HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/26/1993• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
April 26, 1993
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The April 26, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Vice Chairman Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell, Rene Clements -Cooney,
Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Jan'Cottier. Chairman Walker was absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Kirsten
Whetstone, Steve Olt and Georgiana Taylor.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item I -Minutes
of the March 22, 1993 meeting; Item 2 - Ranchway Feeds Bin Renovation PUD - Preliminary
and Final, #14-93; Item 3 - Spradley Barr Isuzu - Non Conforming Use Request - 016-93; Item
4 - Harmony Market PUD, 5th Filing - Preliminary and Final, 054-87G; Item 5 - Oakridge
PUD, Block One, Lot One - Final, #13-82BD; Item 6 - Dakota Pines PUD - Preliminary and
Final, #60-91F; Item 7 - McIntosh PUD - Preliminary and Final, #12-93; Item 8 - Best Western
• Transmissions PUD - Preliminary and Final, 015-93; Item 9 - Stoneridge Amended Overall
Development Plan, #21-92B; Item 10 - Stoneridge PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary and Final,
#21-92E; Item 11 - East Vine Streets Facility Amended Overall Development Plan, #30-91;
Item 12 - East Vine Streets Facility, Phase 1 - Final, #30-91B; Item 13 - Windemere Professional
Park Subdivision - Final, #50-83C; Item 14 - Greenstone PUD, lst Filing - Final, #54-92D;
Item 15 - Greenstone PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #54-92E; Item 16 - Linden Ridge 1st Filing -
Preliminary - County Referral, #21-93; Item 17 - Pineview PUD, Tract C, Preliminary -
Extension Request, #76-81D; Item 18 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval; Item
19 - Blue Spruce Farm Annexation Amendment, #33-87B
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 20 -
Oakwood School - NCL Site Plan Review; Item 21 - Collindale Business Park - Overall
Development Plan, #7-82D; Item 22 - Timberline Storage PUD - Preliminary and Final, #7-82E;
Item 23 - Fox Creek PUD - Preliminary, #5-93B, Continued until the May 3, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Item 24 - Shopko PUD - Final, #1-93A; Item 25 - The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD -
Preliminary, #146-79N, Continued until the May, 3, 1993 P & Z Meeting.
Staff pulled Item 4 for discussion.
Member Clements -Cooney pulled items 9 and 10-for discussion.
Vice -Chairman Carroll asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to pull an
item for discussion.
There was no response.
•
Member O'Dell moved for approval of consent items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, and 19.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
HARMONY MARKET PUD 5TH FILING - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the Staff report and stated that this project was pulled
because of a letter he received today from Laurie Pesetto, 1131 Live Oak Court. She asked that
her letter be read into the record because she could not be here tonight.
Mr. Shepard read Ms. Pesetto's letter into the record stating concerns with children crossing at
the intersection of Lemay and Oakridge to visit Steele's Market. She also had concerns with
environmental and health concerns with a petroleum based business close to Oakridge
neighbors. They had concerns about no traffic signal and no sidewalks.
Mr. Shepard stated that the letter was also signed by seven other residents with addresses on
Live Oak and Sawtooth Court in the Oakridge subdivision.
Vice -Chairman Carroll asked Mr. Shepard to address the issues in the letter.
Mr. Shepard replied he could respond to the health concern on the petroleum based business.
It was not a business that would have underground gas tanks. This was a business that has oil
that would be stored above ground in the appropriate sized containers for servicing
automobiles for oil changes. Waste oil would be stored above in drums that are picked up on
a frequent interval by a licensed hauler. Staff did not think there was a health concern based
on this business being in the business of lubricants and petroleum based products.
Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, stated that there were sidewalks installed along Lemay
Avenue. There would be sidewalk along Oakridge Drive as well. Normal sidewalk connections
were there to access Steele's. As far as this use creating a hazard for children, this meets all
current City standards for arterial and collector streets. If there was a need for a traffic signal
in the future, as warrants are met, the Traffic Department would address that by installing a
traffic signal. This was a location where there would be a traffic signal when the warrants are
met.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked to see slides of the existing sidewalks or where the sidewalks
would be and where the flow of pedestrians might come across.
Mr. Herzig, went through slides, locating streets and pointed out existing sidewalks in both
locations on Oakridge Drive and Lemay Avenue. He also pointed out the access to Steele's
Market.
Member Strom asked for a brief discussion of the architectural compatibility of this project
with the rest of the center.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated they would be using masonry and synthetic stucco
materials and gabled roof form as already established in Harmony Market. They have modeled
the same form and materials and colors as well as berming and landscaping and screening.
• PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Member Klataske moved for approval of Harmony Market PUD, 5th filing.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Member Clements -Cooney stated she pulled these items and would like a presentation of both
items and her concerns were with the density.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the Staff report recommending approval of both items with
the following conditions on the 2nd filing approval.
I. Staff recommends a variance be granted from the absolute requirement of the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. that the density, on a gross acreage basis,
be a minimum of three dwelling units per acre.
2. Staff recommends a variance be granted to allow 28 feet wide streets, from curb to
curb, on Jewelstone Court, Jadestone Court, and Rosestone Court.
. 3. The standard condition on development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD
plans be completed within 2 months of approval.
Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, representing the applicant, pointed out that the
main reason for amending the Overall Development Plan was not density related, but to more
accurately locate the recreation and swimming complex. The density did change slightly from
3.4 per acre to 3.1 units to the acre on the Overall Development Plan.
Mr. Vaught stated that the Overall Development Plan did comply with the minimum density
of 3 units per acre and tonight they were just looking at one piece of the plan, the second phase
of this development. There were different densities within this development that did achieve
up to 8 units to the acre.
Mr. Vaught stated they were trying to accomplish a unique subdivision in Fort Collins more
like some of the developments in the late 70's and early 80's and because it borders an arterial
street they have designed the open space along Horsetooth Road and had incorporated that
concept throughout the entire project.
Mr. Vaught stated they had urban size lots from 7,500 to 12,000 s.f., and that 95% of the lots
have access directly onto the open space and also accomplish the goals of the solar ordinance.
Mr. Vaught stated that there was a major bike trail that connects this property on a north/south
access both to Horsetooth Road to the elementary school to the south, as well as to the high
school and city park.
• 3
Mr. Les Kaplan, developer of the project, stated this was a lover density, mixed residential use.
They have patio homes on the west side of the first phase which was a buffer between them
and Dakota Ridge and the high school. The balance of the first phase, 17 acres, was the same
land use configuration that they have in the second filing.
Mr. Kaplan stated the lowering of the density was not a major objective of changing the overall
development plan. He talked about the master plan, the density of the project and
configuration of future single and multi -family phases.
Member Clements -Cooney stated there was a request for a variance from the absolute
requirement that the density be a minimum of 3 d.u./per acre on a gross acreage basis. Was any
other configuration considered to meet the requirement.
Mr. Kaplan stated that the objective of the project was urban size lots bordering green belts.
The lots were the same size, maybe a little bigger in 2nd filing as in the Ist. He stated that the
lots from the lst filing and the lots in the 2nd filing were linked together by the greenbelt and
what they had is kind of a curviinear park which surrounds the lots.
PUBLIC INPUT
Dick Chin, lives on the corner of County Road 9 and Horsetooth. He spoke in favor of the
project and the urban size lots and would like to see a lower density to blend in with the
acreages that have homes on out there already.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member O'Dell stated she also was concerned about the lowering of the density and thought
there was a trend being established and this was an example of what going on around the City.
She thought overall this development did meet the criteria of the 3 du/per acre.
Member O'Dell moved for approval of Stoneridge Amended Overall Development Plan.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
Member O'Dell moved for approval of Stoneridge PUD, 2nd filing, Preliminary and Final.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
OAKWOOD SCHOOL N-C-L SITE PLAN REVIEW FINAL - #13-93
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the staff report recommending approval.
Victor Smith, applicant, stated they were planning on having a small school of 60-75 students.
They thought the impact on the neighborhood would be positive. They were interested in
fitting in the neighborhood and being a. part of the neighborhood.
• Mr. Smith talked about the school, the classroom site and that they have responded and acted
on the neighborhood concerns. They have talked to the neighbors and the Neighborhood
Association and the Board should have a copy of their letter supporting the project.
They would be improving the landscaping of the site, they would be paving the alley, they had
done a traffic impact analysis that revealed very little traffic impact on the neighborhood.
They would institute a carpooling plan and they have staggered departure times to lessen the
impact on the neighborhood. They would apply for a school zone on Mountain Avenue and also
have a no parking area on McKinley Avenue.
Mr. Smith stated they have talked to many of the neighbors in the area and believed there was
hope for the school in the neighborhood when they find that the school is concerned with the
neighborhood.
Member O'Dell asked about encouraging car pooling and staggering the starting times of classes
and what if someone has more than one child at the school.
Mr. Smith replied that they were staggering the departure times, not the starting times. The
times were staggered by 10 minutes.
Member O'Dell asked if the parents would park and come in the building or were they
discouraging that and asking them to stay outside.
Mr. Smith replied that they would be encouraging parents to drop off the children on McKinley
Avenue and then just drive on. That is the loading and drop off area.
• Member Cottier asked about them applying fora school zone designation and who they were
applying for that from.
Mr. Smith replied from the Traffic Department.
Member Cottier asked if it would be for both Mountain and McKinley.
Mr. Smith replied for Mountain Avenue only, and that was by the recommendation of the
neighbors.
Member Cottier asked if there would be flashing yellow lights or just a sign that just says
"school".
Mr. Smith replied they would like to have the flashing lights but that would be up to the
Traffic Department.
Member Cottier asked if there would be a flashing yellow lights for a school zone, would it be
on both sides of Mountain or just on the south side.
Ms. Whetstone replied that typically they were on both sides of the street, and she did not know
the chances of them getting a signal with it being a small school.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was anyone who could answer that here tonight being
this was a final.
• 5
Ms. Whetstone replied that she was not sure who has the final authority. If you requested that
they have a school zone it may be that transportation would say they can't do that. She thought
that if it was possible for them to put a school zone in they would.
Member Clements -Cooney asked how much walking traffic they would have.
Mr. Smith replied that in the enrollment so far, about 20% would be walking and they would
also encourage children to ride their bikes to school and also carpooling.
Member Cottier asked if there was a space for bike racks.
Mr. Smith pointed the bike racks out on the site plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mike Vogel, supported the project and stated that two years ago he lived two doors down from
the subject property. He was not trying to speak for the neighborhood or speak down to the
neighborhood. He was aware and has a sense of the kind of impacts of the neighborhood that
occur. He lived there when the subject property was a church with an active congregation. He
has a fondness of the neighborhood and an interest in seeing it protected and well maintained.
Mr. Vogel stated that his son was a student of the applicant and they were excited to see that
Oakwood was going to happen. He wanted to reassure the neighbors if they have any
remaining concerns about the fact that he thought this was a very compatible use for the
property.
Mr. Vogel thought that the education received at Oakwood was very rooted in respect. His
experience with Mr. Smith and the curriculum that he has taught in the past and expect him
to provide in the future was one that very strongly emphasizes environmental awareness and
responsibility. He also thought the school being located by City Park would enhance the
outdoor activities for both the school and the neighborhood.
R.D. Lakin, has lived in the area for 25 years. He thought the traffic issue was an insignificant
item and that a couple of signs on each side of the street would be adequate. With the children
being close to the park for outdoor activities, he could not think of a better place for a
community based school.
Ron Steinbach, representing the City Park Neighborhood Association, 1345 West Mountain. He
stated that this was the first significant change that has taken place in their neighborhood
since the adoption of the N-C-L zone.
He stated they did have some long term concerns that regardless who owns the property over
the next 15 to 20 years, that whatever was decided here tonight, that they could count on that
what the Board agrees on tonight was locked in and with a change of ownership they would
not have to fight the same issues again.
They generally support the project, but there were two issues. One was a traffic issue and the
other was the impact on the property owners directly to the west of the site. He thought the
traffic issue of concern was the McKinley dropoff. Having lived through a number of
Sunday's there, a loading zone, a no parking zone the length from Mountain to the alley is
critical for safety because the width of the road was not adequate to have cars parked on both
sides and having parents letting children off in the middle of the street.
. Another issue was the current property has a drive way that goes along the west side of the
property. They proposed to fence that off, it was very important that it become permanently
disabled. They were a little worried that if a fence goes up and in five years it comes down,
they can start using the drive way again.
They were also concerned about whether there would be any outside play or not. On the
original proposal they stated there would be none. The plan they saw a couple of weeks ago
showed that the fenced area may be used for some kind of play area and they would like the
applicant to elaborate on that.
As far as the school zone, it would be a nice plus for them. He thought it would be a plus for
the whole neighborhood. Something to call attention to the commuters, particularly the
morning and afternoon commuters that are in a hurry to get home, and it would be good to
have a reminder that it was a neighborhood and there was a school there.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked Ms. Whetstone to address the issues of McKinley being proposed
as a drop point.
Ms. Whetstone replied that on the site plan it was being shown as a drop off point.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if someone wanted to add parking spaces to that and eliminate
part of it as a drop off point, what would they do.
Ms. Whetstone replied she had talked. to Transportation about it and they indicated that it was
something they would be willing to do, to stripe it and sign it "no parking" between certain
hours. That idea had been accepted by Transportation and if someone wanted to change that
• it would be in violation of the site plan.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if it was the same for the fence on the west driveway.
Ms. Whetstone replied that was true, if someone was to remove the fence on the west driveway
and were using it. It would be up to the neighborhood to let them know that happened. Just
about any use on this site, except for single family use would basically, for the same reasons,
not be allowed to have the driveway. It would be a requirement of the site plan.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked the applicant to address the outdoor play area.
Mr. Smith replied that they decided to fence it off and use it as a designated outdoor area for
the children. It would not be a play area. It would be used to plant things and maybe have
some picnic tables out there during the spring. Children may be going out during the day just
for a little exercise. There would be no equipment.
Gail. McMahon, 1319 West Mountain, stated her concerns about the school were the night
functions and the parking for parents.
Mr. Smith replied they had discussed that with both the City and at the neighborhood meeting
and what they came up with was that anybody could have a party and have the same number
of cars. They plan on having three functions per year at night.
Ms. McMahon stated that there was a lot of on street parking in this neighborhood and there
was a rental property on McKinley and they needed to park on McKinley. She thought they
• would end up with more that three functions per year.
Ms. McMahon stated that she was under the impression that the intersection of West Mountain
and Shields was one of the most dangerous in the City. Traffic was one of her concerns. She
talked with the Transportation Department this week and was told that the traffic on West
Mountain was given a grade for traffic during peak hours and the grade given was C. She
hoped they took the traffic situation under their thought process.
Ms. McMahan asked about the project to close one lane of traffic on each side of Mountain to
develop it into a bike lane and how would that impact the traffic in addition to the school on
Mountain Avenue.
Mr. Smith replied that he had asked the traffic. engineer that did the traffic study that very
question and the traffic engineer could not see.an impact at all.
Steve Mork, property owner to the west of the proposed school. His concerns were the road
directly west of the building and he saw the fence as being a temporary fixture and at some
time it could be taken down and the road could be used at some other point in time. He would
want in some form of writing, that it could not be used for this sort of purpose. His other
concern was noise with the children using that area as a play area. They have two dogs and
was concerned with them barking. He would like to see more buffering in that area. They
have agreed to a schedule where they were aware of when the children were out, they could
bring the dogs in. That was a bare minimum he could live with and he was in the neighborhood
before the school.
Vice -Chairman Carroll pointed out the site plan on the board and stated that the site plan
approved by the Board would become City record, which would control this plan. If any
change were to be made to that, they would have to come back to the Planning and Zoning
Board for that. He stated it would be up to the neighbors to report any violations of the site
plan.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Mork if he would support removing the drive way and have it made
lawn in front.
Mr. Mork replied that was what he had requested. His. understanding was that because of
financial considerations, it was not being considered. He would give up a pad in his front yard
that they park their car on to see the road removed.
Ms. Whetstone pointed out a note on the site plan, #13, stating the drive -way would be
permanently disabled.
Ted Rosin, lives 3 doors down to the west. He thought that it should be mandatory that the
drive way be removed and shrubs planted thereto keep out the noise. There needed to be a
buffer zone between the school and the neighbors.
Mr. Rosin asked about paving the alley and that was a concern with the neighbors down the
road in that the alley would be used to drop the kids off or used as a shortcut to get out and
they would have increased traffic down the alley.
Mr. Smith stated that the traffic flow down the alley would be prohibited and they were paving
the alley because it was a requirement of the City.
Mr. Rosin asked what the difference was between an exercise area and a play area.
• Mr. Smith replied there would be some noise from children, there always is. He stated they
could not guarantee they would be absolutely quiet. The main play area would be Cit� Park.
They also have a gymnasium in the building. This area would be for a little exercrsq, a few
minutes of fresh air. J
Fred Zipp, 1415 West Mountain, stated his main concern was traffic. He thought tho school
zone should be resolved. He also had concerns with parking at school events and the roposed
bike way down Mountain Avenue.
Mr. Zipp asked Mr. Smith if the whole alley would be paved.
Mr. Smith replied that it was the width of their property.
Mr. Zipp thought that a lot of the traffic issues were speculative at this point and no one really
knows for sure since they did not know what would be happening with the bikeway at this
point and wanted to voice his concerns about traffic flow in the area.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked that the traffic issue be addressed.
Ms. Whetstone stated that Staff did request a traffic study because of concerns voiced at a
neighborhood meeting.
Matt Delich, 3413 Banyon Avenue, Loveland, stated he did the traffic study on this.
�y
Vice Chairman Carroll asked about the impact of traffic on Mountain Avenue and McKinley.
Also, about the proposed bikeway down Mountain Avenue and the impacts it would have.
• Mr. Delich replied that the volumes on Mountain Avenue was the only street they have counts
on. They do not have counts on McKinley, it is a very light traveled street. Traffic volumes
on Mountain, just to the west of Shields, were at about 2400 per day, which is very light travel.
If you reduce it to one lane in both directions it would still remain at level A. The gaps would
tighten up some, but the level would stay at A. This school would add traffic to both Mountain
and McKinley and the street could handle it and the service would still stay in service level A
through most of the day.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that one of the residents was given the information that
Mountain Avenue was operating at Level C, and was he saying that was not correct, that it was
at Level A.
Mr. Delich replied that the section of street west of Shields was at A for this volume of traffic.
Member Clements -Cooney asked about parking along Mountain Avenue.
Mr. Delich replied that he did not address that in his work.
Vice Chairman Carroll stated there were other uses in the City where on an occasional day, the
volume of parking exceeded what was normally there. Were there any policies on that in the
City.
Ms. Whetstone replied that a use, especially a P.U.D. use would provide for off-street parking
for the required guidelines for the number of employees. The school was trying to work with
• carpooling and on event nights could suggest they park at City Park where there was public
9'
parking. There was no policy that says they need to provide on street parking for all special
occasions.
Member O'Dell commented that all elementary, schools in the district have the same situation
and it was not a problem, it just happens for a couple of hours and then they are gone.
R.D. Lakin, resident, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and there was
one night of the year, every year, that they have a parking problem. Somehow they survive it
and could abide by it.
Eileen Gabler, lives kitty corner to the school, had not heard numbers that relate to the number
of people that attended the congregation when it was a church as opposed to the school. The
congregation had quite a few cars parking. They were encouraged to use the border of City
Park rather than clog up McKinley. Maybe if the school had some recommendation they could
do that. Oak Street was basically two blocks over and it would Seem to be a good solution.
Mr. Smith replied that the church had a congregation of 150 people that met weekly.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED.
Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of the issuei on the loading zone on McKinley
Avenue and where the rental property was that was using all the parking on McKinley Drive.
Mr. Smith replied that the loading zone was the area all along McKinley from Mountain
Avenue to the alley. There would be no parking along McKinley on the west side.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a concern about the east side of McKinley.
Mr. Smith replied that they did not affect the east side.
Member Clements -Cooney asked about the rental property and the parking situation.
Gail McMahon pointed out the rental property on the map and pointed out where the rental
cars were parking. She stated that the corner lots on Oak Street were also using it for parking.
Ms. McMahon stated that there was only room for one car to travel when cars are parked on
both sides of the street.
Member Cottier asked if no parking from Mountain to the alley would be during school hours.
Ms. Whetstone stated that was her understanding and it could be put on the site plan that way
and what she was hearing was that it would be signed and striped to the alley and that would
be during certain hours during school.
Member Cottier stated that would be adequate and it was not this property's concern to provide
an on street parking space for the rental across the street.
Mr. Smith added that one thing about having a small school was the communication with the
parents and if it is a problem, they would ask the parents not to park there.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Smith to comment on the issue of tearing out the drive way on the
west side.
10
•
• Mr. Smith replied it seemed to him that they'were fencing off the driveway and that was
permanent as far as they were concerned and they would be in violation of the site plan if they
did use it as a driveway. They would rather leave it there because of the expense of taking it
out.
Member Cottier stated that it was one feature that could really improve the site if they could
tear out the driveway and add some plantings to buffer them from the neighborhood.
Mr. Smith replied that it could be done in the future, it was just to limit expense right now,
They are putting a buffer in on the west side of the building and pointed it out on the site plan.
Vice Chairman Carroll stated that if a motion for approval were made on this item, 014 of the
site plan needed to be clarified as to how long it would be.
Member Strom moved for approval of Oakwood School - NCL Site Plan Review. He thought
it was a very good readaptive use for this building. He thought that the applicants had worked
to resolve all the concerns that the neighbors have. He added the condition that they clarify
the question of limiting parking on the west side of McKinley to provide adequate pickup and
drop off area during school hours and also, not a condition of approval, but that they encourage
the City Transportation Department to look at the possibility of a school zone on Mountain
Avenue.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion and stated that the school zone did not have to
be flashing yellow, there were also signs of school designation without lights and would leave
it up to the Transportation Department to research and choose which one would be adequate.
• She would also like to encourage the school to always be aware that they live in the
neighborhood and encouraged the neighborhood to go to the school first if there is a problem
as to create a neighborly relationship.
Member Cottier stated she would support the motion. She thought this use would improve the
appearance of the site with the landscaping and street trees. She did hope that after they have
been in operation for a while, that they will consider tearing out the driveway.
The motion passed 6-0.
Vice Chairman Carroll informed the audience that two of the items would be continued until
the May 3, 1993 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. These items would be the Fox
Creek P.U.D. - Preliminary and The Preserve at Fort Collins PUD - Preliminary.
Member Strom moved for continuation of the projects mentioned .
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
COLLINDALE BUSINESS PARK - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval.
Steve Pfister, Real-Tec Commercial Real Estate, stated they have presented this Overall
Development Plan because of Phase 6 and issues brought up at Conceptual Review. Issues of
• circulation and the extension of Automation Way and extension of utilities in the area and it
11
was felt that the best way to respond to how the traffic would work and the drainage would
work would be to come in with an Overall Development Plan. There were industrial uses to
the north of this site and there was also an IP site to the southwest, to light industrial areas
directly south and these generally boarder the railroad tracks and Timberline Road. The
property itself was also located north of a drainage basin, the Timberland Wetlands Area, that
was a 9.6 acre tract acquired by the City approximately three years ago.
PUBLIC INPUT
Dwight Smith, 1916 Harmony Drive, on the south margin of the Timberline Wetland. He
prepared a proposal this morning and it was distributed to the Planning and Zoning Board. He
broke it out into three parts. It started out with history of the master plan and the policies
adopted since the Open Space Plan was adopted in 1974, ending with the Natural Area Policy
Plan in 1992. The purpose was to indicate that in seven major plans and policies there have
been strong statements made as to the value of the need for protection of natural areas. He has
taken the Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan and put a compass in the middle of the
wetland and circumscribed a two mile radius circle around it which would cover 8,032 acres.
Within that, this Timberline Wetland was the largest and almost the only natural wetland. It
was on a map called isolated natural areas.
Mr. Smith went on to say that there were three communities, Sunstone to the east across
Timberline, which will eventually become 6lanes, there is the Golden Meadows area to the west
and Harmony Half Acres on Harmony Drive, immediately contiguous with the marsh. He was
not speaking for any of the three communities. He is an advocate of the natural area of the
wetland and that was all he hoped to speak about.
Mr. Smith presented two aerial photos of the area. It shows quite clearly the area of discussion
and Automation Way. He wanted them to realize the wetland was a rich brown color, but don't
be mistaken as to those being the boundaries of the wetland. A wetland system had to entail
more that just what has cattails on it. It also has some upland area that was vitally important
to the whole wetland system.
Mr. Smith stated his argument was that there were very few isolated wetland areas in Fort
Collins. He looked at another map and in a 50 square mile area, south from Vine Drive, east
from Shields and down as far as the Urban Growth Area boundary, there was not more that
half a dozen isolated natural areas. He has lived on this marsh for a year and lived in Fort
Collins for 36 years and is interested in the wetland. He thought Fort Collins needed the
remaining few isolated natural wetlands. He pointed out the richness and abundance of
different kinds of wildlife that exist in the area.
Mr. Smith proposed that the City of Fort Collins acquire the pasture land immediately north
of the Timberline Wetland. He would like to see it go and it required looking at the Fox
Meadows Basin Master Plan. In their figure II, they show I and J as two of the drainage basins.
He proposed that the land be acquired all the way to the drainage divide, approximately 7
acres.
Mr. Smith stated they have talked about using this area for educational purposes and he has
researched 'how that could be used for educational purposes without a parking area, which
certainly in this small natural wetland was going to have a significant impact if it was put
down in the wetland and filled in and surfaced over for a parking area. He would recommend
in his proposal that it come in off of Timberline.
12
• Mr. Smith stated another concern about hazardous waste. It was not only just chemicals, it
could be gasoline and oils and if there are uses in there, where there was going to be those
kinds of materials, they did not have to be very intense, because this was a tiny area and it
would take very little to kill the natural wetland. There were three ways it could be introduced
into the wetlands, surface flow, sub -surface flow and percolation into the groundwater. If
there was those kinds of materials that could go into the wetland, it was going to be a very
hazardous situation for the health of that land.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Vice Chairman Carroll asked about the wetland Mr. Smith was referring to and did it border
this property to the south.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied yes, and the wetland site was owned by the City of Fort Collins
and the wetlands did not extend to the extreme north end, there was an area of pasture land
first and then the wetlands to the south.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked how the boundary line came to be drawn to where it is.
Ms. Albertson -Clark could not give specifics on that.
Mr. Tom Chandler, owner of the property north of the wetland. When he sold the wetland to
the City, the first boundary was determined by the fence line that ran from Timberline west
toward the railroad tracks. After dealing with the Storm Drainage Department, they
determined that the fence line might not be the best property line to follow, they had some
ponding problems that were caused from the stormwater coming in from the Golden Meadows
• area that increased the size of the wetland to where it was really unmanageable for him. Storm
Drainage purchased an area further north from the fence line, a jagged contour line that
hopefully was the high water mark and if it need be on the City's property and not his.
Member Cottier asked for a location.
Mr. Chandler pointed out that the wetland was 5.5 acres of wetland and 4.12 acres of
developable land, so it was not an entire wetland.
Member Cottier stated she was trying to get an idea of the property that the City owned. Was
it from Timberline to the railroad tracks and was it that strip.
Mr. Chandler replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if the City had considered it appropriate to purchase any land to the
north of that or did the City think it sufficiently protects the area.
Mr. Tom Peterson, Planning Director replied that it was the belief of the City that the purchase
they made three years ago was sufficient in terms of protecting the wetland. As Mr. Chandler
suggested, we acquired some of the upland to take in the continued drainage issues and at this
point in time the City was not pursuing any additional acquisition in this area.
Member O'Dell asked if there was a section north of the wetlands that the City owns.
0 13
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that was correct, it was in grassland, it was in pasture land in the
past. The parcel that the City owns was approximately 9.9 acres under one ownership and the
southern portion of that was in wetlands and the northern was in grassland.
Member O'Dell asked how wide the northern portion is the grassland portion.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that based on numbers we were given by the applicants of the
Timberline Storage project, the south edge of the Timberline Storage project to the wetlands
varies from approximately 42 feet to approximately 87 feet and the variation was based on a
diagonal line on the Timberline Storage property for their southern property boundary. The
wetlands were located in a sort of northwest to southeast fashion on an angle.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if this Overall Development Plan was approved and they have
requests for uses of the southern most phases, were they allowed to take into consideration the
uses in those phases, vis-a-vis the storm drainage pond. He was thinking of a gas station or a
petroleum storage area, chemical plant. Were they allowed to look at that.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied, yes they were. The development of the future phases, which on
the Overall Development plan were phases 7 and 8, the areas zoned industrial park could be
developed through the administrative site plan review which was a review process that the
Planning Director could approve and under that review they were still looking at the All
Development Criteria from the Land Development Guidance System to review those projects
against. That gives Staff the ability to look at impacts on the wetlands, storm drainage kinds
of issues. For the property Mr. Chadwick owns which is the Estate Residential property, that
could continue to stay in residential uses but in some time in the future when someone chooses
an alternative use that was not permitted in that zone, that property would need to be rezoned
first to use the PUD process. Either way, whether we are dealing with a PUD or a site plan,
we have the ability to look at issues on how do proposed uses impact the wetlands from a
drainage standpoint and also a resource standpoint.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the Division of Natural Resources reviewed this proposal
and commented on their concerns.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that Natural Resources reviewed both the Overall Development
Plan and Timberline Storage. The focus of their review was on Timberline Storage. The initial
concern that we dealt with from both a storm drainage and a natural resource standpoint
related to capacity of the detention area, and wanted to etarify that the wetland area also
served as a storm drainage detention pond facility. Concerns were related to capacity because
the original pond was sized with a lower amount of impervious area than we are seeing on the
next item. Staff has verified that there was capacity there. Other concerns were buffering
of the wetlands and that was dealt with on the south property line of Timberline Storage and
water quality issues were also looked into.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the water quality issues were addressed to the satisfaction
of the Department of Natural Resources.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that it was a standpoint of the Storm Drainage Department and the
focus was that there was already upstream water that was draining into the pond, into the
wetlands and so far there has not been any problems with the quality of that water. From a
drainage standpoint, Timberline Storage would add additional water into that area, that it was
anticipated that we would not see any further degradation in terms of water quality. She
14
• thought that the issues Mr. Smith had with hazardous materials should be addressed with the
Timberline Storage item. She did not think Staff got specific comments from Natural
Resources regarding water quality, their issues were mostly buffering of the wetlands.
Member Clements -Cooney asked about phases 7 and 8, did they automatically go through
administrative review or was there a condition they might have to place on the plan.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that phase 7 was entirely zoned industrial park. That could come
through the administrative review. Portions of phase 8 could go administrative review but the
big portion, owned by Mr. Chadwick would have to be rezoned, and during the rezoning process
for that parcel, they would have two options, to rezone it to industrial park or rezone it to a
zone with conditions that require a PUD. At this point phase 7 could develop without a PUD
for that site.
Member Strom moved for approval of Coliindale Business Park Amended Overall Development
Plan.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Carroll commented that Mr. Smith's letter was very thoughtfully drafted and
he thought that we as citizens as well as board members realize the great concern that citizens
of Fort Collins have for wetlands and natural areas. There was just an amendment passed for
a sales tax increase to purchase these items; however, the proposal that the City purchase the
pasture land, he could not speak to, but as a Planning and Zoning Board that was not their role.
That would be a recommendation from Natural Resources to City Council to make the purchase
as they purchase other areas and until or unless they do that, they could not be in a position
• of denying a plan on the basis that the City ought to come in and purchase at some point in
time. As a matter of fact, through the condemnation process the City could still purchase it.
He thought they shared with Mr. Smith the real critical concerns of wetland areas. He knows
that the Board would be looking at any further development along the south part of this very
critically and that the Storm Drainage Department and also Natural Resources would comment
on any proposed uses of the south lots and perhaps the ones in the middle and to the north to
make sure there is no impact on the wetlands and he was sure Mr. Smith would be contacted
and present concerning any proposed uses and make comments to the Board as well regarding
those.
The motion passed 6-0.
TIMBERLINE STORAGE PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL *7-82E
Deputy City Attorney Eckman called for a conflict of interest on this item and removed
himself from the meeting.
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report recommending approval with the following
conditions:
1. The chain link fencing be vinyl clad, in a dark color (such as black, green or brown).
2. The sign size be a maximum of 60 square feet (per face), placed at a 20' setback from
the right-of-way line of Automation Way and that the proposed sign be designed to be
a monument sign with a base that matches the color and materials used on the manager's
• IS
residence and is incorporated into the landscaping at the site's entrance.
3. The standard condition that the Board approves this planned unit development final
plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final
PUD plan be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the
developer prior to the second monthly meeting (June 28, 1993) of the Planning and
Zoning Board. (see staff report for full condition wording).
Ms. Albertson Clark read a revised version of condition *2:
2. The sign size be a maximum of 60 square feet per face and that the proposed sign be a
monument sign with the base not to exceed 4 feet in height and that the base match the
color and materials that are used on the manager's residence and be incorporated into
the landscaping at the sites entrance.
Ms. Albertson -Clark noted that on the landscape plan before them this evening, the entrance
into the site, the drive -way entrance, has not been configured to match the final site plan.
There has been a slight change in the configuration that the landscape plan had not been
revised yet and it would take some minor revisions to design the final landscape islands. Staff
had not asked the applicant to redesign it yet, pending the outcome of the signage issue. That
was the general area where the applicant has proposed signage. The sign in the packet was
proposed to be located closer to the manager's residential unit. Staff was recommending with
the condition, no specific location. Staff had originally proposed a 20 foot setback, but with
discussions with Staff that deal with the sign code, they fot:nd that a monument sign did not
have to have such a large setback.
Bill Vigor, Developer, gave a presentation on his project. He thought that this project was as
aesthetically as good as you would find in storage projects. He gave some background on the
facilities in Fort Collins and he would not have any doors facing out anyway other than the
entrance. All the four other sides was interior access only. His facility would be only one story,
low impact, most of the building are 8-1/2 feet tall. One building that runs east and west was
about 12 feet tall. The manager's residence would be a single story, 1500 square feet.
Mr. Vigor went over comments from staff and the residents that they wanted addressed. The
wetlands would not be disturbed or changed. There would be no snow put on it, there will be
no dirt put on it, there would be no equipment put on it. He would build within the confines
of the 4.4 acres. Landscaping on the property, they were providing landscaping around the
total perimeter of the property. Use -by -right would allow him to build on the property line to
the west, which was the railroad 100 foot right-of-way, a set back of five feet. In working with
the neighborhood, they were buffering that area with some pretty dense landscaping and the
neighborhood would also contribute some to the density of the landscaping. The north has 30
foot by 270 foot of grass, trees and shrubs where the manager's house is and the on the east
they have extensive landscaping there for the entire length of the property.
Mr. Vigor stated that the item he wanted to address was the wetlands and that they would not
be disturbed and in working with the Natural Resources Department they were putting in
native grasses, native flowers and trees. They were approximately 87 feet away from the
building to the fence, and some of that is City property, but it was strictly grassland. The grass
that was on this property flows all the way across to the south and it was not any part of the
wet part which was further to the east. Exterior lighting on the buildings would be security
lighting on the east facing buildings only, it would be directional down and out lighting.
16
• Mr. Vigor stated they were planning no commercial operations, people operating out of their
storage unit. It was pure storage and that would be the only use. Almost all the buildings, with
the exception of one building would have no electricity, no plug ins, they were just storage
units. Use at night would be very limited.
Mr. Vigor gave the colors as being an off-white and an earthtone light blue trim that was 6".
The roof of the manager's office was blue, the buildings would only have the trim on them and
the basic off-white colors.
Mr. Vigor went over security and that it would be a very high tech security with a wrought
iron gate at the front that would be operated through a master control computer that you plug
in your code number and the gate opens, and by doing that, the gate opens and disarms your
specific unit and it has nothing to do with a lock. When you are finished you have to go out
through an exit gate and it rearms your unit.
Mr. Vigor addressed water run-off and they have spent a considerable amount of time with the
Engineering firm and storm drainage and they went ahead and had a swim report, that was
done for the City of Fort Collins several years ago in regards to the whole area as far as impact,
including the widening of Timberline Road and the drainage from the west on the other side
of the railroad tracks. The outlet on Timberline Road was 4 feet and the inlet coming under
the tracks was 3 foot. The 4 foot equates out as twice the amount of volume that could come
in from the west portion of the drainage. The swim report was quite expensive, but the bottom
line on the report states that there was no impact, and the 100-year storm if it happened, would
raise the wetlands 1/4 inch. The final report states that there would be no major impact from
the impervious areas of the storage facility.
. Mr. Vigor stated that they had discussed the water purity coming off and that hazardous waste,
that would be a contract with every tenant that rents a unit from the storage unit. They would
sign an agreement that there would be not hazardous or toxic waste stored in the facility.
There would be no water available so there was not a situation where if someone dumped a can
of gasoline or oil that they would be able to sweep it out. It has flat floors that do not drain
out and there would be no way to broom it out. They would be monitoring it very closely. He
was as interested in protecting the wetlands, as well as the landscaping he was putting on the
south side, which was where the water would flow. It has to go through the buffer of flowers,
grasses, shrubs and bushes. He was doing everything he could as far as hazardous waste. The
uses that a use -by -right on this property would allow would have 10 times the amount of
hazardous waste and parking lots.
Mr. Vigor stated this was a clean operation, they have had a traffic study and found there
would be very little impact, as far as automobiles and traffic on this particular venture.
Member Strom asked about the fence line on the south side and that it was not the property
line, the line they were showing on the plan was the property line.
Mr. Vigor replied that was correct.
Member Strom asked about the landscape strip and was there going to be run-off or would the
run-off be directed.
Mr. Vigor replied it would be level and it would be sheet flow so it would go through the
grassed landscaped area of his first and then into the grassland area. There should not be any
• 17
wash there, it was not steep and there should not be any erosion there even in the worst
scenario.
Member Strom asked about using native grasses and would they be irrigating there.
Mr. Vigor replied they would be, they would be irrigating the entire perimeter of the property,
so even on the west side they would be irrigating so things would grow during the dry seasons.
Member Strom asked if on the west side there was any elevation difference to the railroad
track from this property or from Golden Meadows. Was it flat there.
Mr. Vigor replied that there was a barrow pit there. The tracks were one level and it varies as
you go down the 500 feet.
Ms. Albertson -Clark went through the slides of the area and the surrounding area, the railroad
tracks and the wetlands.
Member Strom thought they were doing a good job with the landscaping. He has some concern
with the west perimeter where there is just a 5 foot strip and they basically have a strip of
landscaping in there that when there is that kind of landscaping up against a building he
worried about it being out of sight, out of mind and what kind of maintenance they were going
to have to make sure that it was well established.
Mr. Vigor replied that there would be some deciduous with some upright Junipers which don't
get too large. This would give the screening that the neighborhood to the west would like.
Behind their property would be 80 foot of deciduous and evergreen plants.
Member Strom asked if there would be a perimeter fence there.
Mr. Vigor replied that the fence there, that belongs to the property would be taken out and the
plants would be planted on the inside of the property line and would be approximately 5 feet
away from the building. They would probably grow into the railroad right-of-way but that was
not a problem.
Member Strom asked that in this kind of situation, they would have to rely on the
neighborhood to make sure that it was established and growing and then receive the
maintenance that it needs.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that Staff also goes out and does a final inspection with the zoning
staff to make sure that landscaping has been installed prior to issuance of a C.O. If
landscaping is not installed due to season then they look at a letter of credit to commit that
money to the City so if the developer does not install them, the City has the funds to go out and
do the installation. Mr. Vigor has committed to install all the landscaping with the first phase
of his development. The first phase was working from the north to the south.
Mr. Vigor replied that they were going to build half the project this summer and he would do
all the landscaping on the entire perimeter of the property including all the irrigation sprinkler
systems and such.
Member Strom stated his concern was with a landscape strip of this nature, being kind of
behind those buildings and out of site of the manager being ,maintained.
is
LI
• Member Strom mentioned the letter from the Division of Wildlife and had the Natural
Resources Division looked at this.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that they were contacted by one of the area residents. The City
does not routinely send development proposals to the Division of Wildlife, we rely on our
Natural Resources Staff and when they feel that there is a significant issue, they refer that
project to the Division of Wildlife. The most significant comment that came out of it was the
Division saying that they typically recommend 100 to 300 feet as a buffer for protecting
wetlands, wildlife corridors and such depending on the land and proposed land uses. The City
does not have any specific guidelines or standards in place to tell them how much buffering
they should have. The Natural Resources Department had looked at this as well as Planning
and given input from the neighborhood meeting, given the kinds of plant materials here and
given the fact that we were not directly adjacent to the wetlands. Staff felt this was a
reasonable buffer because we were dealing with fairly low intensity land use. The Division
in saying 100 to 300 feet may come from some specific guidelines they have established. We
do not have those guidelines at this time.
Member Strom asked if we expected this entire property to drain to the south to the wetland.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if it was all going to drain to the south, why was there a detention pond
on the north end.
Mr. Vigor replied that according to the engineers when they designed it, the little bit of
• drainage from the building and the managers house come off into the 30 foot setback. They
said because of the capacity of the detention setup on the Collindale Park, they wanted to have
a small detention area and the water would drain through a pipe onto the gutter and into the
street. Everything else drains to the south and that had been addressed through water resources
and storm drainage.
Member Cottier asked about the water run-off. She appreciated the applicant's efforts to say
that no one would have hazardous waste in their units, but aside from that, what about
considering the paved roadways in between essentially a parking lot, and what was the quality
of water that comes off a parking lot and was the distance between the paved surface to the
south and the wetlands sufficient to adequately filter that water. Did we have any
information on what parking lot runoff was like in terms of water quality.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that we did not have any specific to this project but her analogy
to a parking lot was a good one to make in this case. Water quality had been an issue on several
other projects on the south side that drain into the Fossil Creek drainage area. On the Fossil
Creek Design Center project, the City designed a water quality filter to filter the water that
comes off of that parking lot and filter it before it goes into Fossil Creek and there was a
similar thing done with the Mcdonald's site at Harmony and College because that goes into Mail
Creek. She does not have any data at this point on these two projects.
Member Cottier stated that there was a distance of 40 to 90 feet at the south border but was
that a sufficient distance to be a filter of parking lot runoff.
Mr. Vigor replied that the average person at a storage unit will only spend 5 to 10 minutes. At
the project to the north that was existing now, he counted 51 cars that were there most of the
• 19
day. There was going to be some impact there and that type of scenario could happen on any
industrial site. This project's research has them in and out and gone and the impact was so
insignificant, Storm Drainage did not feel there was any concern. They do have the buffer
before it even gets to the wetlands, it would eventually get there, but filtered through quite a
bit of native grasses before that.
Member Cottier thought they could help make sure there was not a problem if there were some
drainage in the middle. If he could do something that would still be plowable, but if water
from the north half could sink in before it gets all the way down to the south half.
Mr. Peterson replied that as it stands now, it has to do with a couple things that have to do with
water quality. There really aren't any standards, national, state, or local that we have,
standards and guidelines that apply in this point in time. EPA on a national level was taking
a look at water quality and the City of Fort Collins through Stormwater Utility was gearing
up to deal with those issues and have hired a water quality specialist, conservation specialist
to look into these matters. It was his understanding that was part of the review process that
goes on. Until we have standards and criteria, it was very difficult. The things we have done
in this case was we have made sure there was an area between this development and the
wetlands that would act as a natural filter. The wetlands themselves would act as a natural
filter, the entire wetland area was in the middle of a drainage basin that has oodles of parking
and streets draining into and there would be a natural cleanup there. He thought that in time,
both the federal, state and ourselves, our. Natural Resources Division is in the third year of
production of a mitigation manual of which we have as of yet to see the first draft. That
would give us some guidelines and criteria for dealing with issues like this. The City feels that
they have done the best that they could based on the best data we have to design this particular
site plan.
Member Clements -Cooney asked Mr. Peterson for an update at a worksession on where that
manual is in its process.
Mr. Peterson replied they could.
Member Klataske asked where the snow would be pushed and would there be salt used on the
lot to get around the buildup of ice.
Mr. Vigor replied that there would not be any salt used at any time. The snow removal would
be at the ends of the property and allowing it to just melt off into the wetlands and they were
not planning to dump any snow onto the wetlands. It would be within the property bounds.
Member Klataske asked if the landscaped are&. at the south was at grade with the parking lot
or was it a berm.
Mr. Vigor replied that it had a general slope to the same grade as the wetlands so it would just
flow in there so there would be not major runoff into the wetlands, it goes through the buffer.
Member Clements -Cooney stated it was her understanding that they have the fence and the
landscaping was on the inside of the fence and that seemed backwards to her. If they were
buffering this development, it seemed to her that the landscaping should be on the outside of
the fence. She understood it was a concern of snow removal but her question was, did Staff
look at putting a fence on the inside of the development. Was it a snow removal concern, was
that a legitimate concern, she would like to see it rethought.
20
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that ideally landscape material would be on the outside of the
south side of the fence. That was the principal reason we have a fencing recommendation that
it be vinyl clad chain link. Staffs biggest reason for not pursuing it further with the applicant
was because he has concerns with snow removal. She thought that for this type of development
there were realistic concerns because there was a significant amount of pavement. Typically
you have snow pushed into landscape islands and parking spaces. This particular instance there
were very limiting conditions here that give less opportunities for snow to be placed.
Mr. Vigor added that with the cladding, you would not really see the fence to any great extend,
the landscaping would pretty well screen everything, that was what you would see.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if what they were saying was that if they put up the fence and
it was vinyl clad, she would not see the fence.
Mr. Vigor replied that at a distance, the closest you could gut, unless you went down into the
project would be 350 feet away to the south, unless you actually walk onto the wetlands, you
would not really see the fence.
Member Clements -Cooney still had concerns, if you took the landscaping and put it on the
outside of the fence, that would leave them space to pile their snow.
Mr. Vigor pointed out the problems they would have with access if they piled their snow on the
inside of the fence.
Member Klataske asked if it was a problem to have the landscaping on the inside of the fence
to provide additional security.
Mr. Vigor replied that they need the security. The only fencing besides the 20 foot fencing in
two places on each end and the main gate was on the south end and the snow removal was the
reasoning for having it. It was real difficult to take a snow blade and push it up against a
fence, you would have to go down there with a loader and dump it over the fence.
PUBLIC INPUT
Jenny Wilcock, 4160 Sumter Square, asked the Board to keep in mind that the railroad tracks
may be a geographical barrier, but they were not a visual barrier. She stated that the neighbors
had just found out about this project by accident. They were not notified by the Planning
Department because they did not think it would be controversial enough. They felt that even
though they have had a lot of help from the Planning Department they would have liked more
time to present other proposals or be more organized. She thanked Member Clements -Cooney
for getting them their neighborhood meeting.
Ms. Wilcock stated she represented seven families to the west of the proposed site. Their first
choice for the use of this land would have been a nature area or reserve. They like looking out
onto the pasture and the wetlands. She was concerned about what the impact on the wetlands
would be 5 or 10 years from now. Timberline Storage may not have a lot of impact, but what
about all the other businesses that were going to be built. They want to make sure that the
wetlands were protected from them.
Ms. Wilcock felt that storage units were not compatible with their neighborhood and they did
not buy homes to look out onto storage units. They felt that Mr. Vigor had addressed many of
21
their concerns and had been very approachable and had worked with them to jointly landscape
the west side of the project. Personally, she would like to see a whole screen full of Junipers.
Ms. Wilcock stated they were also concerned with the water quality and the wetlands but also
the wildlife. There was a lot of wildlife they did not want to have to move somewhere else.
Her main purpose was to make sure the items on the general information sheet were attached
to the plan so they would be enforceable. Mr. Vigor has kept telling them that his storage units
look very nice, and she was sure they were going to be nice, but she did not know how many
storage units were actually that close to a neighborhood and have neighborhoods looking out
on them.
Ms. Wilcock stated that it was new to them that the fence would be on the outside of the
landscaping. She was wondering if it was going to be just as difficult to push the snow into
the landscaping as it would be to push it into the fence.
Ms. Wilcock stated that they would be makin&sure that the landscaping maintenance on the
west side was taken care of.
Danny Gorman, 1900 Harmony Drive, stated that he was disappointed in the process. They
were not aware of the project until it was the final meeting. They had a lot of people at the
neighborhood meeting and they were not here tonight. They must have said it would go
through anyway, why bother. Just like the fence, on the outside of the foliage, what good was
that going to do. How were the birds and wildlife going to enjoy it when it was on the inside
of the fence.
Dwight Smith, lives in Harmony Half Acres, agreed with the Planning Director that a natural
wetland or a marsh was a marvelous system for purifying water. It has a limit to the insult it
can withstand. This was a very tiny area and tonight it was becoming smaller. He understood
it was about 10 acres. He was concerned and confused about the snow removal and also the
distances to the wetland. He located two of the pipes with orange on them and assumed that
they were the corners of the project. He paced it variously from 15 to 20 feet from what could
be defended as wetland. His contention, as he hears figures of 90 to 40 feet, they did not
square at all with what he felt that the project was going to be within the wetland. He would
contend that it would be closer. He did not know until this afternoon about the letter from the
Division of Wildlife and was not aware they had been contacted. He thought it was a
reasonable statement based on his own experience, 100 to 300 feet being a reasonable type of
buffer and we were not even talking anything in that neighborhood.
Mr. Smith understood that the units were each built level as far as the storage units were
concerned. The drive ways in between follow the terrain which slopes south into the wetland.
It seemed to him that the snow would be pushed down to the south end and allowed to melt and
run into the wetland. He has used a storage unit before and seen the type of things that
happen. He was concerned about what could be spilled, oily gas, not just necessarily highly
hazardous chemicals that could just incrementally over time be introduced into the wetlands.
Mr. Smith asked for more clarification about the snow and why they were leaving the openings
in the vegetation to the south in order to accommodate that. He was not entirely clear on that.
Mr. Vigor replied that the gaps were about20 feet between the landscaping on the south which
would allow snow to be pushed up into and still maintain it as on Timberline Storage property
and not into the wetlands. On a normal meltdown the snow was just going to melt into the
22
• wetlands. It would go down the driveways to the south, it was level in the back so the water
would not come off of one corner or the other, it would be sheet type drainage, it would just
flow into the wetlands. He would still contend that there would be a minute possibility of
hazardous waste or toxic material that could get onto the driveways from the storage units
because every home and residence to the west has undoubtly a sloped garage and driveway and
the streets all drain, and the major parts of that goes into the wetlands. What comes off of the
Timberline Storage project, which cars only drive through there for a few minutes would not
leave much oil or residue on the asphalt which would eventually get into the wetlands if it ever
did.
Linda Gorman, 1900 Harmony Drive, stated the fence on the south side, when they went to a
meeting two weeks ago there was no fence, there was landscaping. They wanted landscaping
so they would not have to look at this building all the time. Now all of a sudden there was
going to be a fence on the outside. It was backwards, it did not make sense to her. Was it
possible to put landscaping on both sides of the fence. She would like to see more landscaping
rather than a fence.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Vice Chairman Carroll asked Ms. Albertson -Clark about neighborhood notification, short notice
or no notice.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied they did not anticipate a need for a neighborhood meeting. Staff
did not anticipate this would be a controversial issue as it became, basically because the
industrial park zoning has been there a number of years and this was the type of use that could
go as a use -by -right. However, when she had her first contact, which was the week this project
• was submitted to the Planning Department, early March, she did send a copy of the plans to a
neighbor in Golden Meadows who backs up to the property and at that point, he contacted
other neighbors and a neighborhood meeting was scheduled. It was held late in the process
compared to if Staff would have required a neighborhood meeting before the project was
submitted. There was also a follow-up meeting held at a resident's home a week ago.
Mery Eckman, Adcon Signs stated they have a proposal on the sign design other than what was
in their packets. The one the Board has is 120 square feet and this one was what they were
asking the Board to consider this evening which was 85 square feet.
Mr. Eckman reviewed other signs using slides.
Mr. Eckman stated the sign they were proposing was 6 foot 4 inches high with an overall height
of 16 feet 8 inches which was the approximate height of the residents homes. It was a single
face sign and the west face was a opaque and did not illuminate. There was no graphics and
no advertising to the west.
Mr. Eckman stated that the compromise that they had come up with this design at 85 feet was
approximately 30% less that the 120 from what was originally submitted. They felt the
elevation height was appropriate for the visibility down Caribou.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if the top part of the sign would be even with the residences.
Mr. Eckman stated that the sign would be 16.8 feet from grade to the top. About a foot and a
half higher than the house. The manager's home would provide a visual barrier to the residents
. to the west.
23
Vice Chairman Carroll asked about the units that run east and west along, higher units, did he
know the height of those units. He understood them to be higher than the north, south running
units.
Mr. Vigor replied that the one building that runs east and west was about 12 foot tall, the house
was a one story frame house with a 4:12 pitched roof. It was going to be somewhere 14 to 15
foot.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked what the height was on the units that run along the front of the
property.
Mr. Vigor replied that everything else was about 8-1/2 feet tall.
Member O'Dell asked where the sign would be located.
Mr. Eckman pointed out on the site plan where the sign would be located and stated that it had
to be set back 15 feet from the interior side lot line.
Member Strom asked about the industrial site located at the north end of the O.D.P. and did it
have a free standing sign.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied it had a monument sign that was 5'9" by 8 feet in width, which is
46 square feet per face. Public Service Company, which is actually off of this Overall
Development Plan, has an overall site identification a maximum of 7 x 16 and then their
individual Public Service Sign was 6 x 10 and it had a base in addition. The site id sign had
a base to it also.
Member Cottier asked if the Board has seen any pole mounted signs recently.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied not throughout the PUD process.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if Staff had a chance to review the most recent proposal on the
sign.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that Staff had just received it this evening. Staff's concerns were
overall size of the sign and height of the sign.
Member Cottier asked if the storage units would have been allowed here as a use -by -right.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied yes, although, the use -by -right process would have required a
minimum of 6% interior landscaping as required by the parking code.
Member Cottier asked how much was in landscaping as proposed.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied 10%
Member Cottier asked why they would have a problem with 6%.
Mr. Peterson replied that because the landscaping was at the perimeter now and not interior.
Vice Chairman Carroll reopened public input regarding the sign.
24
• PUBLIC INPUT
Jenny Wilcock, 4160 Sumter Square stated that at the neighborhood meeting the only thing she
heard, besides the size of the sign, was the lighting of the sign. Originally it was going to be
lit all night and Mr. Vigor has said that it would be turned off at a certain time now. She
thought the concerns from Sunstone were more of the intrusive lighting coming in all night
long.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member O'Dell commented about the information in the LDGS with regards to more intrusive
development buffering itself against the existing development or the less intense development
and it was usually talking about built development. She thought it could also apply to the
natural environment or the natural neighborhood. It seemed to her that it was incumbent on
the developer and the development coming in to buffer on its own property. In this situation
it looks to her as though there was a little strip of buffering on the south side but mostly the
developer was using the City owned property as the buffer to the wetland. She did not see that
this was following what the Land Development Guidance System sets out.
Mr. Peterson replied that he would take that as a comment and would suggest that if she had
a concern about that then that was an ideal point to apply a condition on. The developer has
made a proposal and at this point the consideration was before them to decide whether he has
met the test.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if Member O'Dell was wanting more berming or moving the
• fence so the landscaping was on the outside and in order to provide circulation, reduce the
number of units.
•
Member O'Dell replied that it was to reduce the number of units so that there could be some
buffering or berming, more setback between the parking lot and the wetland area. Member
O'Dell cited All Development Criteria #14, that talks about, it says the site contains an area
which serves as a habitat and natural food area or source of wildlife identified by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife. She was not sure if that has happened, she knows that it is identified
wetland, but she was not sure if it had been identified as an area that has significant species.
Member O'Dell stated she thought that there needed to be more buffering on this property and
this development should not use the setbacks that are currently owned by the City to buffer
their property from the wetland area.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that was where she was going with the fence being on the
outside. If the landscaping were moved and the landscaping was on City property, therefore,
if they wanted to provide more buffering, logically there would be a reduction in units. That
also goes to criteria #2 which asks if the development was compatible with and sensitive to the
immediate environment and the site and the neighborhood. She thought you could consider the
wetlands as part of the neighborhood. She thought Criteria #2 would be applicable as well.
Mr. Vigor asked if it would solve the problem -if the fence was moved to the inside.
Member Clements -Cooney thought that was what they were saying, however, the landscaping
would then therefore be on City property.
25
Mr. Vigor replied that the landscaping would still be on their property.
Member Strom asked if they were arguing basically that the runoff from the property would
damage the wetlands.
Member O'Dell replied yes, she thought that the runoff from this property could damage the
wetlands and would cite the letter from the Division of Wildlife saying they would recommend
100 to 300 foot setback for this type of development from the existing natural wetlands.
Mt. Vigor replied that the property that belongs to the City to the south all the way across was
just grassland. It was all the same type of grass. The City fence was south of the property line
on the Timberline property proposed. You have approximately 87 feet from the end of the
building on the east side to the City fence, which was already there all the way down to
Timberline from the railroad tracks. That was existing now, unless the City wanted to remove
the fence. They were to the north.
Member Strom explained that the argument was not just that there was not enough space. Part
of what he was calling 87 feet of buffering was really asphalt and contributes to the problem
rather than the solution.
Member O'Dell added that she did not think it was necessarily important to set, the issue was
not the buildings. The issue was the hard surface that causes the runoff, the issue was that the
Division of Wildlife has suggested that 100 foot minimum setback was desirable or suggested
and yet she would say that the setback from the edge of the hard surface, the asphalt, the
driveway was considerably less than that to the wetland area.
Mr. Vigor replied that he presented this to the Natural Resources Staff as well as Planning and
Stormwater and they felt that what was proposed would be sufficient to take care of buffering.
There was nothing but grass, there were no trees or bushes on the adjacent property to the
south, it was just grass and the grass was on to the north where the property they were
proposing. It was all the same material, there was not a break there, it was all natural grasses.
It all just flows into the wetlands. The wetland as far as the water and the cattails were to the
east somewhat. The Division of Wildlife was talking about wetlands, this area is grassland.
Natural Resources Department felt there was adequate buffering for the grasslands, this was
not wetland.
Member Strom stated it was not all clear to him from reading the letter from the Division of
Wildlife and what they mean by a buffer strip of 100 to 300 feet. They talk about visual
screening and variation depending on land use. He was not comfortable just receiving this
letter tonight and not having Natural Resources Staff here to respond to the questions and give
the Board some perspective on the Division of Wildlife letter.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if it was within their right to only approve the preliminary
with conditions this evening even though it was a preliminary and final.
Mr. Peterson replied that was correct.
Member O'Dell cited Criteria #20, would the project conform to applicable local and state
water quality standards, including but not limited to erosion and sedimentation, runoff control,
solid waste and hazardous substances. She did not know if the letter they received from the
Division of Wildlife had to do with protecting, quality standards of water.
26
• Member O'Dell asked if this was applicable.
Mr. Peterson replied that in his opinion, after reading the letter, what they were talking about
was migration corridors for wildlife around the edges from the water edge, around the area.
They were more concerned about wildlife than water quality.
Member O'Dell asked if they want the wildlife to have areas to move around.
Mr. Peterson added that different kinds of wildlife use different parts of the corridor in terms
of their movements and habits and their lifestyles and what the Division was saying was the
wider the better for the variety of wildlife that is there.
Vice Chairman Carroll stated that they have three concerns. The sign, the quantity of
landscaping on the south side and the water quality of the water flowing off of the project to
the south and was that going to cause any difficulties with the wetlands. Mr. Vigor's statement
was that there was his project and then there was an area of pastureland owned by the City
that he was claiming would filter out any impure ingredients, should there be any, then there
were the actual wetlands located further to the south.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if there was any way the waste water issue could be handled in
the development agreement.
Mr. Peterson replied that it was an issue with the Stormwater Utility, they were the ones that
were in charge of water quality and that type of issue would be normally looked at in the
Engineering/Development Agreement side of the equation. What he hears the Board asking for
was additional assurance that it had been taken into account. He was not sure about how many
• standards there are out there for Stormwater Utility to deal with at this point of time in terms
of the regulatory side of it. He suggested that the issue be addressed as a condition of
preliminary so Staff could get back to the Board with a response after meeting with the
Stormwater Quality staff to see if this specific issue was being addressed.
Vice Chairman Carroll also understood Mr. Vigor's comment that there were many feet between
his property and the actual wetlands that he was contending would filter the impure products,
be there any, which he was not sure there was, would be coming off.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if that could be part of the development agreement.
Mr. Peterson replied that it could be part of the development agreement and if there were any
disagreement between Mr. Vigor and the City, it could come back to the Board.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she liked the Staff recommendation on the sign size being
a maximum size of 60 square feet per face and that the proposed sign be a monument sign with
the base not to exceed 4 feet. She felt that they did not need a very large obtrusive sign
especially in a development that did have surrounding neighborhoods. She had concerns about
neighborhood compatibility and thought that the proposal that staff had recommended would
be adequate for a locational sign for someone that was seeking this storage facility.
Mr. Vigor asked if the Board would consider a sign that would not be above the roof of the
house.
Vice Chairman Carroll replied they might.
•
27
Member Cottier commented that the issue to her about buffering on the south side was not just
an issue of buffering of wetlands, it was an adequate buffer to a City -owned open space.
Whether or not it was dry or wet, was this an adequate buffer to a public open space with an
industrial use of this nature.
Member O'Dell thought that was a good point, if this was an environmental learning center,
would this be adequate buffering. Maybe this could someday be used for educational kind of
opportunities as was suggested earlier and look for the possibility of that in the future and she
did not think it was adequate buffering.
Member Strom stated that left the question of what was adequate buffering. He thought they
were left with a lot of unanswered questions.
Member Strom moved for preliminary approval only and that they condition it with the sign
recommendation of the staff and that they get additional information prior to final
consideration from Natural Resources staff regarding the Division of Wildlife issue and require
more intense landscaping. He thought that If the water quality question, which they did not
have the information to answer, was not a problem, then the landscape strip was wide enough,
if the intensity of landscaping was increased.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if that would include moving the fence to the inside.
Member Strom thought it would be a mistake to move the fence to the inside. He thought that
it was a security fence and with the vinyl cladding on the fence, it would in fact visually
recede and as that landscaping becomes more mature what you really would see would be the
landscaping behind it, you would look through a fence of that nature rather than at it. The
fence was some distance from anybody who would be looking at it except for those folks that
were venturing into the open space and wetland area.
Vice Chairman Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom thought they needed a more definite location of where the wetlands were with
regards to the project for evaluation of buffering on final.
Member Strom added that he thought it was a reasonable use, since they were dealing with
industrial zoned ground. He thought that relative to other uses they may have seen come
forward on this property, this was a very low.intensity use in terms of activity. He thought
that the impact on wild life for this use was a lower intensity use than most other things you
might anticipate in this area.
Member Cottier stated she would support the motion and did have the same concerns. She
thought this was by far the best storage unit project that she has seen and by far the best
looking one there is in town at this point.
Vice Chairman Carroll also would support the motion. He was struggling with the buffering
question, principally because the south side faces City -owned pasture land owned by Storm
Drainage. It was a far ways to the south to the Harmony Half Acres development. He thought
that the point was well taken that once it is in, its in and one does not know what might
develop later from the City standpoint on thabproperty. He thought this was a fairly narrow
strip along the south side and thought that if the applicant works on this a little more, they
would come up with more intensive buffering. He thought that as far as the sign was
concerned, this was a residential neighborhood and based on All Development Criteria #26, he
28
• 0
• was concerned with the height of the sign and thought a monument sign would serve the
purposes.
The motion passed 4-2 with Members Clements -Cooney and O'Dell in the negative
SHOPKO P.U.D.. FINAL - *1-93A
Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the Staff report stating the project was in conformance with
the approved preliminary P.U.D. and recommended approval with the standard development
agreement condition.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked fora presentation by Traffic to address traffic on Boardwalk and
Landings Drive.
Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, stated that the street system within this square mile
was not yet complete. The key to the issue was to get JFK built and the last remaining piece
that is there.
Traffic on Landings Drive had increased since the Post Office, Pace, Builders Square, Toys R
Us and other developments associated with South College Avenue. Traffic on Landings Drive
had increased from 1991 from 4,100 vehicles a day to approximately 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles per
day. Boardwalk had increased from approximately 4,500 vehicles a day at College Avenue
from 1989 to approximately 10,000 vehicles. Boardwalk was doing exactly what it was meant
to do. It was designed to carry approximately 13,000 vehicles a day. Landings Drive was
functioning at a little higher level than anticipated. That was because JFK has not been
completed. Even though it was the width of a local street, a local street was primarily designed
. for property access. There was virtually very little property access on Landings Drive. It is
a connector between an arterial and a collector street. When JFK was completed, we will see
volumes on Landings drop anywhere between 40 and 50%.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked for comment on the traffic on Landings Drive with the opening
of ShopKo.
Mr. Bracke replied that the traffic study indicates anywhere from 5% to 10% of ShopKo's
traffic coming from the Landings area. That means anywhere from 500 to 800 vehicles a day
that would be added to the Landings traffic.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification on where the cars that would increase traffic on
Landings drive to 500 to 800 were coming from.
Mr. Bracke replied that it was the traffic contributed to ShopKo. Where they were coming
from was primarily from the east and the north from Horsetooth and over, avoiding the
intersection of College and Horsetooth.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if measures had been looked into to mitigate the current
traffic problem and the addition of traffic to this problem.
Mr. Bracke replied that from a traffic standpoint, the addition of 500 to 800 vehicles would
still allow the street system to operate efficiently. There was not a lot they could do about it
except to complete the street system.
29
Member Clements -Cooney thought that the missing key to the traffic problem would be the
completion of JFK and asked where was the City in the scenario.
Mr. Peterson replied that the City was very interested in completing JFK. The City was trying
to put together a consortium of property owners to get the problem resolved quickly. It was
very much in the interest of the property owners that border JFK to be in a cooperative
framework and have been facilitating meetings with the property owners to see if we could
come to a solution without having to go to a special improvement district. If we go to a special
improvement district, that would take time and will have to go to the voters. The City was
doing everything in its realm to move the issue along.
Member Clements -Cooney asked what "quickly" was in his terms.
Mr. Peterson replied late this summer or early this fall, if there was cooperation.
Mr. Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, added that in terms of the time to establish a special
improvement district, it was based upon the amount of time if would take to set up the
engineering reports and assessment rolls and go through the notice requirements and two
readings with City Council.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if it would be safe to say from a traffic department standpoint,
both Landings and Boardwalk were operating efficiently and with the opening of ShopKo, they
would continue to operate efficiently.
Mr. Bracke replied that was correct.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked when they asked for a solution to the problem, and the
department did not perceive it as a problem, it makes it difficult to provide the Board with a
solution.
Mr. Bracke replied that the perception of the problem varied from individual to individual and
when they look at a situation that regards traffic, they primarily look at the safe and efficient
flow of traffic, what the operation was, what were the level of delay and safety levels involved
and currently it is operating efficiently.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if it would disrupt the entire continuum if at Horsetooth, they
would allow a long left turn light for people coming up Horsetooth to go south.
Mr. Bracke replied that when an adjustment is made to a traffic signal, it generally means there
would be adjustments all the way down College Avenue.
PUBLIC INPUT
Abe Ramos Jr., 205 Buckingham Street, asked about how much added traffic would be coming
into Fort Collins, out of Fort Collins. He also asked how many people in our City would be
employed by ShopKo.
Jay Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum/Dean, replied that there would be very little traffic from out of
town. There is already a good deal of competition in town and the surrounding towns that
have other uses. ShopKo is also going into Loveland and Longmont.
30
• Mr. Rosenbaum replied that in terms of employment, 95% of 200 employees would be local
people.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Olt if "Toys R Us" on their site plan has a sign designated for the
back of their building.
Mr. Olt replied that he had not checked the site plan, but there was no sign on the back of the
building facing JFK.
Member O'Dell commented that signage should stay consistent within the area and particularly
on the back side of the building because it faces residential areas.
Mr. Rosenbaum confirmed that there was no sign on the east side of the building on "Toys R
Us" and that they would keep it consistent.
Member O'Dell stated that there was no sign on'the north side of the building on "Toys R Us".
Mr. Rosenbaum replied that they did have one approved there but have not put it up.
Member Cottler moved for approval of ShopKo Final with the condition that the sign be
removed from the east side and the development agreement and the design of the xeriscape
garden be submitted as an administrative change.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Clements -Cooney asked Mr. Olt to repeat what he had stated earlier about the
xeriscape garden.
Mr. Olt replied that he had stated that the xeriscape garden be submitted to the Planning
Department, the design of the xeriscape garden, for approval by Staff.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if it was still a condition of this final, that there would be a
xeriscape garden.
Mr. Olt replied that xeriscape garden at this time was reflected on the plan before them that
they were approving did say, "xeriscape garden by others", that would be changed.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the condition should be that "by others" by taken out.
Mr. Eckman also replied that it should be conditioned that the "by others" be taken off and "by
ShopKo" be added.
Vice Chairman Carroll asked if that condition was acceptable to the motion maker and the
second.
Member Cottler replied yes.
Member Strom replied yes.
• The motion passed 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m.
31
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
To:
Planning and Zoning Board Members
From:
Steve Olt,
Project Plannoo
Ref:
Spradley-Barr isuzu
Non -Conforming Use Request
Date:
April 26, 1993
Members of the Planning and Zoning Board recently expressed a
concern about the potential for automobiles to be displayed or
parked in the greenbelt/parkway areas proposed along West Drake
Road and McClelland Drive with this non -conforming use request.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval stating that No
automobile display or parking can occur on the turf grass,
landscape buffer areas between curbs internal to the site and the
curbs on both Nest Drake Road and'McClelland Drivelf. Staff is also
requiring that the wording of this condition be added to the Site
and Landscape Plans before they are recorded by the City.
281 North College -Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
• 0.
April 19, 1993
Dear Ms. Whetstone,
We are unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Board public
hearing concerning Oakwood School, but wished to give our opinion
about the project. We have had the opportunity to meet with the
school's directors and to find ,out more about Oakwood School's
philosophy and plans for operation. We also had the chance to
review the plans for landscaping the site at 1401 West Mountain
Avenue. We are favorably impressed and feel that the location of
Oakwood School in our neighborhood will be an asset.
• Sincerely,
Janell s
Dan Bink����
1218 W. Mountain Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
•
�UnuV
A PROPOSAL I Uk` TIMBERLIAE WETLA
AND ECOLOGICALLY1XI'ORTANT ADJAChxiI A26
A LfTTLE .III STORY
Since the Open Space Plan published in 1974, numerous stuaiec
have produced policy statements, master plans, programs, goals
and objectives pertaining to natural areas,, wetlands, wilallie
sanctuaries and habitats. Major ones are summarized below, with
special emphasis on natural areas and wetlands.
Open Space Plan (1974> Highlights habitat as a criterion for
identifying sites where community needs can be met through active
open space acquisition and management programs,
Goals and Objectives (1977) Encourages land uses sensitive to
relationships between man-made and natural environments; directs
growth away from environmentally unique lands with special values
to people and natural resources; insures that locations of new
developments are compatible with environmental considerations.
Acquisition of new sites for natural areas is a high priority.
Drainage Basin Raster Plans (1980-88) Emphasize "soft" or
natural facilities as oppose- to "hard" or concrete taciLities,
and list Timberline Wetland as one of four areas of special
concern.
Pox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan, completed in 19bi,
includes Timberline Wetland and details special concerns but
concludes they will not be critical until there is further
development; at which time further analysis and re-evaivatibns
are suggested,
Land Development Guidance System (1982) This primary tool for
implementing City approved policies, described as a "fiexcibie
zoning system," lists criteria that must be met by proposed
developments. One criterion: if the area serves as a habitat,
natural food source, nesting place, wintering area, or source of
water for wildlife, special precautions should be taken to
prevent environmental influences adverse to preservation of the
area.
Urban Wildlife Sanctuary Designation (1987) The National
Institute for Urban Wildlife named Fort Collins as the first
municipal Urban Wildlife Sanctuary in the United States.
Subsequently, City Council issued new policy statements that c1)
recognized urban wildlife as a component of quality of life, and
(2) supported protection of habitat and provided for other needs
of urban wildlife
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1988)- Although this pian cioes
not specifically address areas such as i'imoerline Wetland, it
represents a -significant change in perception or natural arena
within Fort Collins by moailying open space acquisition crir_Liria
• to place- greater emphasis on ecological factors, values a1
natural areas, and natural area protection.
Natural Areas Policy Plan (1992) summarizes the documents itsteci
above. A key objective of this plan is to: "Integrate natural
areas into the developed landscape by directing development awav
from sensitive areas and using{ innovative planning, design, and
management practices."
A RATIONALE
Natural area wetlands enhance the Fort Collins environment for
people as well as for many wildlife and plant species. This fact
is emphasized by City Council, Stormwater Utility, Parks and
Recreation Department, Community Planning and Environmental.
Services, and the Planning and Zoning hoard among other city
entities. Through a variety of master plans, policy statements,
and other documents, protection of natural area wetlands has been
vigorously promoted over the 'past 20 years.
In their 1992 Natural Areas Policy Plan, the Fort Collins Natural
Reoources Division urges protection, and states: "in addition to
Their conservation value, natural areas luifili many rates within
an urban environment. They provide scenic areas, protect water
• quality, help treat stormwater runoff, store floodwaters, proviae
buffer zones between differing land uses, enhance educational
opportunities, and improve the urban setting for people,"
Timberline Wetland, in some degree, fulfills each of the above
functions. By virtue of its location, Timberline Wetlana has
unique values that need recognition. Situatea in southeast sort
Collins, this natural wetland is central to rapidly developing
residential and commercial areas. A map in the Natural Areas
Policy Plan shows that Timberline Wetland is one of the largest
isolated natural areas in a 50••square-mile (32,000-acre) region
south of Vine Drive and east of Shields Street within the Urban
Growth Area; and is the LARGEST NATURAL AREA within a 2-mile
circle radiating from the wetland.
Having observed and photographed mocas of the seasons for a year
while living at the south margin or Timberline Wetlana. I can
attest to the richness at this treasure. One winter evening I
counted 500 Canada Geese as they swooped in to land on the small
pond. Curious, I skied around them on the snow-covered, frozen
wetland and Slushed over 100 mallards from the neck ox water
extending west towards the railroad tracx.
In their seasons, 1 listen to rea-winged, yellow--headea, ana
Brewer's blackoiras as they flutter over the cattails and
• bulrushes. Besides the ubiquitous mallards. Canada geese, ana
blackbirds, other wateriowi, snore birds, ana scores or songuiras
are at home on 1'imoerline 'Wetlana seasonally or year -long. uiten
,z—
one or two Great Biue Herons sail past as they visit the marsh.
White -laced Ibis nesting near Greeley come calling in the spring.
Not often seen, but occasionally heara during the night, are the
"kwawks" of Black-crownea Night Herons, Also announcing their
presence with a shrill "creeek, creeek, creeek" at night or on
grey, rainy days, are the somewhat rare striped chorus frogs.
Dozens of other seldom seen reptiles and amphibians make
Timberline Wetland a lively place.
Lying to the north, a small (I believe it is seven acres)
pastureland is an integral part of the Timberline Wetland
environment. If allowed or assisted to return to natural
vegetation, this pasture will not be just an amenity, but will
contribute essential elements..to functions of a healthy wetlana.
There is little or no unoccupied upland area on three sides of
the marsh -- Timberline Road is on the east, Harmony Drive
residential community is on the south, and the railroad is on the
west. The pastureland is the only undeveloped upland area
contiguous with the marsh. Many birds, mammals, and amphibians
use it for parts of their life cycle.
Kilideer, Common Snipe, Sora, and Virginia hails may nest along
the margins of the marsh ana are seen flying over or foraging in
this pasturelana. Bald and Golden Eagles occasionally roost in
the single, large cottonwooa tree and a marsh hawK may launch its
hunting forays over Timberline Wetland from there.
While writing this, I'm catching glimpses of six pairs of geese
nesting in the marsh. Last winter I occasionally saw two rea
foxes in the pasturelana contemplating chances Tor a aucK or
goose dinner, hunting for field mice, or trotting to their den
near the railroad track.
This upland area can also provide a vital buffer between the rich
and sensitive marsn and industrial developments proposed for land
to the north.
Other purposes mentioned frequently in plans and policies
regarding natural areas, sometimes specifically for iimberline
Wetland, are Education and Recreation. This natural area wouia
be ideal for outdoor education since it is less than a mile from
Linton and Kruse Elementary Schools and the new Fort Collins Hign
Scnool.
If public access is contemplated, however, the only feasible site
is the existing pasturelana. Any other access would require
rights -of -way through private property aoutcing the marsh, with
filling ana surfacing a parking area in the wetiand. Such
encroachment, by physical iacilities ana sight ana sound at human
visitors, would cause monumental damage to the wetland
environment and its native occupants.
- 3-
Furthermore, the vast numbers of unoccupied DEVELUPED commerciaL
• and industrial sites throughout the city, including many in
southeast Fort Collins, seriously questions the need for
Industrial Development at this time in this place.
Example: On Thursday, April 22, 1993, from 1:15 to 1:30 p.m. I
counted parking spaces and their use at three industrial
developments within sight of Timberline Wetland. At Grainger
Industrial and Commercial Equipment and Supplies there were 55
parking spaces, 4 occupied by vehicles. At Innovative Kitchens,
170 spaces had 28 occupied. No business is currently using 4424
Innovative Drive. All 179 parking spaces were empty. To
summarize, three industrial sites had large black --topped parking
areas marked for 404 parking spaces, only 32 of them occupied.
In addition, wide access streets lead to these parking areas,
large commercial buildings, loading docks, etc.
This situation is repeated along nearby sections of Harmony Road
and Lemay Avenue. With such abundance of developed, but unused
or underused industrial sites, the need for additional
development, especially at the expense of a small (10 acres)
natural wetland, extremely rare in southeast Port Collins, is not
compelling.
Industrial development of any sort where the flow of suriace
it t? F.Rf�f*tt•q #��tlt ?}} n } Rq rpgRKa F.Nn 1}KblzRoo] qi
• disastrous escape of hazardous materials into the marsh,
At the neighborhood information meeting on April 14, 1993, 1
asked the applicant fora proposed development about this
frigntening possibility. His response was that the manager of
this development would be responsible for any accidents and that
rental contracts for use of 'the site would prohibit storage of
hazardous materials. While I didn't doubt his sincerity, the
history of protection fromhazardouswaste in the United States
caused me to be TOTALLY UNCONVINCED. Owners change, managers
change, philosophies change.
I have NO doubt that within years, or decades, a disastrous
"event" will occur. Just ONE "accident" on lands draining into
this tiny, healthy environment and this marsh will be history,
If you question this possibility, read "Interior does poor job on
hazardous waste" in The Coloradoan, Saturday, April 24, 1993.
Last Thursday, as I walked along the southwest edge of Timberline
Wetland on my way to count "parking spaces," I saw a girl with
notepad and binoculars at marsh edge. She was an ornithology
student from GSU gathering data for a research project on red -
winged blackbirds. I was reminded of a videotape in my study.
It is entitled "Urban Wildlife: Planning for the future,"' and was
produced in 1992 by Cooperative Extension, Colorado State
• University to illustrate richness and diversity of natural
resources within cities. Scenes from Timberline Wetland were a
part of this film.
It Timberline Road is widened to six lanes, as expected. 11,
commercial developments invade the last, ana vitally important,
margin of the wetland, we will have ... ] aon't want to sound
dramatic ... but we will have sounded the death Knell Lot -
Timberline Wetland. Or, at minimum, we will have reaucea a
still -healthy speck of natural diversity to an inconsequential,
sterile dot within burgeoning development.
Such a scenario is, I believe, unacceptable to the citizens of
Fort Collins and certainly at odds with 20 years of plans ana
policies promulgated at public expense by concerned city
officials. As recently as last week I read in City Begs: a
monthly publication for City of Fort Collins utility customers:
"Fort Collins residents have expressed a strong desire to protect
natural areas."
A PROPOSAL
I propose that the City of Fort Collins acquire the pastureland
immediately north of Timberline Wetland, plus any land needed to
include the drainage divide between ponding areas designatea as
"I" and "J" in Figure 2 of the Fox Meadows Basin (13asin II)
Drainage Master Plan submittea Feoruary 1981.
A parking area could be developed off Timoerline Road near the
north boundary of the pastureland, reducing impacts of noisy,
disruptive vehicles and people on native inhabitants of the
marsh. Further, a "viewing path" with descriptive signing„
perhaps a nundrea feet up this natural ampitneatre, couia acnieve
an optimum mix of human aelight and education with crucial
protection of natural resources.
I submit that such acquisition and subsequent protection ana
management of Timberline Wetland will be a jewel in the
protection program for natural areas in Fort Collins and will
have values far overshadowing still more industrial deveLopment
in southeast sections of the city.
Submitted by:
Dwight R. Smith
1916 Harmony Drive
Fort Collins, GO 8052b
(ro3)2z3- Zrr7L
Planning Department
Citv of Fort Collins
and EnvironmentaArvices
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner;
RE: Signage Condition on Timberline Storage PUD
DT: April 26, 1993
Staff is proposing the following condition in lieu of the signage
condition presented in the staff report of Timberline Storage PUD:
The sign size be a maximum of 60-square feet (per face) and that
the proposed sign be designed to be a monument sign with a base not
to exceed 4' in height and that the base match the color and
materials used on the manager's residence and be incorporated into
• the landscaping at the site's entrance.
•
281 North Colle,e Avenue I'.O. Rk,\ 580 • Fart Collins. CO 8115_2-0;S0 1?031 „1-1,7;0
0
,Aj...
GRHAMIAR VI
GREENBRIAR V]
...... ........ . .. .....
..........
POUDRE STER PLAN .. .......
EAS ST E/W—F��'STDE AMD
T D
.... .......
T60T: : :
... ............ .........
s: .....
........... U.
.. ... ............ ........... ......
........... .
..:2
I
DAKOTA RIDGE REZONINP
:..:.:SDAKOTA -,RIDIGE PUD. 2 d
::::::31
*-r AUN RANCH'N.
NE
-T
[77
I ......
.... . ....... . .......... ............. . .............. ........... -
MOR PLA7A PUD
"I ..... ....
Al or
r4i
PARAGON POINT PUD ODP
PARAGON POINT PUD, 4th
RD
City Llmitsf 1-31-93
L......
PUD
2nd