcbitec-
tural detail and enhancement, rather than placing heavy emphasis solely
on the front elevation and Ignoring the need to apply aesthetic enhance -
mania to the other elevations. Any accessory building or enclosure shall
be similar to the principal building in design and materials. (+)
The predominant architectural building finish for the Highway Corri-
dor District shall should be brick, tile, other masonry material or
concrete. Buildings shell -should be Integrated with the landscape
grading by berming against the building face adjacent to the Setback
Zone. (+)-(0)
-S[:— 1
Highway Corridor and Rural Residential District; Prospect Gateway Style
• Page 3 - Double Row Planting Spacing Guide
Spacing
within
. rows .
Second y %W/100010000
may vary °
First row -
Street tree ° ° 0 0 0 o
Prospect Road
Spacing within rows
rows
• Street Trees ............................................... 20'
Ornamental Trees ...................................... 15'
Except Bigtooth Maple ............................. 7'
Evergreen Trees ........................................ 15'
Except Pinyon and Eastern Redcedar ........ 8'
Shrubs....................................................... 5'
Spacing between rows
(minimum - may vary)
Street Trees - Street Trees .......................... IT
Street Trees - Ornamental Trees ................ 20'
Except Bigtooth Maple ............................. 15'
Street Trees - Evergreen Trees ................... 15'
Except all Pines ........................................ 20'
Street Trees - Shrubs ................................. 7'
F^Z7