Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/16/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske and Laurie O'Dell. Member Rene Clements -Cooney was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Janet Meisel, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the September 28, October 5, and October 19, 1992 P & Z meetings; Item 2 - Elm Ridge Ranch, Preliminary and Final, Case #49-92; Item 3 - Collinwood Amended PUD, Final, Case # 23-87E; Item 4 - Harmony Market PUD, 1st Bank, Final, Permanent Building, Case #54-87F; Item 5 - Sundance Hills, Filing Two PUD, Referral of • an Administrative Change to the Planning and Zoning Board, Case #128-79B; Item 6 - PZ92-13 Easement Vacation; Item 7 - PZ92-17 Easement Vacation; Item 8 - Phillips Annexation and Zoning, Case #47-92, A; Item 9 - Greenstone Annexation and Zoning, Case #54-92, A. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 10 - Resolution PZ92-18 Adoption of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program Design Standards and Guidelines as an Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Case #49-91; Item 11- Wuerker Annexation and Zoning, Case #50-92A, and; Item 12 - Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD (Keulen Subdivision), Preliminary and Final, Case #43-92. Item 5, Sundance Hills, Filing Two, PUD was pulled for discussion by a member of the audience. Member Cottier moved approval of Consent Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. SUNDANCE HILLS FILING TWO PUD - REFERRAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD - Case #128-79B Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the Staff report recommending approval of the proposed project. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC INPUT Jack Ross, 301 Butch Cassidy Drive, stated that he was part-owner of 10 existing units at Sundance Hills. He had concerns that when they purchased the properties, they believed that their investment was safe in the way that the area was zoned and that similar units would be built to equal value and similar style as to what exists. Glen Wemhoff, 1800 Manchester Drive, stated that he was in partnership with Mr. Ross and that he had the same concerns that Mr. Ross has. CLOSED PUBLIC INPUT Member Walker asked if the square footage on the proposed units the same as the existing units. John Dengler, Dengler and Associates and applicant, stated that the entire purpose of changing the unit style was a marketing decision. He stated that in substituting the building type, they were careful not to downgrade the appearance of the building and have upgraded the appearance, added to the open space concept, and have not added to the density. Member Walker asked how many bedrooms would be in the units. Mr. Dengler stated that they would 2 and 3 bedroom units, which are comparable to the existing units. Richard Musante, 1501 Hepplewhite Court, stated that the units that exist are 4 units per site with a square footage of 1300 square feet. He stated that the new units would be about 800 square feet. He had concerns that the Sundance Hills development would go into foreclosure. Member Walker asked when the original units were built. Mr. Olt replied that they were built approximately 12 years ago. Member O'Dell asked if these units would be purchased or rental units. Mr. Olt replied that they would be predominantly rental units. Jeff Laughren, 965 Nantucket Street, Windsor, Colorado and applicant, added that these units could be sold to groups of investors who could either condominiumize them or use them as rental units. Member O'Dell asked if there was any clubhouse or recreational areas proposed. E Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Laughren stated that originally there was not. Member O'Dell asked how they will be maintained. Mr. Laughren stated that they would be maintained through the creation of associations. Member O'Dell asked if there was any plan to increase the density since the driveways/parking areas look as though they could be extended. Mr. Laughren replied that there were no plans to increase the density. Member Walker asked how the decision was made that the new architecture was equal to or better than the existing buildings. Mr. Olt replied that this was based on the fact that the materials are similar to the existing buildings. He stated that the proposed units are smaller and create more of an open space by downscaling the building and eliminating the garages which would make it equal to the existing development. Chairman Strom asked if there was a better procedure to insure that proposed landscaping would be installed as was the case when these units were built. Mr. Olt replied that this would be insured with a Certificate of Occupancy issuance requirement. Member Klataske moved to approve Sundance Hills Filing Two PUD. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. RESOLUTION PZ92-18 ADOPTION OF THE PROSPECT ROAD STREETSCAPE PROGRAM DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Case #49-91 Mr. Peterson stated that the P&Z Board was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council on this project. He stated that once these guidelines and standards are adopted, they will be implemented through the Land Development GuidanceSystem as well as the Zoning Code. There are a series of recommended implementations actions and funding strategies for the program. Some of these recommended actions will require some additional research and design work. Janet Meisel, City Planner, presented slides and an overview of the program, identified the Mission Statements, and stated that this program was part of City Council's Work Program. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 4 She stated that there were 5 open houses since November 1991 and that the Natural Resources Board, Storm Drainage Board, and the Parks and Recreation Board, as well as the Planning and Zoning Board, participated in the review of this program. She stated that City Council reviewed this program in a work session in June 1991. Ms. Meisel continued by discussing the corridor area, character within the riverway, presented more slides of the natural and wetlands area within the riverway and historic areas. She stated that 4 distinct district areas were identified within the corridor which consisted of. 1) the developed urban district; 2) the riverway district; 3) the highway corridor district around the I-25 interchange; and 4) the rural residential district. She added that there were also two transition areas identified. Ms. Meisel stated that several design alternatives were proposed and reviewed. She stated that the preferred alternatives were streetscape styles for different districts which consisted of: 1) the Business Park style, which reflects the character established by existing businesses and industrial parks; 2) the Natural Shrubscape style, which reflects the natural riparian habitat. She stated that alternative road designs were recommended which remove curb and gutter to allow for natural drainage. She stated that the next alternative was the Prospect Gateway style which blends the urban and rural landscape patterns within the highway corridor and rural residential district. She stated that a 50 foot setback is consistent throughout the corridor. The last style recommended was the Interchange style which creates a striking entryway image and emphasizes scenic views. Ms. Meisel stated that revisions have been submitted regarding the standards and guidelines from the original draft. She stated that revisions were also submitted this day and copies were available (see attached) which consists of a paragraph to the Implementation section. She stated that there were implementation recommendations regarding additional planning studies included in the program. A study was advised to review City-wide maintenance in terms of how the City comprehensively maintains medians and right-of-ways. PUBLIC INPUT Jeff Harbert, PO Box 104, Lucerne, Colorado, stated that he was the superintendent of the new Cache La Poudre Irrigating and Reservoir Company. He stated that most of the plans require 30 to 50 foot setback and currently the canal is right next to the road. He stated that the company realizes that this project will be implemented and they are willing to work with the City, however, his company needs to be kept informed and be involved in the planning process. He stated that the Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet canal is an inlet canal solely for the reservoir and has water in it in the winter and is dry in the summer. He stated that they had concerns because it is a flat canal and there was discussion about relocating the canal to the north, which would make it run uphill. He added that this was a low maintenance canal and they needed • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 5 access to it. If it was piped underground, the City would be responsible for maintaining it and keeping the flow unobstructed. Lynn Romero, 3540 E. Prospect, had concerns about how the residents would be affected by this proposed program. Jim Moore, 3716 E. Prospect, had concerns that nothing has been said about the affect to the existing homes, when will this program be implemented, and who will be responsible for installation of changes. He asked how the setbacks are measured and from what location are they measured? Peter Kast, G.T. Land, believed that issues that needed to be addressed were: 1) affects of the setbacks; 2) historical information stations; 3) architectural styles; and 4) the cost benefit ratios. He questioned where the setbacks were measured from and stated that several properties are smaller than those on Harmony Road and the 65 foot setback would impact them. He believed that the architectural style part of the plan was too detailed and that the language should be made more simple as with the Harmony Corridor Plan. He added that the cost/benefit language should reflect costs which change over time and that it showed a discrepancy between actual expenses of $.90 per square foot (PACE development costs) and the $3.00 per square foot that is being proposed in this plan. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, believed that before another standard and design guideline set is adopted, a philosophical point should be raised of how much design regulation is appropriate for the City of Fort Collins. He stated that there is a point to where there is too much detail and approaching diminishing returns by going overboard. He believed that care needs to be taken that there isn't too great a level of detail being sought. He believed a broader question needed to be considered. Bill Culbertson, 3604 E. Prospect, had concerns regarding the depth of the properties along East Prospect and their relation to the setbacks, the cost of growing shrubs and trees and soil conditions, the traffic involved with the expansion of a four -lane road, littering along the road with the expansion, traffic and speeding around the nature center, and the welfare of pets and wild animals in regards to speeding along East Prospect. CLOSED PUBLIC INPUT Chairman Strom asked how many small parcels there are along East Prospect and what would be the affect of these parcels with this plan. Ms. Meisel stated that there were several large lot single family residential that front Prospect Road from Summitview to the frontage roads west of I-25. There is also a single family • residential area east of I-25 toward County Road 5. These lots vary in size from 1/4 acre to 3-5 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 6 acres. She stated that this program would not impact them unless they were transitioning to a different zoning or land use. The Board is not being asked to do anything to the properties. She stated that in terms of the setback and the right-of-way, it has been determined to measure it from the property line which is the future edge of the right-of-way. Currently, the right-of- way is 60 feet. When it is widened, it will go to 100 foot width, the 50 foot setback would be measured from the edge of the 100 foot future right-of-way. She stated that in terms of ultimate design, if those projects redevelop, the 50 foot setback would apply and each property would be evaluated on an individual basis. If they never redevelop, which may occur, a sidewalk would be cited. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of architectural styles, cost benefits, the feasibility of developing more intense landscaping and soils, the widening of the street and speeding cars, and the philosophy of design guidelines. Ms. Meisel commented that there is a section in the Implementation section which addresses irrigation design regarding design coordination. She stated that the implementation of the program would be the responsibility of future development and is outlined in the Program. The existing residents are not responsible for any development improvements unless they redevelop through a land use change or a zoning change. She stated that there are other options for funding which are identified in the program but no sources are specifically identified. Recommendations are made to City Council to proceed with additional funding options and to research those options, which include seeking federal and state funding. Predominantly, where development occurs on both sides, the typical process would be that development pays their portion of the costs. She stated that there was a letter sent to Mr. Kast which was distributed to the Board (see attached). Regarding setbacks, Ms. Meisel noted that this program was very different from the Harmony Corridor Plan and that the typical way that setbacks are measured in the City in terms of zoning or implementation of programs is to measure from the property line, which is the edge of the right-of-way. Ms. Meisel stated that the issue of architectural styles was addressed in a memo that was attached to the letter to Mr. Kast (see attached). She stated that the 3 standards which occur in the Harmony Corridor Plan also occur in the Prospect Program. She stated that the only standard that should not be maintained is the height requirement which is specified in the Natural Shrubscape style on Page III-15. In this case, it is believed that within the Riverway District, it is important to preserve the views which were identified. They are an important element in the corridor. The remainder of the standards identified could be changed to guidelines as an option. Staff would recommend that the remaining guidelines remain in the Program. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 7 Ms. Meisel commented that, in terms of cost/benefits, the research was done in terms of development costs and were based on 1992 costs and were done through local landscape contractors and nurseries, as well as two landscape architects that were involved. Mr. Peterson stated that the philosophical question that was presented to the Board should be determined by the Board and they should make a recommendation on how much should be mandated and how much should be optional. In the case of the Prospect Corridor, the City elected to add more than what was in the Harmony Corridor Plan and also elected to be more specific in the language after the experience and the legal review of the language. He stated that guidelines work as well as mandates in many cases, but sometimes minimums become the maximums in terms of what is built. Chairman Strom asked if soils conditions were considered. Ms. Meisel stated that the City chose plant material that was applicable for drought tolerance and salinity. At this point, there has been no specific analysis for each property. The plant palates that were selected for several of the areas is varied and provides a lot of opportunities for different choices, in the shrubscape area in particular. She stated that City Staff recognizes that there is a substantial wildlife corridor in this area. The design that was chosen for the • Natural Shrubscape addresses the wildlife area. One of the recommendations for this area is to provide a median which typically does not always occur in an improved right-of-way. It is City Council's decision as to whether the median is installed. She added that in addition, one of the implementation actions within the program identifies that, if and when, a new bridge has to be developed to accommodate additional flow from the Poudre River, that the bridge design accommodate wildlife movement under Prospect Road. Ms. Meisel stated that the design of the road width in the Program, is to an arterial standard which was based upon the City's Master Street Plan. Chairman Strom commented that development of this plan was in recognition of the fact it was likely that there would be a major thoroughfare and a major entryway to the city from this point. The width of the street was not really a part of the plan other than the plan recognizes that it would be there. Member Carroll asked if this plan was based on existing Transportation Planning. Ms. Meisel replied that this plan was based on what the proposed condition would be at ultimate build -out. This design was based on the fact that the roadway was already designated as an arterial road within the city transportation system. Member Carroll asked if, by adopting this plan, the City has not taken 50 feet of the existing residents' front yards to where the City would own the property to their front doors. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 8 Ms. Meisel replied that this was correct. Member Carroll asked if the City would acquire a 100 foot roadway with 50 feet on each side instantly. Ms. Meisel stated that the City, through the review process, would acquire the right-of-way if and at the time the development would come for review. The setback would be additional beyond that right-of-way and not held in public ownership but rather in private ownership and is used as a setback only to keep buildings from encroaching the road and/or parking. Member Carroll asked if these lots on which homes are presently located stay as residential properties that are bought and sold over future years, would this plan affect the property owners' ability to sell their properties or require a new purchaser to install the streetscape. Ms. Meisel replied no. That if the land is sold as residential and maintained and used as residential, this plan would not apply to that property. Member Cottier asked if Prospect would be as busy as Harmony Road. Mr. Peterson responded no. Harmony Road is being thought of as a six -lane road because of its location and connections. The City was in the process of updating its 1980-81 Streets Master Plan. He stated that with everything that he has seen up-to-date, Prospect Road will stay a four - lane arterial. He added that the widening of that road is not warranted by the amount of traffic that currently exists. The City does not have an active capital project to widen Prospect Road. The widening of the road will happen but it is 10-15 years in the future. Member Cottier asked about the lighting along Prospect Road. She stated that Light and Power recommended that Harmony Road be considered an intermediate arterial and that the lighting of one foot candle would be appropriate from South Lemay to South College, which is the busiest part of Harmony. She stated that a lighting level of .6 foot candles was appropriate from South Lemay to I-25, which they considered appropriate for a major residential arterial. She stated that this program is proposing that the lighting is doubled compared to Harmony Road and is in an area where the traffic is not as heavy and where there is existing rural residential. She suggested that the lighting be reviewed again and believed that it is excessive and should be more in line with Harmony Road. She added that there was no spacing of light poles in the program. Chairman Strom asked if the Heritage Corridor was a dead issue since it did not make it through Congress and how does this affect this program. Mr. Peterson replied that the Heritage Corridor will be re -introduced by Senator Brown in the next upcoming session on Congress. However, if the Heritage Corridor does not go forward, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes • November 16, 1992 Page 9 there will be a tremendous amount of planning activity about the future of the entire river corridor, specifically the area between Highway 14 to Prospect to Harmony. This activity was in the work program and will continue regardless of the Heritage area status. He added that the Natural Heritage Area has Windsor, Greeley and Fort Collins thinking about their respective segments of the river corridor, along with Larimer and Weld counties. It is to the point to where the State of Colorado is thinking of the implications and possibilities of the Heritage Corridor. Member O'Dell concurred with Mr. Ward's comments that styles and materials change and she also had concerns of placing requirements or standards that restrict the types of materials that can be used. She suggested that they be guidelines instead of standards since things may change in 10-15 years. Member Cottier commented that she concurred with Member O'Dell. She believed the point of having design guidelines is to have a similar quality of what currently exists. There may be more aesthetically appealing materials in the future. She stated that in terms of the philosophical issue, she concurred with Mr. Ward in that she did not believe that it was appropriate to enter into specific architectural design guidelines. She questioned the restriction of the materials and believed no guidelines should be included and only standards similar to what was in the Harmony Plan should be included. Member Walker commented that the architectural design should be kept as performance standards or goals and not so detailed or prescriptive. Member O'Dell commented that the views from Prospect Road and I-25 was one of the most appealing part of entering the city. She questioned the architectural design of the interchange area and wondered why the recommended guideline was not stronger. She believed that this wording, which states that all buildings sitting within the Prospect Corridor should be sensitive to views from Prospect Road and the I-25 overpass and should provide open areas for key views where possible, was very important. She was concerned that development may determine that it is not possible to preserve views and therefore would not conform tot he guideline. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board table this item since the Board has made several comments and testimony. The Board table this item to the December 17 meeting to allow Staff time to make these modifications and changes that have been suggested. He added that more comments were welcome. Member O'Dell asked why the guideline that she mentioned previously was made a guideline rather than a standard. Ms. Meisel replied that it was determined, through the review process with the City Attorney • and through the Planning Department's process, that it was hard to define what "key views" Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 10 were unless all key views were defined. This would entail an additional step which City Staff could complete however, it would require additional research. She added that this was a subjective evaluation. Chairman Strom stated that it would not be necessary to define what the key views were but believed that there should be some guidance as to how to go about evaluating a key view. Member Cottier commented that the size of parcels need to be reviewed and determine what impacts a 50 foot setback would mean to these parcels. Chairman Strom asked why there is a wide range in the cost of the improvements. Ms. Meisel stated that research was done and Staff determined what accurate costs were when determining square footage costs for irrigation and planting, based on City standards, this seemed to be a comparable cost. She stated that the conclusion was that this was equal to or better than what the standard process was because the designs that are being proposed require less maintenance and less water costs. Mr. Peterson stated that this would be re-examined before the December meeting. Member Carroll moved to table Resolution PZ92-18 Adoption of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program Standards and Guidelines as an Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to the December 17 P&Z meeting. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to table carried 6-0. WUERKER ANNEXATION AND ZONING - Case #50-92A Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave a Staff report of the proposed project recommending approval to City Council with a PUD condition and the condition that the minimal allowable density be 1.5 DU/acre. Linda Ripley, Ripley & Associates and applicant representative, stated that she was present to answer any questions. PUBLIC INPUT Gary Stadele, 828 Scenic Drive, encouraged the allowance of the developer to have larger lots next to Scenic Knolls Subdivision and have as gradual a transition as possible. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 11 Dale Beucler, 601 Fossil Creek Drive, stated that he would like to lighting more in character of the surrounding neighborhoods rather than City standards and would like to see subdued lighting. Fred Nittman, 1000 Scenic Drive, had concerns about the potential traffic hazard and safety of the neighborhood children and suggested that a traffic study be done for this area and project. He also had concerns about planning for the rise in the hill of the road and the safety factor. He added that the height of the houses should be restricted so the view would not be blocked. He stated that he had concerns about the determination of the appearance of the overall side road or sidewalk. Chairman Strom stated that the issues that have been raised would be addressed at the time a PUD was brought before the Board. Mr. Peterson stated that this item was would be coming before the Board at the December meeting as a preliminary. The issues that have been raised tonight will be under review by the Board. He stated that there has been a neighborhood meeting on this project. Member O'Dell asked what the density was immediately north of Scenic Knolls not including • the area that was originally going to be a park. Ms. Whetstone replied that she did not have the specific figures on this but was aware that there is larger lots in the Clarendon Hills area and are probably around 2-2 1/2 DU/acre. Member Colder asked if less than 3 acres per unit was appropriate. Ms. Whetstone stated that this condition would allow 1.5 DU/acre but it would also allow a greater density such as 3, 6, 8 units per acre. There is not a stated maximum. She added that this zoning condition would be part of the underlying zoning and absolute criteria, that residential development in a PUD be at least 3 DU/acre, would be automatically waived. Member Walker moved to recommend to City Council annexation of this property with the zoning of R-L P with the PUD requirement and that minimum density allowed be 1.5 dwelling units per acre. He commented that he was modifying the density that was being addressed because of the concerns that were heard about the surrounding characters of properties that are larger than normal City density. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Mr. Peterson stated that this is a project that is being balanced by both the Urban Growth Area Agreement with the County and the land uses that exist in the area as well as existing City policies. n LJ Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 12 Chairman Strom asked that if a developer came in with a less dense proposal, would there be less justification. Mr. Eckman stated that since this was a zoning condition, the condition would have to be removed in the same kind of process. It would take an ordinance to do this since the condition has been placed on the property by an ordinance. He stated that the reason this condition controls over the LDGS minimum of 3 units per acre is because this is a more specific regulation. The motion to recommend approval carried 6-0. MARINE SPORTS WEST AND HARRIS MACHINE PUD (KEULEN SUBDIVISION) - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - Case rY43-92 Ms. Whetstone said "The next item was the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD. This request is for a preliminary and final PUD for a 2,000 square foot boat engine, mechanic and machine shop in an existing accessory building. The primary use on the property is an existing single family home. The property is located at 921 East Prospect Road and the zoning is R-P, Planned Residential. The 2,300 square foot accessory building was a former machine shop and later a gun restoration shop as a non -conforming use. In January 1990, a PUD known as the Altair PUD, was approved for this building to allow a retail showroom and various uses. These activities have since ceased and the legal non -conforming zoning status has expired. The PUD has also expired." "No exterior remodeling or new construction is proposed on the site. A neighborhood meeting was held a couple months ago. Primary concerns were noise, fumes, smoke and compatibility. The applicants have since agreed to prohibit testing of engines on site with the exceptions of small fishing engines which can be tested in an underwater test tank. All other work can be conducted inside the building. This planned unit development meets the minimum of 50% required on the Auto -Related Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System and the applicable All Development Criteria have been addressed. The Transportation Department does not have any concerns about this proposed use." "The existing building is about 2,300 square feet and is a wood frame, one story residential character structure. Because of its previous use as a machine shop, the building is supplied with an excessive amount of commercial three-phase electrical power. The proposed PUD would occupy approximately 2,000 square feet with the remainder of the building for office space for the owner and resident of the property." "Several properties to the west of this site are currently operating similar auto -related and non- conforming uses. The property directly west is involved with auto body restoration, repair and • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 13 painting. A large metal building has been constructed for this purpose. The property further west is involved in auto and diesel repair work with outdoor storage." "The proposed business has two owners, thus two employees, and that would be a stipulation on the PUD. There would be no painting or body work activity at this site. No testing of engines would be allowed on the site as stipulated on the PUD with the exception of small fishing motors which can easily fit in the underwater test tank. The applicants estimate that they test approximately 4-5 engines per week with each test lasting approximately 5 minutes. The applicants have agreed to test all large engines at a location off the site. The applicants have also stipulated on the PUD that the hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Saturday from 7:30 to 6 p.m." "Staff has reviewed the land use element of this request and supports the proposed use at this location. Given the relatively large size of the existing accessory building, the fact that the building has existing three-phase commercial power, the limited number of customers and the minimal traffic impacts, the presence of similar non -conforming uses to the west, and restrictions that have been agreed to, Staff finds that the approval of this auto -related use would not adversely impact the residential character of the neighborhood. With the stated PUD conditions on the hours of operation, the number of employees, testing of engines, and so forth, Staff feels • the land use is compatible to the existing residence and the residential neighborhood to the east. The neighbors to the west and south have stated they have no objections to the proposed land use." "Staff is recommending the following condition to provide a sunset for this PUD as if it were a non -conforming use and to protect the residential character of the area. This is the same condition that was used on the Altair PUD which was previously approved at this site. The condition reads as follows: "Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and because of the potential for future residential development in the area, the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall expire should the business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. After a discontinuation period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be re -reviewed and subject to the PUD process." The applicant is here to give a presentation and answer questions and additionally, I have some site shots of the area if you would like to see them, you can let me know." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Any questions for Staff?" Member Carroll said "Just one. As I understand it, this is basically as it is now, it is a non- conforming use but now since it's expired, it is now, what should I say, a not -legal non- conforming use." 0 Ms. Whetstone said "That's correct." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 14 Member Carroll said "So the applicant could, if they wished, petition to have the zoning changed, which to change the zoning to a zone that would allow the use or come through a PUD. Are those the two alternatives that are available?" Ms. Whetstone said "That is correct. Those are the two." Member Carroll said "What about asking for a variance in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals or is that an alternative." Mr. Eckman said "The Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't have the authority to change the use in a zoning district." Member Carroll said "Thanks." Chairman Strom said "Other questions? Can we have the applicants presentation?" Bruce Evans, applicant, said "I'm Bruce Evans and I'm the owner and operator of Marine Sports West. Basically what we do there is service boat engines, outboards, stem drives, and gear boxes. We tune them up and stuff like that. What we do, because of the kind of limited parking where we are at, we'll have the boat come in, we'll pull either the power head off or the drive off of it, and we'll take them in our shop and fix them and have the boat come back when we are done with it. That's the, because we do have a little bit of limited parking there. We do not want to have too many." "Basically, our biggest concern at our neighborhood meeting was they had the problem with us running the engines, and the smoke and noise and stuff. So that's why we changed our PUD. You know, basically to get away from that so we wouldn't, so we could get along with the neighbors a little bit better and that aspect of it. But we don't do, just to continue a bit, like on the boats, we don't do any of the fiberglass work or nothing like that. It's basically just engine work and most of its in the shop. We rarely do any. The only thing I have outside is an A - frame hoist for if I have to get a large engine out. We are going to move that from the fence over next to our building so its kind of out of their way." Chairman Strom said "Could you take the microphone with you when you are over there so we can get this on the record?" Mr. Evans said "Anyway, the A -frame is located right about here (pointed to a place on a slide) and we are going to move it from here over to the this part of the building. Okay, there is a test tank here for small engines and an apple tree. The test tank is kind of under that. Yeah, we going to plant a couple trees right here (pointed to a place on the slide). There is already two fences here as a buffer zone between us. And that's basically all we..." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes • November 16, 1992 Page 15 Chairman Strom said "If I could ask a question, a question of smoke and noise, do you, were you operating differently or were you...." Mr. Evans said "We were operating... See, we were just, it wasn't nothing out of the ordinary. For someone that's never been around a marine engine or something especially two stroke engines, they bum the oil with the gas. It gives a little bit different odor to it. It's not really any more pollution or anything than anything else. Really. But the thing is if we didn't leave that much running but it was a little bit of annoyance, I could understand it. You know, if I never smelled it before and all of a sudden some white smoke or blue was coming over my fence and it stunk, so that's why we amended it and we are going to take all our boats to the lake to run them. Because most of the time we end up there anyway. A lot of time we run them is just the preliminary to make sure everything is running all right before we left. So we don't need to make a trip for nothing or we have to come back if something isn't right." "So, that's our main concern because that's the main thing was like the smoke, the noise, the pollution, all of that. So we are getting rid of that. That's not going to be there anymore. As far as the small engines, they don't really produce any. They are just little fishing engines that aren't as loud as a lawn mower. We have run one for Kirsten here in the tank. She heard it then. Traffic from Prospect Road drowns it out. You know, when you are standing in the back • really." "So, that was our main concern that we are going to get rid of that part of our operation but everything will be pretty much done inside the building. Because we only work on the engines specifically, you know, if we don't do much work on the boat itself. We don't have accessory departments or anything like that." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Evans?" Member Walker said "Mr. Evans, let me just clarify that you are through the note on your PUD, you are saying that you have limited hours of operation and those will be the only times that any sort of activities such as this engine operation would take place. And I believe that was what, 7:30 to 6:00, was that correct? So that would be the only time that any sort of activity would occur relative to engine running and so forth?" Mr. Evans said "Yeah. I mean that would be at 6:00 we're going to go home." Ron Brown, applicant, said "If I could tell you a little bit about my business. My name is Ron Brown and I will be operating the machine shop part of it. Actually, my business and Bruce's kind of go hand -in -hand. He will tear the engines down and then I operate in the back 1/3 of the building right here, this area (pointed to a place on the slide). I have my machine set up and Bruce gets an engine torn down, I immediately take the engine and I do all the boring, and the • sleeving and all the necessary machine work so Bruce can put it back together and make it run." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 16 "Also, I was with Harris Marine out on the Interstate for 35 years. I built up a real good business as far as re -boring and sleeving outboard motors and I do quite a bit of work by UPS. The UPS blocks in and I take them back out to UPS and send them back to other marine dealers in three or four states around, really. So, my business is pretty simple but it's kind of relative to marine and its relative to what Bruce does." Chairman Strom said "Thank you." Mr. Evans said "Since I have amended this that we're not going to run engines or boats, the large ones that make all the noise, if there is questions from the neighbors, I would like to be able to answer them." Chairman Strom said "Sure. Thank you. Other Board questions or comments at this time?" PUBLIC INPUT Chairman Strom said "We will open it up for public input. Those of you who would like to speak to us, please come forward." John Haggerty said "Good evening. My name is John Haggerty and I am a resident of Prospect Springs development which is just east, in fact, it's just on the other side of the fence from this particular business. First off, I, one of the questions I raised at the neighborhood meeting and my main concern was I just don't think this is a compatible use with the residential area. And when you look at the overall map, and I don't know if she can put that back on there or not again that shows the entire area, I think you are going to find that most of the use in this area is residential. I will wait til she gets in back on because there are two things I want to point out. I can go over to the map. I would like to point out that this is the location of the particular lot that this business is located on. This is the Prospect Springs Condominium unit here, there is a single family residence here, and I believe another one right next to it and then the one on the comer just before you get to the gas station at the corner of Prospect and Lemay. I think it is vacant or the one in between is vacant. There are also residential uses here, here and here around this end and that has not been changed yet although I suppose we will have to deal with that in the future when it comes up. To the west, there is, I believe, one business in the back here operating that's been in existence for some time and my understanding is that was grandfathered in prior to getting into some of the zoning that's currently in place today and it's been there for some time. I also assume that once that business ceases, that the appropriate steps will be taken hopefully to keep this all residential." "On the north side of Prospect, from the corner where the Schrader Convenience Store closed, west, in fact, all the way west to College, I believe, is all residential, and or we have schools Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 17 and there is also a church located just to the east side of Lesher Junior High that also has a school associated with it. To the south, and I believe that the planner indicated that there was also no complaints from the people to the south, well, there is nobody south until you get to the other side of Spring Creek and over here on the projects that are accessed from Stuart Street, so there is quite a distance. So, in terms of compatible use, other than those two that she mentioned and the one just to the west she said there's an auto body shop, that's the first time I have heard about that tonight. I don't know if that's a PUD or if that's one that's been there for some time like the other business, I'm not sure. But we were aware of the one that was in there." "One other thing that I would like to note for the Board too, I'm also the President of the homeowners' association, of the condominium association for the Prospect Springs but I also live there and am a home owner and I am really here tonight on my own personal capacity. As I understand the purpose of the LDGS, one of the designs with this program is to be able to put appropriate buffers in place so that we don't just go from black to white on our different uses. And I think by going from what we have here with a fairly high density residential area just to the east a matter of feet, to this kind of a use, is just not compatible and it certainly does not seem to me that it's within the design and intent of this particular plan. There is some • commercial use along Prospect and just to the north of our particular development and that is a small building that houses an insurance office. And that kind of a use we all feel is compatible. It's not of the machine type, the type that's going to generate noise, smoke, pollution and also just the hustle and bustle that goes on with this kind of a business." "Another factor that comes into play here is the Spring Creek area. One of the things that they have recommended they can do now is to use a water tank of some sort to muffle the sound of the engines when they test them. I guess my question is going to be how do we dispose of that water, what happens to that because that's going to contain the pollutants, the oils, the things that come out of these engines, is it going to be dumped on the ground or, probably what may be 200 yards from Spring Creek, we already have a problem there with some pollution in terms of things flowing in there recently. I think another problem I have with this is that this use was already a violation. I think this was already pointed out. It was one that started and because of a complaint filed by one of the residents of Prospect Springs, a letter was sent out asking them to discontinue the use and rather than discontinue the use, this application was made for the PUD. Well, I think that's kind of an inappropriate way to do things and if it's approved now, it just basically sends the message out, I guess, to the community that says listen, if you people want to do something, go ahead and start, once your in place, then bring it before the Board and maybe the Board will approve it. So, I question that particular method of the way they are doing this." "Another thing that is interesting, they mentioned at the neighborhood meeting that we had, they are looking for larger space right now because of their business and the way it is growing and • one of the concerns I raised at the neighborhood meeting was the fact that this particular PUD Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 18 will run with the land and while I realize it will be the same use, we don't' know how the successors may do what they may do with this particular property and how they may run this business once they get it. I don't know what safeguards can be thrown in there that are necessarily going to protect our interests to the east side. There are 22 single family units just to the east of this particular operation that's going on, all of which will be affected, I think, by this particular operation." "Another concern that I have in terms of looking through the particular worksheets that were done by the Planning Department with respect to the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Chart D, indicated that this meets the 50% criteria, looking at the categories of mixed use and also category H, which I think deals with the, I'm not sure exactly what the definition here would be, but is the project located within at least 1/6 of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development. Well, I guess that's hard to avoid in this particular area since most of this is all urban or residential development if that's the definition you are using here. I'm not sure of that. But under B of that particular form, is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing neighborhood or community regional shopping center, office or industrial park. I don't think that is the case. We have two non -conforming uses one of which I know has been there for some time and was grandfathered in and the other one I'm not sure I still and maybe that's a question she can answer for me. To the east, which is where we have the corner of Prospect and Lemay, there are some similar uses there because there is a gas station. I think that gas station has been there for some time and was also grandfathered in. Other than that, there is a 7-Eleven on the far corner in that little shopping center and then you have the medical facilities that are basically on the northeast corner." "I guess the problem as I see it, is we go west here, what we are doing now is we're bringing in other uses that aren't really compatible with residential so those of us who are in the middle are basically being squeezed out. What impact is this going to have in terms of changing this use later on if its sold, if the property is sold, or if these people leave and go on. When you read some of the compatible uses contained in the information provided, it appears we can have anything in there from a standing department store to an adult book store. When you look under that definition, and I'm not saying that this is something that is would necessarily be approved, but certainly it seems that it leaves the kind of door open for whomever may come in there next to seek that kind of an adjustment to this particular PUD to be compatible with the use." "Also, with respect to the criteria under this Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial D, the Planning Department has indicated under 2 that all repair, painting and body work activities, including storage, refuse, and vehicular parts, plan to take place within any enclosed structure. Well, that's not necessarily true, too because as he just indicated some of this business requires them removing these engines to the south side. And this A -frame he's speaking of goes above the six foot privacy fence that we have and the people that live right along the back, they're looking at this. Some of them have 2-story units when they look out their second story floor windows, they're looking right down on this operation. And we are talking maybe 20 feet from 9 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 19 the back of their window where this particular A -frame structure is located. So I think under that criteria, no would have been the appropriate answer and instead yes was listed there so I think for that reason alone under the criteria is should be defeated on that." "I guess, to sum this thing up, what I would like to say is we have a situation along Prospect Street here, everything to the north is residential on the north side of the street, on the south side of the street, because of some existing uses, and by the way, there is quite a bit of I would call it pasture land, and a lot of these lots along Prospect on the south side that people use to rent out right now for horses and things and that's compatible because it's also with the bike path in there and that's something people can see and there is also some open lots, one of which is rather a large parcel right now that's up for sale, if that sells, it may well also be a high density residential type of a development given the particular zoning here. Other than the two existing uses, which I assume once they are done may go to some other type of use, we have nothing else in there that would suggest this." "My request to you is let's don't make this situation worse. Tonight you talked about beautifying the east end of Prospect out toward the interstate and yet in closer to town here now, we are bringing in uses that are not compatible to residential. We're bringing in uses that certainly can be done somewhere else and in a more suitable location and all it does is it has a • big impact I think with the people who live in that area and have to, as Mr. Evans indicated, he goes home at 6:00. We're home all day while these things are going on particularly on Saturdays. I think that the perhaps, and I don't know how this works within your particular structure, since they have indicated that they are looking for a new building already, I don't think it's anyone's intent in our particular development to put these people out of work and what I would recommend is that if you can do it within your structure, is to give them maybe 120 days to continue their use to find a building they want to go to and maybe if that requires tabling this matter for that long, whatever given that time frame, but deny the particular PUD. Thank you. " Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Are there other people from the audience that would like to speak?" John Keulen said "Hello. I'm the Dutchman. I came to this country in 1957 and didn't spoke a word of English. I never went to school here. But I built an outfit in Holland and had 35 men working for me. I always wanted to go to the United States. Some people in Holland say John is nuts because he become a millionaire here and is going to the United States to loose everything and start all over again there. That's what I did. I sold out and went to the United States. I went through a hard life, believe me. It's not easy, I didn't speak the language." I had a brother living since '38 in the United States. Just three months before I got over to the United States, he got killed by an accident. I had no sponsor anymore. His good friend Maxey took over for my brother since he died and was his best friend and sponsored me again. So I • could go to the United States. I did what nobody ever did before because I couldn't take my Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 20 money with me to the United States. They told me I could make it up in Holland or let it sit there in come over for vacation to Holland and spend your money there. I said there must be another way. So I went to a lawyer and a good lawyer too. He knew what he was talking about. Many lawyers don't. And he advised me I could do two things. Diamonds was against the law in the United States. So I didn't. He said what you can do you can ship a house over. I said ship a house over. What in the world am I going to do with ship a house over. He said maybe you can get a place to live in there. All right. So I built a house there and let them build a house there built of African teak wood and shipped it over to the United States. Let anybody say if they can do that. Or ever tried." "So, after it was shipped over here, I settled down in Eunice, New Mexico. It's a small town and I couldn't find employment so I moved to Albuquerque. I had the house still standing there locked up. Old friend of mine that sponsored me came in trouble. His wife had an accident. I give him the house for nothing. Because I like man, I like people. Real people. That's what he did. When I was with my back on the wall, he was human enough to find out what to do for a fellow like me and for his friend. That was my brother, Martin. So, after that, I have to move to Albuquerque and set up shop there. For in Eunice, New Mexico I couldn't do it because there was nothing to do there. It was a little oil field town. Nothing to do. So I went to Albuquerque. And in 1956, the Air Force get the smell of me and top secret cleared me for doing their work in high precision work. I'm not just come around for no sense at all. I knew my business." "So, after I was on there, and the work opened down, I went to Fort Collins because I wanted to go commercial. I shipped the whole kittenkabootle to 921 East Prospect. I found out a place that was a former shop where they build cabinets and the man went broke and died. So I took over the place. First leased it for seven years then decided to buy it. I was there on the place for 25 years. The last few years I didn't do nothing anymore. After 57 years of hard labor, I had enough. So I decided to retire." "Now I think all the neighbors all those years that I run the machines up there, not one neighbor ever complained because they were human beings like me. And knowing that I had to fight the hard way myself, the reason that I started there was my son-in-law together and worked it. We did work for Coors that was out of this world of precision. As you know, Coors has also a ceramic plant. And that I was classified too. Since I was top secret cleared, they could use me there too. And with my shop I helped produce and rebuilt their machinery. They were very, very, very proud about me. And they give me all the work I wanted. I helped them rebuild their system going over from metric, which was quite a job. And they were very pleased with me and I with them. We worked in a very, very friendly way. The engineers all like me there. " "So, after several years I have to retire because I was getting up in age, you know. So sold out and I was retired for 2 years. I didn't like it too well and going to work was all I wanted to do, • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 21 see. And then from there, I decided to keep retired and give those people Ron Brown and Bruce a chance to make themselves a way of living. They got families. So I said you can rent the building from me for a very low price to help you out. This I did. Ron the far part, Bruce the middle part and the office I kept for myself just in case I want to go back to work again. But that has not happened yet." "All of a sudden we found out that we polluted the air. Well, that was news to me. I had been around a long time. I know where pollution come from. Pollution come in on Prospect from the cars not from these little bitty motors that once in awhile run, you know, outside. Put a little water to it and it was only 2 or 3 minutes that their in. That's it. In the water they have to readjust them so they do the job. You see." "So there is no way of having noise, or pollution of the air, and that comes from Prospect, from thousands, and thousands, and thousands of cars during the day that come and pass. I lived there. And my front room is on the street. So you know, I never complained. Why should I? Everybody has to go to work, everybody has to do a job. So, when I was retired I didn't mind it. But there are people who mind it very much if you ride in a nice car. But I worked 57 years for what I got and if I buy a nice car, I deserve it. Don't you think so? And sometimes Is they bring people far off the track. And I just cannot say I feel sorry for those people. If they live my life, they have a hell of a lot of work to do. Thank you very much." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to us?" Rudolph Denz, 925 East Prospect, said "I guess I would like to start off by making a comment about Mr. Keulen's statement about the small engines. The engines they are running are bigger than the ones I have in my car. They run 200 horsepower V-8 engines over there. I have a four cylinder, 130 horsepower engine. Mine has pollution controls. They don't. That's a lot of difference. I think I kind of started this mess when I filed the complaint against them last July. And I got a letter here from the Planning Department, the Building Permit Department, that states that they were supposed to be in compliance by the loth of September. Well, September came and went and they are still operating. And I called the City again and said, well, once they filed for a PUD they are allowed to continue. And I'm like, John, I don't think that's right. You know, we still got the problems. We got smoke, we got noise, we got smells, we got traffic problems over there. But maybe that's the talk about here." "I guess the problems I'm having now is the fact that if it is approved and this is, I guess, what is been recommended, is I don't see how the conditions of the approval, I don't see how they can be monitored at all. Even after this letter was received by Keulen and supposedly put into effect by September 10, these guys were running engines as late as 10:30 at night. And that's ridiculous. Running them on Sundays, holidays, week -ends. I mean it's...The exhaust that comes out of those things is not, goes through no pollution controls, they are a gas and oil • mixture, they stink like mad. They're terrible. And I think it's just a totally, completely, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 22 unacceptable type of business to have right next door to a residential area. The standard of living we have right there now I think is very nice and I just really hate to see it change. I like living where I am at but if it continues like it would be, I think I would want to move. I really would. Thank you." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak to us?" Marilyn Moore said "I'm Marilyn Moore and I live at 925 East Prospect and I'm the closest neighbor across the fence from where they are in operation. Last summer I spent most of the time with my doors and windows shut because I couldn't even carry on a conversation between the noise and the fumes. And I'm wondering if this does continue in operation, how is it going to be enforced that we don't have the fumes and noise that I had all summer so that I could enjoy my life. And I also wonder about the hours on Saturdays if they do operate because Saturdays and Sundays are my days to stay home and enjoy my home and that's going to be taken away from me. And I guess that's my biggest concern." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to us tonight?" John Haggerty said "My name is John Haggerty and I would just like to add one more thing. The Prospect Springs development is just east of this. I think the people that live in there take quite a bit of pride in that particular development. It's very well maintained, it's adjacent to the bike path, it's a very desirable location. We have a lot of elderly people that live in there, people that bought those homes originally when this place was first developed seven or eight years ago. We have access to the bike trail and the greenbelt areas. We see what is going on with the drainage project just to the west of us when they rechanneled the Spring Creek through there and the bike path and all that has really taken on a whole of beauty throughout that entire area. And as I say, I think we maintain our area very meticulously, make sure that the greenbelt areas are maintained and to have this kind of use right next to it, it just doesn't fit. And I think you can not only see it when people go down the bike path when they look to the north of the bike path, they can see the boats and the hoist and the things parked out there in that area. And I suppose you can plant some trees but it's going to be sometime down the road before that ever takes affect to shield that. And, again, just as far as compatibility with the neighborhood, that is something that I ask that you take into consideration." Chairman Strom said "Thank you." John Keulen said "Ladies and Gentlemen. I have one more thing to say. Twenty five years ago when I started business there, there was nobody around. There was a small house left in and an elderly gentleman by the name of Mr. Meyers, I never hardly saw him. A year and half or two years ago, I don't know exactly the time, all of a sudden, they came flying down they wanted to build condominiums. I never said you cannot do that. That didn't even come up in my mind. They never ask me what I was doing. And I wasn't planning to tell them either. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 23 Now why in the world did they inform first before they started building. Everitt built those buildings, I think they did. But they didn't tell those people that I was doing business there for so many years. Well, they were stuck with what they bought. That's not my fault. They bought the condominiums for themselves and they don't live that long there. And the noise, I could tell you what they are talking about. In the winter months, you could hear a needle fall. In the summer months, there are only four months that they really do work and in those four months they have to make a living for the winter time. Now, sometimes, if a boat take a half hour longer at night, they stay a half hour longer. As far as I know, no more. And all there is to it is they like to win this case." Well, I ask you people, use common sense. And that goes first instead of being a lawyer and talking back. I don't. I'm not a lawyer. I only have plain schooling from the old country and learn a trade being machinist and tool -and -dye maker and I have the highest grade. Another thing, they were so good that President Reagan and President Bush send me all their big color pictures for appreciation and I can show you that tomorrow if you want in a white envelope with all the pictures in there and all the diplomas I get for the work I did for this United States. Believe me, and they were great. Every American will see, their eyes get wide open, they can't believe it. I say well, how you get that John. I say I work hard for your living. I say maybe • if you do, you get somewhere. That's all. Thank you very much." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. I'm going to close the public input portion of the meeting and come back to the Board for discussion. Questions or comments?" Member Walker said "I would like some clarification from the applicant on the... when you are dealing with the boats on the project, I mean, can you explain to me if you have any work to do are you, are the boats being stored on site for any length of time?" Mr. Evans said "Some might be stored there for a little bit, yeah, but we try to have a high turnover rate because of the limited parking. And like I said, we will pull powerhead, lower units, whatever we need to do and work on them and have the people bring the boat back. A couple things, it's not like a junkyard or something there. Any of the equipment we have outside including the A -frame I painted. It's painted black. You know, it's not just a big old rusty A -frame. Okay." "A couple other things I want to address if I could. One thing, we did start a PUD. This didn't come up September loth. Ron and me, when did we ... it was like February, March. We met with Ted (Shepard) and started a PUD to get the zoning or ... we didn't really know what it was that we needed. Anyway, we started at the same time that the business was starting, you know, about the time April came when we were trying to work on this we got kind of swamped with the business and we kind of put the PUD aside a little bit. That's what happened. Okay, as far as all that. So we were trying to do the right things all along as far as that goes. Okay, that's . how this thing got .... and when the complaint came then we thought oh, well, we'd better go see Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 24 about that and finish the PUD then, you know, and see what we had to do. So that's kind of our own fault but as kind of a circumstance of things to. We never started a business before. You know, there's a lot of things to do. So, and right at the height of it, all this work hits. So that was one thing that we set aside that we shouldn't have. We know that now." "Next, as far as neighbors, the only neighbors we have that don't want us, apparently, are the ones here on the board of the apartments next to us. The people on this side of the road, I never hear anything from them. In fact, three of them brought boats in to be serviced to I think they are appreciative that I'm right across the street." "Next, as far as, like that water in the test tank, you can put that on your plants or something when we're done. The motors just don't pollute. It's not like what's being said here. That doesn't exist. Yeah, there's a little smoke, if I spill a little gas, a little oil or something, yeah, we got a little bit of pollution but as far as sticking something in the water and it's just dumping pollution, what would our lakes look like? If you go to Boyd Lake or something, you don't see a cloud of smoke down there. I mean, you know, that's exaggerated is what I'm trying to say about that." "Yeah, that one we got to contest a little, too. This 10:30 at night running. And then the trees for the A -frame, you know, we are going to put those up. We are going to put some bushes up that will grow over near the fence. Where we're at is not, you know, I don't know how good the aesthetics are anyway, if you ask me. If you look right to the west, your looking over at a diesel shop, a paint shop, everything else. So I don't know about that part of it. But I just wanted to add that to it. It's not like it's a big polluted junkyard or something like that. It's a nice clean shop." "The Fire Department came in and gave us a clean bill of health right off the bat. I just want to remind them, we're not running big engines no more. That's out. There's no more smoke, noise, all that kind of stuff." Chairman Strom said "Please address your comments to the Board and let's not get a conflict going." Mr. Evans said "I just wanted to make that clear. They keep coming up with that and that's it. The last one was run today." Chairman Strom said "I have a question in terms of your operations. You said that you were in the process of initiating a PUD and you got really busy and had to set it aside and I can understand that. What happens, though, if your operating during your regular business hours as you've suggested from 7:30 to 6:00, I think it was, and your business builds to the point to where you can't handle it in those hours. How will you deal with that situation?" 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 25 Mr. Evans said "Well, that I'm just going to have to limit a little bit. These are some of the concessions I'm making to get along with the neighbors. It's going to take me .... the fact be known, I'm probably going to run a little bit farther behind because I can't test before I leave for the lake. But that's one of the concessions I'm making. How to get along there." Chairman Strom said "So you're willing to live by that hard and fast in terms of 7:30 to 6:00." Mr. Evans said "Well, they can watch me. There's video cameras nowadays, you know." Chairman Strom said "Thank you. Are there any other Board questions?" Member O'Dell said "Kirsten, what about monitoring compliance with these requirements?" Ms. Whetstone said "My understanding is that a PUD would be monitored the same way any use in any zone in the city is and it does come down to a complaint basis. Of course, unless somebody from the City or somebody who knows about that PUD and knows that they are doing something that they shouldn't be doing, same procedure as a non -conforming use is to file a complaint with the zoning officials." • Member O'Dell said "The other question I have is the applicant mentioned that you were present when they tested one of the engines. What is it like? Is it inside the building, is it outside the building in a big tank, do they ... can you describe it please?" Ms. Whetstone said "I have a picture I can show you of the tank then I can explain the tank. I guess you can get the scale of this. It about 3-1/2 to 4 feet high and the engine sits down inside and most of the top of the tank is covered with metal so just where the engine is, is a hole and I went over to the property line and it was very difficult to discern whether this engine was running with the traffic out on Prospect. It was sort of a puttering sound, like a car running. And these are trolling engines, fishing engines. They are not V-8 engines. I have seen those too... Member O'Dell said "And where is this located on the site? Is it the southernmost part of the site?" Ms. Whetstone said "That's correct. This is the southernmost. This is a view of the site from the bike path, the Spring Creek bike path, looking north. I'll point out a few things here. This is the condominium project, this is the fence between the two, this is the Mr. Keulen's garage and his house back here. And this white building here is the shop and the test tank sits right here. There is a little shed and the chain link fence runs along here. This pasture is owned by this property to the west so this is all one ownership." 0 Member Carroll said "Why don't you show us the rest of the slides." Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 26 Ms. Whetstone presented the rest of the slides to the Board which included Mr. Keulen's house, his garage, their shop, the property to the west which is a non -conforming use, the hedge that separates the west property from Mr. Keulen's property, the property to the east, the insurance building, the condominium project, looking into the yard which includes the shop, the A -frame, five boats in the yard, the test tank, the hoist, looking to the west, the property that does the diesel repair, the metal shop building that is next door, and looking north from the bike path. Member Walker said "I have a question, now this is a non -conforming use, is that correct? Now, by that, irrespective of what's going on there now, what is allowed to happen in this? In other words, it was a non -conforming use as a machine shop, I guess, is that ....could that be legally continued, would that be the only other use of that particular building without a PUD?" Ms. Whetstone said "Actually, a little history on the non -conforming use, when it was annexed and put into the R-P zone, that machine shop was in operation and so it became a legal, non- conforming use. But, as Mr. Keulen said, he retired and that use did cease to exist for a period of a year. It might have had a couple of other uses in there but once that use ceased to exist, that non -conforming use did go away. And then there was a PUD for the retail sales and just in keeping with the area, it's not something that is typically done on a lot of PUDs but there was on that Altair PUD the sunset clause, treating it as if it were a non -conforming use given the residential nature of the area, the same as the diesel repair place, that if that use ceased for a period of one year, that it would revert back to its R-P zone. The only thing, by right, that would be allowed there would be single family residential. Anything else would require a planned unite development, including multi -family or anything." Chairman Strom said "Kirsten, you visited the site. Did you observe the safety clean solvent that they were using and could you give us a sense for what kind of odor that gives off?" Ms. Whetstone said "From what I saw, it was similar to what bicycle shops use in town, along College or wherever they are located, and it's basically odorless and you could put your hands in it. It's not what people used to use for cleaning. You could work in it with your hands." Chairman Strom said "It would seem likely that the fumes that have been observed must be coming from somewhere else? Is that your sense?" Ms. Whetstone said "I can imagine that some fumes could be coming from Prospect Road or maybe from the corner where there is auto -related, there is a gas station repair shop on the corner of Prospect and Lemay and, I think that the engines that they had been testing, I had heard they were testing the large engines with a garden hose, they have to run in water, that they do initially set off a plume of smoke and that is very likely that some of that odor could have been from those engines." • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 27 Member Walker said "I would like to make some observation and comments. What we are dealing with here is, as I perceive it, is a case where the LDGS has to really take a close look at that and that is that we have two potentially incompatible uses side by side. This business and the residences next to it. Now, I think we have to consider even though this was a machine shop and had been running as a machine shop for years, the fact that it ceased to be a machine shop and is now been put into this particular use, as far as I am concerned, the past history has no consideration. We are looking at it as if they were putting in a new structure to operate this business so I have to question what is relevant. And of course in situations like this, there is always the question of the fact that in a sense, what was existing here prior to this situation, in terms of these side by side uses, where the residence is, is so we have this other use that is coming in and we have to meet some compatible criteria, I would suggest." "A couple of things concern me. One is that this is very seasonal use. Summertime is when the business is very active and obviously there is a time when there is the greatest potential for conflict in uses because at the time that these individuals are very busy, the people who live next door are wanting to enjoy the outside aspect of their home and open up the house and so forth. So I have concerns about the compatibility issue there. A comment was made about if this was operating on Saturday, that's in direct conflict with the kind of use patterns that would be used • next door. But I can understand why they would want to run on Saturday, in fact, I imagine with my experience with seasonal business is that you work all the time for a short period of time of the year and then you kind of back off. So I question how this is going to be workable from both sides, both in terms of providing the neighbors, the residential neighbors, some reasonable quality of life and also provide the individuals running the business with the economic activities that they need." "In the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial criteria, Item 2 says that all repair, painting and body work activities plan to take place within an enclosed structure. We are not doing that here. I question how we meet that criteria. This is an absolute criteria. Yes must be answered. It was shown that testing of engines was taking place outside, removing engines from boats takes place outside, so I think that Criteria 2 was not being met and that's an absolute criteria so I question how we can approve this by the fact that the absolute criteria is not being met. We have two potentially incompatible uses we have to look at very closely. This enclosed requirement is one of those things that the system has set up and I don't see that this is being met. " Ms. Whetstone said "I would like to address that the criteria states that repair, painting and body work activities. It doesn't say anything about taking off motors from boats. And also it's the test tank there has been some talk about possibly putting that in an enclosure." Member Walker said "I'll stand by my interpretation." r1 LJ Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 28 Member Carroll said "This concerns me. I think probably from the basis that this is a non- conforming use, 1967, when this property came into the city, Mr. Keulen was operating his machine shop there but 25 years ago the City sought to zone this a residential zone and .... which basically made the machine shop a non -conforming use. Under the laws and the statutes that we operate on, the City didn't go to the gentleman and say we're sorry, your annexed, you have to shut your machine shop down. But the machine shop continued to operate under a non- conforming use and the idea when the City annexed these properties with non -conforming uses, is that what will happen is basically what has happen here. As time goes on, the non- conforming use will cease to exist. In this case, the gentleman retired and stopped his machine shop and whatever is going on will eventually stop. And the expansion of non -conforming uses or the transfer of non -conforming uses under City law is very much frowned upon because the idea is we are recognizing that this use is really not compatible with the zoning under which it came into the City but in fairness to the individual who owned the business, we will let him or her continue to operate it as long as it stays just the way it is. And that's really a trade-off." "This was actually recognized when the Altair PUD came in and that basically, in the PUD, said that if the operation ceased to exist for a period of one year the PUD would expire. And that's what happened. So, it seems to be in one sense of the word, if you get away from the idea of a PUD, what's happening here is what supposed to happen. The City annexes land that has non- conforming uses, that non -conforming use basically plays itself out, in this case it took some 20- 25 years, and then eventually the use will become conforming and will become residential, commercial, retail or whatever the use happens to be." "I am concerned that Mr. Evans and Mr. Brown started their business, they don't seem to be particularly evil, conspiring men. They saw a building out there that Mr. Keulen had used for his business, it looked like a good business for them, Harris Marine went out of business, and they went and operated it. I'm sure the buildings are very much conducive to their use as a auto -related business. However, in doing so, that was illegal, anymore so than if anyone starts any business in any other part of the city that doesn't conform. This business has been operating now for about 11 months in that capacity and unfortunately for them, they operated it in such a fashion that it was incompatible with the neighborhood, which made them relatively angry. Now I understand the last V-8 engine ran yet today." "I guess the way we have to look at it is the way Mr. Walker did as if we go back to this period one year ago and Mr. Brown and Mr. Evans came in and said we would like to propose a boat repair and machine shop in this particular district. I understand that this is a PUD. I understand that it is an allowable process but it still strikes me, it is a one lot area, it really strikes me, as you will, as a rezoning or a permission to say let's take this PUD and continue it and if it is a compatible use, we still have a recommendation that after the discontinuation period of 12 months, any machine or repair shop used not allowed by the R-P zone must be re -reviewed and subject to the PUD process. It would seem to me that if this machine shop in this particular area is compatible, we ought not to have that. If the machine shop is compatible, that's fine. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 29 So, again, I'm certainly not in the business or having the intention of putting anybody out of business but I have some trouble qualifying this. I also agree with Lloyd's comment recognizing staff's interpretation of repair when do you actually start repairing an engine, when you take it out of the boat, when you unbolt it, when you run a sleeve drive in it. It seems to me as soon as you start to get out a wrench, tools, a screwdriver, and socket wrenches, you are in the process of repairing. And that takes place outdoors." Member Cottier said "I would like to say that I appreciate the comments of Lloyd and Joe. The thing I'm struggling with is the fact that in 1990, this Altair PUD was approved and all of us approved it. And I don't remember the details of that particular PUD and whether there was any neighborhood opposition to it or anything like that. So I'm a little troubled by consistency here and I guess I do think that with the restriction that are being offered at this point the proposed use is trying to fit in with the neighborhood and have minimal impact. But I'm real troubled by the fact that we all approved the last one." Chairman Strom said "Altair was an entirely different character of use. It was essentially a retail operation and operated with delivery service. To the best of my recollection, there wasn't anything in terms of automotive repair or anything of that nature. It was pet supplies and that • sort of thing." Member Carroll said "That's in here as a retail showroom for pet supplies, water filters and coolers, gas fireplaces and logs, corn heaters and electric fencing was what that was approved. And that still seems to me conceivably a legitimate use." Member Cottier said "But the logic that this was a non -conforming use also is what I'm addressing because what I'm suggesting is with the restrictions they are offering now, that the pollution aspects I don't think are valid to use as an example of how that's a less appropriate use there now." Member Walker said "I would like to comment that right next door we have an insurance business so it's not like it's a mixed -use area. And again, along with the Altair, I think there are different uses here. I believe that my concern on this is that the nature on which this business is being conducted is a question I have. I also, in referring again back to Item 2, it also talks about storage of various things to take place within that enclosed structure. Now, again, I will leave that open to the Board's interpretation but I have to sort of think motors are being pulled out of the boats, boats are being stored, we saw slides of five boats outside. So, again, it's just the kind of use on this property does not, in my mind, meet that criteria 2. Again, Altair was a different type of business. I voted for that. I felt like it was workable given the nature of the neighborhood just as the insurance company is. I just feel that this type of use is not appropriate." 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 30 Chairman Strom said "I will jump in with a thought or two. Devil's advocate side maybe but I suspect that the use is, as proposed now, granted that it hasn't been conducted necessarily in the best fashion in the past several months, but I have a pretty strong suspicion that a lot of the worst odors have been coming from the paint shop whether or not it's a commercial use or hobby shop. I've been in areas where auto painting has been done and it can be a very, very offensive kind of an odor. That isn't to say that there might not be something coming off of this use but a relatively small motor in a water tank and in, basically, indoor mechanical and machine shop uses, generally speaking, are, seems to me, would be much less likely to cause noise and odor and smoke problems. But that's just gives you some sense why I'm struggling with this. Other thoughts?" Member O'Dell said "I think that the concessions that the applicants are making to the neighbors in hopes of getting along with the neighbors is admirable and I have to believe that our system of compliance with zoning ordinances works. So, even though it makes it the responsibility of the neighbors to monitor the compliances in a lot of ways, I think because the applicants recognize that the neighbors are already watching and they're willing to have them watch them, I believe that it is going to work. And I believe that our zoning administrators or zoning officers will be responsive in this situation as well. So I will favor a motion of approval." Chairman Strom said "Would someone like to make a motion?" Member O'Dell said "Sure. I will make one. I move approval of Marine Sports West and Harris PUD (Keulen Subdivision) Preliminary and Final." Member Cottier said "Second." Chairman Strom said "The motion is seconded. Is there discussion?" Member O'Dell said "I really should add that the recommended condition by the Staff I will read aloud. Because of the existing residential character of the neighborhood, and because of the potential for future residential development in the area, the Marine Sports West and Harris Machine PUD shall expire should the business discontinue for a period of 12 consecutive months. After a discontinuation period of 12 consecutive months, any repair or machine shop use, or any use not allowed by the R-P zone, must be re -reviewed and subject to the PUD process." Chairman Strom said "I assume that that's acceptable to second? Any other comments, discussion on the motion? Can we have the roll call please." The motion to approve passed 4-2, with Members Carroll and Walker in the negative Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes November 16, 1992 Page 31 Chairman Strom stated that in a case like this, it was appropriate to remind the opponents that they do have the right to appeal if they so wished to City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peterson stated that there were four PUDs that were near expiration that the Board needs to take action on. These PUDs were the Park South PUD Final, the Market Place Lot 3 PUD Italian Oven PUD Final, Huntington Hills Second PUD Final, and the Kingston Woods Second PUD Final. He stated that staff was recommending the execution of the development agreements, the final plans, and the final plats be extended until the December 17 P&Z meeting. Mr. Herzig commented that the process is working for the City. He stated that the review process of the utility plans takes longer than the Planning and Zoning process. He stated that the more complex their review gets, where they review sub -drain design now that wasn't reviewed in the past, and there are more environmental issues. Mr. Peterson stated that the feedback received from developers is that, in many cases, they do not have their financing packaged together and they need time to negotiate. He added that the City is doing a lot more with the utility plans and do not wish to approve utility plans until they • meet City criteria and standards. He stated that it was understood that it was inconvenient for the Board to reconsider items such as these every month because they didn't get complete for one reason or another. Chairman Strom asked if it would be difficult to come up with a more realistic guess as to how long it would take each of these individual ones to come to fruition or are they case -by -case situations. Mr. Herzig stated that each project is unique in itself and it is often times it's is working with a neighbor, some cooperative, some not. He added that part of the complication in these plans is that the engineering community is very busy with designs and have a difficult time keeping up with the work, thus submitting incomplete work, which takes more review on the City's part to get a project complete. Member Carroll suggested that, in the future, these items should be placed on the Consent Agenda instead of under Other Business at the end of the meeting. Member Carroll moved to extend to the December 17, the execution of the development agreements, final plans, and final plans of Park South PUD Final, the Market Place Lot 3 PUD Italian Oven PUD Final, Huntington Hills Second PUD Final, and the Kingston Woods Second PUD Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 0 The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ComrnL Katy Planning and Environmental .Services Planning Department -- City of Fort Collins November 16, 1992 Mr. Peter Kast G.T. Land Colorado Inc. Stanford Plaza 3555 Stanford Road Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. We have had an opportunity to review them and offer the following responses which will be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board. Several of theses issues will be discussed in further detail at hearing this evening. I. Regarding the question of where to measure the setback from, typically they are measured from the property line (right-of-way). This is desirable because measuring from the future edge of ROW is easier to determine due to the fact that the current ROW parallels the section lines and is a consistent width (60'), from the Bridge east to County Road 5. The proposed ROW is 100' and can be easily divided between each side of the road and each property owner will equally share the responsibility. The City currently maintains all of Prospect Road even though some section are located in the County. The State owns and maintains the 1-25 overpass ROW and the frontage roads at the interchange. Determining the H;krmony Road setback was unique because it was owned by the State and the location of the pavement meandered throughout the corridor. This made it difficult to determine a fair and equitable system for providing a setback area along the road. Determining the setback line from the future edge of pavement was easier in this case and achieved the desired concept. 2. The comment regarding subjective language pertains to a section on Interpretive areas within the Riverway District. The section which is referenced is a voluntary guideline only and is followed by a descriptive paragraph which identifies agencies who would most likely implement the interpretive program. All of the land within the Riverway District is in the tloodway and most is currently in public ownership. Because this is a voluntary guideline we would not require public or private owners to implement this item, although it would be strongly encouraged in the public open spaces. '-RI Aorth C ilege Al enue • P.O. Boy ;NU • h'It Cal �Ih"-ii,,Ni . ;ii:� •,�_„--, • 3. The comments regarding the Architectural Sections as being to intrusive are addressed in the ATTACHMENTS according to each design style. Also included is a copy of the Architectural Design section from the Harmony Corridor Design Standards and Guidelines. • 4. The design of the interchange approaches and bridge should project a character which unifies and enhances the "gateway" image for the community. By developing a concept which coordinates the four corners and the approaches, we will achieve a cohesive image not only as one enters from the east or west, but from the north and south too. When entering the City From the north or south we will see both sides (east & west) of the interstate and a unified landscape will enhance the community image. 5. This is a great idea and was discussed at the last open house. We presented the cost/benefits at that time and didn't to include this information in the DRAFT. The costs were based on present (1992) cost factors. Development costs based on present day costs average about $3.00/sq. foot while maintenance costs average between .05-.10 cents/ sq. foot. This information was verified by local nurseries and landscape contractors. This information can easily be integrated into the Implementation Section Summary following the first paragraph and should read as follows: Once again, thank you for youritelp in reviewing the Program. If you have :any questions or comments please feel free to call me or Janet Meisel. Sincerely T m Peterson, AICP Planning Director ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high quality architectural design within the Urban Developed District, 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. (+) t. Architectural detail and interest on all elevations The predominant architectural building finish shall be of brick, tile, other masonry or concrete. The building shall be integrated with landscape grading by berming against the building face adjaceneto the Setback Zone. (+) `t1t,.5 C"Ca �•t aq,,�.�c� 6o� , Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to not be visible from public streets. (+) ` Mechanical equipment screening and incorporation into architecture W©f 1G� 1't l�j ColeS�•S%nf �i t Awning signs shall not be permitted t b' bacN-lit zcept of inlio dtat • letters and business logo only. The extent of signage on an awning shall be limited to the lesser of thirty -rive (35)square feet perindividualtenant ` ace or twenty-five 25 g,r� c\ e s . P ty- ()percentofthetotalareaoftheawnin and shall � { be applied to the most vertical portion of the awning. Awning signs shall Ot_� not be allowed above the first story of a building. ) PARKING AND SERVICE AREAS The following standards and guidelines are intended to enhance the design ofparking and service areas in developments located adjacent to Prospect Road, outside the Setback Zone. The goal is to have these areas as visually unobtrusive as possible. • Parking areas shall be screened from public streets by plant material, fencing and/or berming. (+) Ba'IQ a„a planang to screen parking Parking is prohibited within the Setback Zone. (+) Parking areas shall not attend for more than three -hundred (300) feet along the Developed Urban District (adjacent to the Setback Zone) without a significant visual break provided by buildings and/or land- scaped.open space. (+) Large parking lots should be broken into sections not to exceed two hundred (200) cars each, separated by a twenty (20)-foot landscape buffer to provide the appearance of separation. (o) IT— 15 LIGHTING The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to encourage consistentl ghtquality in the Corridorand to reduce conflictsbetweenpublic 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 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 Riverway District along Prospect Road. The light source will be high pressure sodium lamps. (+) 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. Consistent use of high pressure sodium light sources contributes to the aesthetic quality of the Corridor. Projects are encouraged to use high pressure sodium light sources In their site design. (o) 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. (+) ARCHITECfURAL_DESIGN The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high quality architectural design within the Rtverway District, so that the archi- tecture of the buildings adds to the visual interest of the Corridor. The architectural character OJIMis area should reflect the Influence of the river and thenatural characterofthevalley. This area has been impacted bymany dfferent influences, from flooding and agriculture to gravel mining opera- tions. Building materials for this area should promote the unique elements ofthe area and include washed cobble, large river washed boulders and the histortcgrout orstucco materials usedby the earlysettle softher'ivervalley. The predominant building material finish shall be of stucco, mssonry�-� material or concrete. Washed river rock in various sizes and large cobbles maybe used in walls, foundations, signage or retaining walls. (+) tu— 4- • The location of all buildings in this area should be sensitive to the views from Prospect Road and t river, with g on articulated, walls fron these corridors o) ll Hie (�- (c�uti+l�l.�.Gl�, ���a.�t„lo1`�u<�o�S �q,0.'•UL ,, � J However, buildings shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include, architectural detail and enhancement, rather than placing heavy em- 1^-6 phasis solely on the front elevation and ignoring the need to apply t o t���• Llu aesthetic enhancements to the other elevations. Any accessory building or enclosure shall be similar to the principal building In design and materials. () The a u r�dijlg height shag be enty-flvf (�S� f`( t. (+) �p< ,a�� c� erLS Wr vl 1ht. G(`4o.� -ia ('C�- ouA Y1^�6 ` Fa(t�c.&r_ 1. Rooftop mechanical equipmen�shall be screened so as to not be visible frgm all Public rights-0 -w y + I I N s ��s b��n ta✓ 1i�) 4i Nca �twti Awning signs shall not be permitted too b ba k-lieZ ept for in n'al V w^b5 letters and business logo only. The extent of signage on an awning shall i be limited to thelesser of thirty-five (35) square feet perindividual tenant space or twenty-five (25) percent of the totalarea of the awning, and shall be applied to the most vertical portion of the awning. Awning signs shall not be allowed above the firs story of the building. • PARING AND SERVICE ARFC\1' Cc��4 eysYt i t Fig r C( o rC�t The following standards and guidelines are intended to enhance theesign ofparldngandservieeareasindevelopments locatedintheNverwayDistrict, outside the Setback Zone. The goal is to have these areas as visually unobtrusive as possible. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets by plant material, fencing and/or berming. (+) • Parking Is prohibited within the Setback Zone. (+) Psrklag areas shall not extend for more than three -hundred (300) feet alON900 Prospect Road f1 pntage (adjacent to the Setback Zone) without a sigtdD¢ant visual break provided by landscaped open space. (+) Utility equipment, storage areas, service areas, loading docks and trash collection areas shall be screened with berming, plant material and/or fencing and shall be located so that they are not visible from public streets. (+) Loading and service areas should be designed as an integral part of the building architecture to the extent practical. (o) J I cj When development occurs, public street lighting along the Corridor will be standard City futures on thirty (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 2.0 Footcandles for the Highway Corridor area and no greater than 1.0 Footcandle for the Rural Residential area along Prospect Road. The light source will be high pressure sodium lamps. (+) 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. Consistent use of high pressure sodium light sources contributes to the aesthetic quality of the Corridor. Projects are encouraged to use high pressure sodium light sources in their site design. (o) Trees with maximum heights above thirty (30) feet &ball be spaced atleast forty (40) feet from a streetlight, (+) Trees with a maximum height of less than fifty (30) feet may be phmted as close as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+) DESIGN The purpose of the following standards and guidelines it to promote high quality architectural design within the fthwuyCorridorandRural 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- ^" 5 .F 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 accessorybuilding or enclosure shall iie f Jcv" L` 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 be of brick, tile, other masonry or concrete. The first story shall be bermed into the landscaping. (+) _ ��7 �J1 I , 11 vG G��-t il'�L�IYIC� (O> All developments within the Prospect Corridor should be sensitive to views from Prospect Road and the I-25 overpass and rovide for the preservation of some views where possible. (o) _� �(tccwu��c.4;15 �r✓'t�x ' ._ 4-D 12;r--ia • Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to not to be visible —i o'a Hs %�odva4� from any public street Right -of -Way. (+) Cav'1 io�Y b ccnar equipment screentng, ptacenwm, and incorporation into ari*mctwe Because the I-25 Overpass provides scenic views to the front range and Fort Collins, it is important that all roof tops are architecturally enhanced and/or mechanical equipment be screened, removed or placed so as not to be visible from the public view at that overpass. This may included moving systems to ground level to achieve this standard. Awing signs shall not be permitted to be back -lit except for Individual letters and business logo only. The extent of signage on an awning shall be limited to the lesser of thirty-five (35) square feet or twenty-five (25) percent of the total area of the awning, and shall be applied to the most vertical portion of the awning. Awning signs shall not be allowed above the first story of a building. (+) n I r I wWn • PARKING AND SERVICE AREAS The following standards and guidelines are Intended to enhanc a design ofparking and service areas in developments located adjacent to Prospect Road. The goal is to have these areas as visually unobtrusive as possible. All parking areas shall be screened from public streets by plant material, fencing and/or berming. (+) r Parking is prohibited within the Setback Zone. (+) Parking areas shall not extend for more than three hundred (300) feet alongthe Prospect Road frontage (adjacent to the Setback Zone) without A significant visual breab provided by buildings and/or landscaped open space. (+) LArg4 •parking lots should be broken into sections not to exceed two hundred (200) cars each, separated by a twenty (20) foot or greater landscape buffer to provide the appearance of separation. (o) • LIGHTING The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to encourage consistent light quality in the Prospect Cor7idorandl-25frontage road area and to reduce conflicts betweenpublicstreetlighting, privatelightingandfree placement. When development occurs, public street lighting along Prospect Road and the I-25 frontage roads will be standard city futures on 30 foot high, bronze tone 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 stan- dards., These design standards would result in lighting levels no greater than 2.0 Footcandles for the Highway Corridor area along Prospect Road. The light source will be high pressure sodium lamps. (+) Consistent use of high pressure sodium light sources contributes to the aesthetic quality of the Corridor. Projects are encouraged to use high pressure sodium light sources in their site design. (o) 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 d se as fifteen (15) feet from a streetlight. (+) ARCHITEC TURAI, DESIG The purpose of the following standards and guidelines is to promote high quality architectural design within the Highway Corridor District and the l- 25 frontage road areas, so that the architecture of the buildings addf 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. (+) k s a — The predominant architectural building finish for the Highway Corri- dor District shall be brick, tile, other masonry material or concrete. Buildings shall be Integrated with the landscape grading by berming against the building face adjacent to the Setback Zone. (+) - I� CDu All buildingsiting within the el • kids\ .:c 1. g Highway Corridor District should be sensitive to views from Prospect Road and the 1-25 overpass, and should provide open areas for key views where possible. (o) �r i Y-9 • The building mass, bulk and size should not dominate the development. Smaller buildings that are unified in architectural character should be developed so that the maximum building coverage does not exceed thirty (30) percent for any parcel. (o) 30% Lot Coverage Mu. 3096Iot coverage max �ttcgl5 �k Cr`� Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to not to be visible from any public right-of-way. This shall include screening an rooftop mechanical systems which are visible from the 1=25 overpass. If neces- sary, mechanical equipment shall be located at ground level and screened (+) `Tp� � i an v l f IaJ 4ro.`iTc C�fll eC�* v aoA eX�o �19� 6vL V�SUSL.� l Tts� Yo6��-1-oP r�c� 1��,�coil 5uewts . 1-25 Overpaaa J a^ Mechanical equipment screening or hworporadon into amititecttrre Awning signs sball not be permitted to be back -lit except for individual letters and business logo only. The extent of signage on an awning shalt be limited to the lesser of thirty-five (35) square feet or twenty-five (25) percent of the total area of the awning, and shall be applied to the most vertical portion of the awning. Awning signs shall not be allowed above the first story of a building. (+) 'kc�\ t VL. Ir4ll�JO All buildings in the Highway Corridor District shall be integrated into a "campus orpark" like setting. Clustering of buildings into pedestrian oriented areas with shared parking is required. (+) "10 CL-Q(,�.CIe�w1E� I-1 Shared Parting Area Buildings clustered into campus" setting n -y- I I IV - IMPLEMENTATION • SUMMARY • • A series of recommended implementation actions and funding options are included in this section of the Program. Implementation actions summarize the options and identify the lead agencies and timing. General options for funding are discussed, although there is no commitment to specific funding sources at this time. Preferred funding options are highlighted and the preferred option may be a combination of several different funding sources. The Prospect Corridor is estimated to develop over a 20 year time period and the implementation actions define a program that spans this time frame and provides flexibility if new funding sources or alternative implementation actions are identified. The design standards and guidelines implement the design styles as described in the Program, by creating a design framework for improvements along the streetscape. The standards and guidelines are to be used as a design aid for both public improvements and by private developers proposing projects in the Corridor, and; as an evaluation tool by the Planning and Zoning Board and City staff in the development review process. Minor changes are recommended to the City's development review process, 32 and the standards and guidelines would apply to all planned unit developments (PUD) or land uses which require landscape and/or site plan approval by City staff. Some of the implementation recommendations will require additional planning and/or design work, for example, a comprehensive master plan for the Riverbend Ponds open space should be prepared prior to any streetscape improvements or widening of Prospect Road. Additional design work and funding sources for the construction and maintenance of the interchange at I-25 and Prospect Road is critical if the City wants to maximize its opportunities for this gateway into Fort Collins. Other actions may require coordination among City departments, Larimer County, CSU and the State Department of Transportation. This Program recommends that the City assign staff and resources to complete the implementation elements of the Program, giving priority to the adoption of the Program and amending the zoning code so that opportunities for a unified and enhanced streetscape may be implemented immediately. Effective implementation actions can turn the vision created by this Program into reality for existing residents and for future generations. 0 U Fort Coll 0 _N' . .... E: �.... .... . ......... .. ... ..... •. HIGHWAY 14 .. .. ..... ...... �.......... .... �.�.... Ami os PUD ...........;. :..........: .. OR-T... FOR ::. ........... ". fir 'COLLtNS::::..,: ...:. ... ... ... .. ..�. ..... ...................... ...................... 4 ... .. ........... ............ :: f.... G `�,:.,.... ........ ....✓s•�7`.. ...^�— ". , Prn. a .t .nrr P' ......... .. ........ ........�. s Senior Center .... .. •��• . ........ ........ .` } �........... }V` " :::: : Fi-re Station #10 Silver Oaks:::::.... F / nglish Ran ..: .'.::: :. :� . .... ... ...... Gates at Woodridge .. •� " Overlook at Woodridge' • ........... J