Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/22/1993• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 22, 1993 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The February 22, 1993 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Vice Chair Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Bernie Strom, and Jim Klataske. Member Clements -Cooney joined the meeting at 6:35 p.m. 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, Kayla Ballard and Heidi Phelps. Identification of citizen participants may be from verbal statements and not necessarily correct, since some participants did not sign in as requested. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes • of the March 22, 1993 meeting; Item 2 - Amigos at Shield PUD - Final, #47-90B; Item 3 - Bums Ranch at Quail Ridge, Amended, RF Site Plan Review and 2nd Filing - Final, #23-90D; Item 4 - Paragon Point PUD, Phase III - Final, #48-91F; Item 5 - Sandcreek Village Subdivision - Final, #1-84E; Item 7 - Amigos at Arbor Plaza PUD - Preliminary, #137-80G; Item 8 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, New Mercer Commons - Final, #53-85AD; Item 9 - Upper Meadows at Miramont PUD, Second Filing - Final, #54-87I; Item 10 - PZ93-4 Easement Vacation; Item 11 - The Gateway at Harmony Road PUD - One Year Extension of Final Approval, #1-88C; Item 12 - North Lemay Plaza PUD - One Year Extension of Final Approval, #57-87B; Item 13 - Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval for Eight Projects; Item 14 - Manion Annexation and Zoning, #5-93, and; Item 15 - Amendment to Chapter 2 of the City Code, #17-93. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 16 - ShopKo PUD - Preliminary, #1-93; Item 17 - Impala Village PUD - Preliminary, #6-93; Item 18-Oakridge PUD, Block One - Preliminary, #13-82BB, and; Oakridge PUD, Block One, 1st Filing - Final, #13-8213C. Vice Chair Carroll noted that Mr. Peterson had requested that Item 2 of the Consent Agenda be pulled. Vice Chair Carroll asked if staff had any other items to pull from the Consent Agenda. 0 Mr. Peterson said they did not. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 2 Vice Chair Carroll asked if the Board had any items to pull from the Consent Agenda. There was no response. Vice Chair Carroll asked if the public wanted any items pulled from the Consent Agenda. Ellen Kelly, 806 Bramblebush Lane, requested that Consent Item 5 be pulled. Tim Arenson, 3020 Blue Leaf Court, Quail Hollow, requested that Consent Item 3 be pulled. Member O'Dell moved to approve items 1, 4, and 7-15 of the Consent Agenda. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. AMIGOS AT SHIELDS PUD - FINAL. #47-90B Ted Shepard, City Planner, explained that the project had preliminary approval with five conditions. Mr. Shepard stated that staff had reviewed the conditions and that it was their opinion that the conditions were satisfied. Mr. Shepard said that the reason the item was pulled was to modify former Condition Number 2, by adding the clause: "AND off -site drainage easement". He noted that this condition was now the only condition attached to approval. The condition now reads: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, final P.U.D. plans, and offsite drainage easement for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (May 24, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. • P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 3 If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running • of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Mr. Shepard stated that the clause denoted an item which was site -specific to this project. Mr. Shepard said that at this time the City did not have the off -site drainage easement, but anticipated getting it in the very near future. Vice Chair Carroll asked if anyone representing the applicant had any comments on the condition. There was no response. Vice Chair Carroll asked if the Board or staff had any questions. There was no response. PUBLIC INPUT Vice Chair Carroll asked if any member of the public wished to address the matter. There was no response. 0 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 4 Member Cottier moved for approval of Amigos at Shields PUD - F"mal. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. BURNS RANCH AT QUAIL RIDGE, AMENDED, RF SITE PLAN REVIEW AND 2ND FILING - FINAL. #23-90D Tim Arenson requested a full report on the project. Kirsten Whetstone, City Planner, gave an overview of the project. She noted that the project had preliminary approval. Ms. Whetstone stated that this amendment to the preliminary plan included a modification replacing two of the larger subdivision lots with six smaller cluster lots, and increasing the total lot number from 22 to 26 for the Second Filing. Ms. Whetstone added that the site plan met two of the zoning requirements: 1) that the gross residential density be at least one dwelling unit per acre, and 2) that the dwelling units be clustered in the residential portion of the plan at'a density of 3-5 dwelling units per acre, with the remainder of the site dedicated to the City of Fort Collins as perpetual open space. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that he was representing the applicant. Mr. Ward noted that Dan Jensen, who was also involved in the project development, was present to answer questions. Mr. Ward clarified that the Cluster Plan for the entire development was approved in 1991 and that the north half of the project was platted. He stated that the current item was an amendment to the Cluster Plan, and a the filing of Phase II of development. Mr. Ward presented a map showing the change to the plan. He stated that the number of total units increased by two, and that the open space amount increased by three acres. Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were any questions from the Board at the present time. There were none. PUBLIC INPUT Member O'Dell asked if the presentation given had clarified all the questions for the gentleman who had asked that the item be pulled, or if he had further questions. • P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Arenson asked for clarification on the project's main feeder road and on the location of the southernmost cul-de-sac. Mr. Ward stated that it was approximately 1500 feet west from the end of Overland Trail to the cul-de-sac in question. Mr. Arenson asked if the project property was tied into the City's open space initiative, or if it was prioritized in terms of protection for sensitive foothills areas. Mr. Peterson stated that: 1) the City was not looking at this piece as part of their natural areas initiative, and 2) the property contained two sensitive sections in terms of environmental protection for the foothills area. He shared that one section was the Lakeshore/Dixon Reservoir area, which was being dedicated to the City; the other area was the top of the first ridge in the development, which was coming under public ownership as a part of the project's open space provision. Mr. Peterson said that the City was looking for trail access to Pine Ridge Open Space from Overland Trail, and that a portion of the property by the power lines would be part of that trail • access. Mr. Arenson asked if this project would have any impact in terms of the City's air quality standards. Mr. Peterson stated that when the project was submitted for initial approval, it met the objectives of the plans and policies in place at that time; that process included guidelines set under the Foothills Policy. Mr. Arenson asked if further analysis was warranted since the adoption of the various plans and policies. Mr. Peterson said: "No.". Mr. Arenson shared that he believed the City was headed in a positive direction with some of the current emphasis on natural areas and other items. He asked how developments such as this, even when carefully planned, fit into such agendas. Mr. Peterson stated that the City was actively implementing both foothills areas development policies and natural areas acquisition objectives. Mr. Arenson stated that he appreciated the City's notification process, which allowed for a • public forum. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 6 Brian Arnold, 3009 Blue Leaf Court, Quail Hollow, asked for clarification on the proposed Vail to the Pine Ridge Open Space. He asked if the existing trail through the area would remain intact, or if it would be moved. Ms. Whetstone stated that the existing trail is not on City property; it is on the Bums Ranch property. Alignment of the future trail has not been determined and will require coordination between Partks and Recreation, Planning, Natural Resources and the developer once the future of Quail Hollow 7th Filing has been resolved. The trail is intended to be located on City Open Space property. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Klataske moved to approve Item 3, Burns Ranch at Quail Ridge, Amended, RF Site Plan Review and 2nd Filing - Nynal. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. SANDCREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. FINAL. kl - 94E Vice Chair Carroll asked if there were specific concerns that the public wanted addressed, since this agenda item was pulled by citizen initiative. Dan Rodarmel, 800 Bramblebush, stated that neighboring Greenbriar homeowners were concerned about four items for the proposed subdivision : 1) square footage requirements; 2) covenants; 3) price range, and; 4) design standards. Specifically, there were questions about Lots 25, 26 and 27. Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner, gave the staff report on this Amended Final P.U.D., recommending approval with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final P.U.D. plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (May 24, 1993) of the Planning and Zoning Board following the meeting at which this planned unit development final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said planned unit development final plan certain specific unique and • 0 . P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 7 extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding or second succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an • appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that.a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Mr. Shepard addressed some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Rodarmel, and deferred the rest to the applicant. He stated that all of the lots in Sandcreek Village exceed the minimum requirement for that particular zoning density, which is 6,000 square feet. Mr. Shepard noted that the City cannot be a party to private contractual covenants. He said that the City has design guidelines for such items as streetscaping, and fences and lots, but not for individual homes. Peter Sherman, coapplicant with associate Ed Lawler, addressed some of the remaining concerns. Mr. Sherman explained that there were minimum dwelling sizes, and that covenants patterned after those for Greenbriar were being developed. Handouts were distributed to those present, showing graphics on the standards for structure • exteriors. Mr. Sherman stated that those requirements, and those for landscaping, were in substantial conformance with similar standards for Greenbriar. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Sherman said that designs were still being finalized for the houses, but that the applicant was looking at an average range in the low ninety thousands, with a beginning price in the mid eighty thousand range, and an upper price around one hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Sherman reiterated that all the lots, including lots 25, 26 and 27, exceeded the 6,000 square feet minimum requirement. PUBLIC INPUT Ellen Kelly, 806 Bramblebush, stated that she was in favor of the proposal. She said that she did have concerns about the lot sizes and neighborhood compatibility issues. Member O'Dell clarified that compatibility does not mean "the same as". Kathy Dillon-Durica, 906 Bramblebush, expressed her concerns about smaller lot sizes and their impact on possibly decreasing property values. Chuck Anderson, 818 Bramblebush, was concerned about the environmental impact of the development, noting that there were wetlands north and east of the development. Mr. Sherman stated activity on the proposed development would not affect the private land between the Weld-Larimer Canal and the north boundary of the project. Mr. Shepard explained that the project had been reviewed at both the Preliminary and Final stages by the City's Department of Natural Resources, and would not impact any wetlands. The site itself is not on the City's Natural Resources map as being an area with moderate or high resource value. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member O'Dell moved for approval of Sandcreek Village PUD, Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA SHOPKO PUD. PRELIMINARY, k1-93 Steve Olt, City Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 9 Member Strom asked about the deletion of the right turn lane from College Ave. Mr. Olt said that it had been determined that the right turn lane was not necessary, and that the 12-foot strip had been incorporated into the landscaping buffer. Mike Herzig, Engineering, provided clarification on the reevaluation of the proposed right turn lane. Two different right -turn access options did not meet the State Department of Transportation requirements. Matt Delich, Engineer for the applicant, didthe traffic impact study for the proposed development. He stated that elimination of the right turn lane does not significantly impact the operation of the signalized intersection at College and Bockman. Member O'Dell asked about possible future impact and if the right of way was reserved. Mike Herzig said the right of way was not reserved, and if a future problem were to develop, that it would be a City -at -large problem to fix. He re -stated that neither the State or the City anticipated a traffic impact problem at the intersection. He gave an overview of the South College Access Plan. He stated that the third lane on College Avenue tends to function as a • right turn lane. Right turn lanes are not being installed at signalized intersections (except at major arterial intersections); right turn lanes are being installed as a deceleration lane at locations where there is no signal. Vice Chair Carroll referred to a letter in the Item Package, in which a citizen stated that the project could not possibly meet the four percent grade requirement on streets. He asked Mr. Herzig to respond. Mr. Herzig explained that public streets are subject to grade standards, but private property as a rule, is not. There is a two percent grade maximum for local intersections; an eight percent grade rule applies to local streets. The six percent grade standard which applies for arterials, does not apply in the case of the JFK Blvd/Boardwalk intersection, since there will be a stop sign in place, and it is a local street coming into a major street. In summary, there is no grade standard which applies to the JFK Boulevard/Boardwalk intersection. Member Strom referred to the mention of a groundwater problem (particularly in the Landings area) which was brought up at the neighborhood meeting. Apparently, it was stated that this project would intercept some of the groundwater that is a problem for the area. Mr. Herzig stated that he was not aware of the comment or the report's content. He noted the that the City's involvement in groundwater water concerns centers mainly around proper disposal. He said that he was not aware of any.groundwater problem actually on the site. • P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 10 Jay Rosenbaum, of Rosenbaum & Dean, gave a presentation for the applicant. He shared that Rosenbaum & Dean was one of six property owners who would be selling land to ShopKo for its project. Mr. Rosenbaum gave an overview of the proposed project, focusing on changes made to the Tabled application since the last Board meeting. The proposal centers on a 99,351 retail building (ShopKo), as well a 17,500 square foot pad for retail/restaurant and a 5,000 square foot pad for a restaurant on the site. He stated that the first step was to conform the project to the Superblock Plan for the South College/Harmony Corridor. The site is one of the last two Superblocks left in the area. Mr. Rosenbaum noted that the changes which had been made to the project were significant. Those changes were in response to staff suggestions, citizen input and Planning and Zoning Board concerns. He spoke first on access around the site. He stated that one access point and a right hand turn lane had been eliminated. All direct access onto College Avenue has been eliminated, which was a major concern for the City's Transportation Department. Mr. Rosenbaum shared that one of the major benefits of the project would be the completion of JFK Parkway and of Mitchell Drive. He updated those present on the process for the improvements to these two streets. Mr. Rosenbaum addressed previous questions by explaining the project's approach to street grades. In order to provide access to at least two of the bordering streets and stay within the established maximum of an 8% grade, the hill on the site would need to be lowered by at least ten feet. In seeking to reach a safe and practical grade level, the applicant made a decision to lower the existing hill by 14 feet. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the grade level had to be balanced out with a storm drainage plan. The proposal provides for drainage collection onsite, with storage provided in two detention ponds. Historical flows will be let offsite via a pipe under JFK parkway to an outfall pond destination east of the development. Mr. Rosenbaum presented schematics which illustrated the proposed project from various visual perspectives. He said that the grade from College Avenue was now 2.4 percent (there were prior concerns about the project "looming" over College Avenue). He compared it to the grade of three percent for the City Hall West building site. Mr. Rosenbaum addressed landscaping changes which had been made, noting that landscaping site coverage was now at 30 percent. He compared that figure with: PACE (25%), MarketPlace (22%); Weberg (20%), and; Best Buy (18%). He added that the front berm (College Avenue) had been increased from two feet to four feet. The elimination of the right-hand turn lane • P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 11 increased landscaping ground coverage from 35 feet wide to 45-47 feet wide along of that same boundary. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that more trees were added to the parking lot, bringing the density to 26 trees per acre, the highest density for any new commercial project within the past several years. Trees and planter boxes with shrubs were added to the south elevation of the ShopKo building. A walk-through xeriscape demonstration area is another addition to the proposal. Mr. Rosenbaum said that the Cook property has been incorporated into the project, so that Muddy Road canoe eliminated; landscaping and sidewalks cover the entire perimeter of the site. He brought physical samples of the building material, which included two types of gray block and an accenting blue ceramic block. Additionally, the front of the building is designed for breaks in elevation breaks in four foot increments. The height of the majority of the building is 23 feet, four inches, with a few sections reaching as high as 30 feet. He compared that elevation to other building heights in the area: Best Buy (35 feet), and Toys'R'Us, Target and Wal-Mart (all predominantly 30 feet throughout). Mr. Rosenbaum cited that the front sidewalks had been a concern. He noted that in addition to • having full perimeter sidewalks, the sidewalk in front of the building ranged from six to eighteen feet in width. Other parking lot area sidewalks were clearly demarcated with curbs and designed to promote pedestrian traffic. Mr. Rosenbaum expressed ShopKo's commitment to energy efficiency, and said that both interior and exterior lighting were designed to exceed the National Standards for efficiency. He said copies of the lighting report were available. The monument sign, which had been another Board concern, was reduced from 18 feet to 12 feet. The signs on the building were also reduced from nine -foot to seven -foot letters, and are interiorly lit without "boxes" or "cans". Mr. Rosenbaum concluded by emphasizing ShopKo's desire not only to do business in Fort Collins, but to fit into the South College area planning efforts. He stressed ShopKo's willingness to receive input into the proposal from every level. Member Strom asked for clarification on a few items. Mr. Rosenbaum explained that the building lights were shielded, downward fixtures which would not contribute to a glare problem. There are no proposed freestanding lighting fixtures on the east side of the building. The four foot berm is only along College Avenue; the remaining berming is two feet high and covers the entire perimeter. Vice Chair Carroll had a question about signage. After receiving some additional input from Mr. Rosenbaum, he summarized that there would be total of four ShopKo signs on the building. • The front side would exhibit a larger sign, and each of the side and back facades would house smaller ShopKo signs. There would also be "Pharmacy" and "Optical" signs on the front side, P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 12 advertising those departments. The final sign would be the monument sign along College Avenue. Vice Chair Carroll asked if the seasonal outdoor nursery/garden center set-up was still part of the proposal, since it was not depicted in any of the graphics he had seen. Mr. Rosenbaum responded that the seasonal nursery/garden center was still part of the proposal and was incorporated into the increased landscaping on the site. PUBLIC INPUT Wendy Anderson, 134 Boardwalk, urged the Board to vote "yes" on ShopKo's proposal. She stated that she was one of the property owners on the site, and even though she was a residential owner, she had been paying commercial percentage property taxes for years, due to the Superblock rezoning. She believed that the applicant had not only met, but exceeded, the City's development criteria. She stated that there was presently nothing attractive on the site, and that the addition of the ShopKo development would enhance the look on College Avenue and provide consumers with alternate shopping. Ms. Anderson also noted the developers willingness to further complete JFK Parkway and Mitchell Drive. Willard Anderson, 134 Boardwalk, urged the Board to vote "yes" on the proposal. He cited the importance of working to continue to put JFK Parkway through. He stated that the original intents of the Superblock concept, which includes such access streets as JFK Parkway, was to avoid frontage road problems which occur on older portions of South College Avenue. Mr. Anderson shared that the site, as it currently exists, was not visually significant from any vantage point. Diana Lough, 3737 Landings Drive #A-2 (part of the Wharf condominiums), stated that this project would impact her home. Her westward view will now be interrupted by the rear elevation of ShopKo's building. She said she appreciated ShopKo's landscaping detail on the rear side of the building. Ms. Hough said that at the neighborhood meeting she had requested that the east side berm be increased from two feet to four feet, and that the applicant had agreed to do that. Mr. Rosenbaum said that they had considered that request, but found that they could not get the corresponding width on the berm to achieve the increased height. As a mitigation measure, they will be putting in larger trees. . Ms. Lough also expressed a concern about increased traffic on Landings Drive and Boardwalk. She said that the intersection of Landings Drive and Boardwalk had already experienced impact due to the new Post Office, and that it was difficult to make a left hand turn from Landings Drive onto Boardwalk. She requested that traffic studies be done regularly and that steps be taken to mitigate any problem. • P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 13 Lanny Reed, 516 Spring Canyon Court, resident in the Landings Subdivision and Board Member of the Homeowner's Association, expressed concern overly the increasingly heavy traffic on Boardwalk and Landings Drive. He stated that the new Post Office seems to have impacted traffic in the area. Mr. Reed said that the access roads are extremely difficult to get in and out of, and that the route is being used as a shortcut between Horsetooth Road and College Avenue. He requested that any approval by the Board be accompanied by a traffic redesign to slow down traffic flow in the area. Mr. Reed asked that lighting for the ShopKo signage be investigated. He stated that Best Buy's yellow sign was blinding at night and was in poor taste and intrusive. Mike Byrne, 1505 South College, commended the applicant on changes that had been made to the proposal. He expressed a general concern about South College Avenue's development on Fort Collins' sense of community. He believed that the corridor was beginning to look like many other rapidly growing western cities. Mr. Byrne stated that Fort Collins is a good place to do business and that we should expect a lot from companies who want to move here. • Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, area resident and Vice President of Citizen Planners, divided his comments into community -wide and site specific categories. He expressed concern over the actual benefit an additional discount store would have to consumers and the community at large. Mr. Mason stated that Fort Collins does not have an unemployment problem, but an underemployment problem. He believed that an employer such as ShopKo, in terms of wage scale and benefits, would not provide a living or sustainable wage for at least heads -of - households employees. He said that such a scenario would create a need for continued public assistance and place a further burden on the community's social service infrastructure. He stated that Citizen Planners agreed with Fort Collins, Inc. in believing that Fort Collins needed more base jobs and more base exporting businesses and not more commercial retail chains. Mr. Byrne said that although he realized that the Board meeting was not the forum for addressing economic development concerns, that he wanted to go on record as requesting that the City address these issues in more detail. Mr. Mason stated that he felt that the land use was appropriate for the area, and the site design had progressed nicely. He made positive comments about the neighborhood meeting process. Mr. Mason asked that the Neighborhood Compatibility Advisory Committee modify the 500-foot notification requirement for major regional developments on major corridors. • Mr. Mason commended the applicant for upgrading the site plan. He urged that the Fort Collins P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 14 Building Performance Code, especially in terms of energy efficiency, be upgraded. Elaine Burrett, 3020 Stanford, stated that she was in favor of the ShopKo proposal. She believed Shopko would be a benefit to the community by bringing jobs, increasing spending dollars in the community and by being a good corporate citizen. Lyle Bowers, a property owner on the site, spoke in favor of the ShopKo proposal. He stated stated that he and his parents had been residents on the site for 45 years and that it was time to move on and get away from the hustle and bustle of the developing South College Avenue area. Karen Horak, a business property owner on the site, said ShopKo's plan looked good and could not be argued against. She did, however, express concern over the continued impact that another mass merchandiser would have on small business and middle class income in the community. She questioned ShopKo's overall benefit to the community, and believed that the City needed to do more to encourage small business. Vice Chair Carroll asked that the Superblock concept be clarified. Tom Peterson, Planning Director, explained that the Superblock idea was a step above traditional land use planning and a precursor to the City's Land Development Guidance System. In approving the Superblocks approximately 10 years ago, the Board was doing two things: 1) setting the land use (commercial), and 2) setting the traffic circulation patterns. Member Clements -Cooney expressed concerns about the traffic situation. She asked about mitigation efforts, particularly for Landings Drive, until such time as JFK Parkway is expanded. Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the initial response. He stated that there was a supplemental traffic study which was completed, which indicated that initially there will be additional traffic. Member Clements -Cooney asked what the overall time frame was for the completion of JFK Parkway. Steve Olt affirmed that the time frame for completion of JFK Parkway would be one to two years. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that studies showed that traffic on College Avenue and Landings Drive would increase in the 2-3 percent range until the completion of JFK Parkway; with the completion of JFK Parkway, the study indicated that the traffic on College Avenue would decrease 5-6 percent and the traffic on Landings Drive would decrease 12-13 percent. Member Clements -Cooney asked for a more specific estimate on the time line for finishing JFK Parkway. . P ar Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Peterson stated that he could not give a definitive answer, but that hopefully completion would occur within the next few years. He said that there was momentum for the project; the City is working with private property owners and pursuing public/private funding options. Member O'Dell said that regardless of traffic studies, the fact is that drivers are using Boardwalk and Landings Drive as shortcuts. She asked if Boardwalk was designed as an arterial. Mr. Olt answered that Boardwalk was designed as a collector street and was functioning at the upper level of that status. He mentioned that the traffic situation was also questioned during the Toys'R'Us/Western Auto development review. He said that the State Department of 'Transportation's position at that time was to monitor and evaluate traffic volumes and the use of Boardwalk, and if needed, determine ways to discourage cut -through traffic. Member O'Dell asked if there were plans to put JFK Parkway through to Harmony Road. Mr. Peterson affirmed that that was the case. • Mr. Peterson provided an explanation of some traffic circulation patterns and mitigation strategies. He emphasized the need to keep reevaluating traffic impact. Member O'Dell asked about the reasoning for a sign on the east side of the Shopko building, since people approaching the building from JFK Parkway would see the signs on the north and south sides. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the applicant would work with the Board, staff and neighbors to make sure that the signage was non -glaring, etc. Member O'Dell emphasized avoiding the problems which occurred with the "Toys'R'Us" signage. Member Strom asked for clarification on the traffic impact on Landings Drive. Mr. Rosenbaum reiterated the earlier statistics. Member Strom expressed concern about the short term impact and asked about the base traffic numbers. Mr. Delich stated that the last traffic count on Landings Drive was done in 1991; there were 4800 trips total per day. He said that the count was done before Toys'R'Us, Western Auto and • the Post Office were built; he estimated that these three facilities had added 800 trips a day to P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 16 the base. He said that full development of the ShopKo site, without any other street construction occurring. could add another 600 -800 trips a day to Landings Drive. Mr. Delich said that the completion of JFK Parkway and Mitchell Drive would not only decrease the additional traffic count numbers, but would impact the base as well. Member Strom again expressed his concern about interim traffic impact, and asked for further clarification of the traffic count numbers. Member O'Dell asked about traffic counts on Boardwalk. Mr. Delich said there were none available. He said that a rule -of -thumb estimate would put the count at 9000 trips a day on Boardwalk at the end of 1992. Member Cottier said it was positive that the entire perimeter landscaping and sidewalks would be put in with the first phase. She reiterated the concerns about traffic which other Board members had expressed. Member Strom stated that the plan, with the changes, was acceptable to him, although he said that traffic was still a concern. Member Strom expressed some future -oriented concerns regarding the issue of architectural compatibility within a commercial site. Member Strom said that any approval of the project should come with a condition concerning architectural compatibility of all pads on the Shopko site. He stated that the condition should read that the style, color, materials, etc. of all the pad sites should be consistent with the major structure (ShopKo) on the site. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that the applicant had no problems with that condition. Vice Chair Carroll noted the scores that the applicant had received on the criteria charts, and said he was pleased with the improvements to the plan. Vice Chair Carroll clarified the role and responsibility with which the Planning and Zoning Board was charged in reviewing projects. Vice Chair Carroll shared his concern about the traffic impact, but believed the continued work on JFK would help to improve the overall traffic circulation in the area. Member Strom moved for approval of the Shopko PUD, Preliminary, with at least one condition, that being the previously mentioned architectural compatibility expectations for the pad sites. • P ar Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 17 Member Strom posed a question to Mr. Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, regarding placing a condition on the motion regarding the traffic condition, since he believed it reflected a broader condition than just the ShopKo proposal. Mr. Eckman concurred that it would not be appropriate to place such a condition on the Master Design for the project. Mr. Peterson suggested the option of a report from the City Traffic Engineer about both the short term and long term strategies for dealing with the growing traffic situation on Boardwalk and Landings Drive, including specific tactics, work programs, etc. that the City will be looking at over the next few years. Secondly, there would be a report from the Transportation Department, which would focus on the Boardwalk and Landings Drive situation. Mr. Peterson said that the report would be ready for the April Board meeting, and that representatives from the Transportation Department would be present for either the Board meeting or a worksession to review the situation. Member Strom said he would leave just the one condition on his motion. iMember Cottier seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney said she agreed that the issues were bigger than the Shopko project itself. She stated that citizen concerns over development, economic and growth issues needed to be voiced at the City Council level. Member Clements -Cooney shared her concern about the traffic impact. She noted the many constructive changes the applicant had made in the proposal process; Member Clements -Cooney said she would support the motion. Member O'Dell voiced concern over the traffic issues, both current and future. She noted the support of the immediate neighbors at the neighborhood meeting. Member O'Dell voiced her "reluctant support" for the proposal. The motion passed 6-0. IMPALA VILLAGE PUD. PRELIMINARY. #6-93 Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, gave the Staff Report, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of the Final P.U.D., the office area shall include a "visitors only" • parking area, separate from employees, to accommodate visitors and tenants. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 18 2 At the time of Final P.U.D., the landscape plan shall demonstrate adequate landscape and buffering to shield the project from the impacts of the High School parking lot and tennis courts. 3. At the time of Final P.U.D., the office/maintenance building (or daycare as alternative use) shall be described in sufficient detail by architectural elevations indicating, height, scale, bulk, materials, color, and style so that the building contributes to the neighborhood's appearance in a positive way. 4. At the time of Final P.U.D., the number, location, and specification features of the offstreet lighting fixtures shall be provided and reviewed by the Planning Department for impacts on adjacent properties. Rochelle Stephens, Executive Director, Fort Collins Housing Authority, gave the presentation for the project. She noted Impala Village was consistent with the City's responsiveness to increasing the sorely needed rental housing stock for those residents who are economically restricted. Ms. Stephens also stated that it was the Housing Authority's intent to provide a housing product that makes a positive aesthetic contribution to neighboring developments. Jim Kline, Staff Construction Manager for the Housing Authority, outlined some of the land use aspects and proposed construction design for the project. He cited that previously used housing components would be the base material for the project, and would be brought up to code and restored to the original condition. Vice Chair Carroll asked for a more detailed description of the project in terms of access, location, and surrounding uses. Mr. Kline stated that there were some concerns about additional traffic on Impala Drive, which accesses the project. Impala Drive already bears heavy use by Poudre High School students. It was his opinion that increased traffic from the project would be tied into residents' work schedules (early morning and evening) and would not conflict with current traffic volume. Vice Chair Carroll asked for an overview of the fencing situation. As a result of a request at an earlier neighborhood meeting, the applicant will provide a six foot solid wood privacy fence on the east side; they will do the same for the north side. There is existing public housing west of the proposed project; the Housing Authority owns the land south of the project, which contains one residential building and some open space. Member O'Dell had a question about a future street shown south of the property. • P ar Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Kline stated that the cul-de-sac, shown on the map as a "future street", was proposed as part of another project, and was not in existence. Member O'Dell asked if the proposed alternative use -- a day care center --would be privately or publicly run, and what clients would be served. Mr. Kline said that it would be privately run, and that the clients would be working parents. He clarified that the client base would go beyond the project's residents. Member O'Dell asked about parking and outdoor play area considerations. Mr. Shepard provided some specifics. He reiterated that the day care center was a proposed alternative use (to the office/ maintenance facility), and was deemed an appropriate use at the preliminary stage. As far as any approval, he noted the conditions to the staff's recommendation. Additionally, he stated that the Zoning Code and State Code provided for such items as separate employee/visitor parking, outdoor play areas and fencing. Mr. Kline added that should the day care center turn out to be the chosen use, any related considerations would be taken under study. • Member Cottier asked about the proposed maintenance shop. Mr. Kline provided clarification on the maintenance facility, which would essentially replace the shop on Mountain Avenue, and would be light -duty maintenance. Member Strom had concerns about the existing modular units. Mr. Shepard presented a slide of the units. Mr. Kline gave more specific information on the units and emphasized that these units would provide a finished product similar to the project at Mountain and Bryan Avenues (across from the Housing Authority administration building). PUBLIC INPUT Sharon Winfree, 2200 Woodford Court, stated she was not opposed to low income housing. She did, however, have concerns about increased density, traffic patterns, the concentration of low income housing units in northwest and northeast Fort Collins, the outdoor maintenance facility and decreased property values. Ms. Winfree urged the board to consider the impact of this and similar projects. 40 P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 20 Greg Connaughton, 308 Briarwood, stated that he recently purchased his house in the neighborhood adjoining the proposed project. He expressed concerns about increased traffic, the decreased value of his recent property investment, population. density, the maintenance shop's interference with home appliance use (power tool use and static) and the diminished atmosphere of the neighborhood. Dan Richmond, 2213 W. Olive Court, has been a neighborhood resident for 15 years. He stated that he is in favor of managed development and use. Mr. Richmond said that he would favor this project over a use such as a parking lot extension by the High School. He had no objections to traffic considerations. Mr. Richmond asked for more specifics on the proposed office/maintenance facility. Rose Colbert, 224 Briarwood Court, was concerned about traffic flow, number of persons per unit/bedroom, condition of the housing units, property values, impact of increased student enrollment at Irish elementary and the concentration of low income housing in certain sections of Fort Collins. Mollie Winden, 700 Pear, a neighborhood resident who also works in the school district's administration building, stated that traffic flow through the area is already a problem. She expressed concerns about the increasing quantity of multi -family units in this particular neighborhood, the lack of equitable distribution of low income housing throughout Fort Collins, and the maintenance facility (entrance and outside vehicles). Rita Wright, 2213 Magnolia Court, voiced her concerns about the traffic problem and the already heavy traffic flow in the area. She was also concerned about the amount of low income housing on the west side of Fort Collins. She cited the August 2, 1977 resolution adopted by the Council, endorsing the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, which stated the need for dispersement of publicly assisted housing throughout the City. Ms. Wright expressed concern about decreased property values. Pat Mahoney, who resides east of the site, wanted clarification on the use of the Day Care Center. He stated he was not opposed to low income housing, but wanted to see a more even distribution throughout the community. Mr. Mahoney shared that he was a 10-year resident, and had noted a bifurcation trend in the community. He stated that: "We're creating an ethnically, racially, elderly, student -based population in the north part of town, and we've got this white, wealthy suburb sprawling in the southern part of town." Mr. Mahoney also requested an assessment of traffic patterns before site approval. He noted that there was an indication that the study would be done, and that it had not been done as of the board meeting. He also requested that the Board put a cap on the actual number of units allowed on the acreage. Mr. Mahoney stated that the Housing Authority was not responsive to an earlier request for such a cap. • P ar Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Mahoney also had some concerns as to how square footage and number of bedrooms would affect livability of the units. He questioned the condition of the houses and whether they were fit for habitation. John Munn, 69 S. Taft Hill Rd., stated that he felt the proposal was a step forward to getting something done on the parcel. Jim Weber, 116 N. Hollywood St., spoke in favor of the development and of the Fort Collins Housing Authority in general. He said he has been biking or "autoing" on Impala Drive for the past seven years, and except for a few periods during the day, has not found the traffic to be too bad. Mr. Weber shared that he is a low income person and lives in a low income neighborhood. He stated that he is a board member of CARE Housing, Inc., and had concerns about the whole issue of affordable housing in Fort Collins. Sister Mary Alice Murphy, 1712 Erin Court #A, stated that she was the Director of CARE Housing, Inc. She explained that it was very difficult to find land in Fort Collins, for use in building affordable housing. Sister Mary Alice talked about the variance in land prices in different sectors of the community. She said there aren't the spaces available there once were, to be able to disperse housing. She talked about affordable housing issues at large, and about . how both the Housing Authority and CARE Housing, Inc. worked hard at being good neighbors. Sister Mary Alice spoke in favor of the proposed project, stating that it at least starts to address some of the need for increased affordable housing in the community. Evelyn Clark stated that she is a 20-year Ft. Collins resident. She spoke about the need for the City to provide affordable housing to the lower income population in an economical way. She believed that the density ratio/acre for this project was much better than the proposed student housing by CSU. Ms. Clark also talked about the relationship of housing concentration and bus service. She urged the board to approve the project. Carolyn Nagle, area resident, stated that she is a member of the Inter -Faith Council and serves on the Housing Committee. She talked about the critical need for affordable housing. Ms. Nagle said that all of us depend on those who must earn minimum wage for a living, and that we should recognize their need for safe, decent, affordable housing. Robert Colbert, 224 Briarwood Court, spoke about the already existing neighborhood problems in terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, parking, and theft and vandalism of bikes and autos. He requested information on the permitted number of residents per unit in the proposed project. Mr. Colbert was concerned about the effect the population increase would have on an already crowded neighborhood. • PUBLIC 04PUT CLOSED. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 22 Vice -Chair Carroll asked Staff to provide additional information on the proposed project's traffic impact, public housing dispersement issues and the maintenance facility. Mr. Shepard stated that the traffic situation was looked at by the Transportation Department. The concept of a street outlet to Mulberry Street was rejected, due to proximity to other nearby intersections. He said that the two currently proposed access points into the site are appropriate, and would not trigger signalization of the Impala/Mulberry intersection. The intersection will still operate at acceptable levels of service with stop sign control. There is no vehicular access into either Briarwood or Ramblewood from the project. Mr. Shepard said that the current residential parking levels on the project submittal are in accordance with the Zoning Code. He cited the approval condition placed on the office/maintenance/day care facility. Mr. Shepard addressed the public housing dispersement concern. He stated that the dispersement issue was cited in the 1977 Goals and Objectives document, but was not part of the successor 1979 Land Use Policies Plan. Mr. Shepard said that the Land Development Guidance System has no flexible/mandatory requirement in terms of publicly assisted housing. He clarified that the Fort Collins Housing Authority is not a department of the City, and is not required to disperse housing. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the existence of parking spaces, bike lanes and sidewalks on Impala Drive. Mr. Shepard said that there are homes which front Impala, with cars parked on Impala. Several members of the audience corrected Mr. Shepard, stating that there is no parking on Impala Drive. Mr. Shepard added that there were sidewalks, but no bike lanes. Vice Chair Carroll asked the applicant to more specifically address the public's concerns about the maintenance facility, the day care center, residents per housing unit and total number of housing units. Mr. Kline stressed that the maintenance facility was more like a large stock room for the Authority's screen doors, windows and similar items. He explained the maintenance division's daily work schedule, stating that the seven employees were away from the shop at most times, filling work orders. He said it was not an industrial type situation with offensive noise or lots of traffic. • P ar Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 23 Tracy Carter, Assistant Director for the Fort Collins Housing Authority, spoke to the residents/ per unit concern. She stated that the Housing Authority operates under an occupancy standard, which is very stringent. A two -bedroom unit can hold a maximum of four people; a three - bedroom unit can house a maximum of six people. The occupancy policy is regulated by the Housing Authority Board, and has been operational for at least nine years. Vice Chair Carroll noted that, theoretically, the Board could change the policy. Mr. Shepard noted that the preliminary proposal for this project was for 56 units. The final proposal must be in substantial conformance to the Preliminary Plan, if approved. An increase in units of more than one percent would require formal action by the Planning and Zoning Board. An unit increase of less than one percent can be approved administratively by the Planning Director. Tom Peterson, Planning Director, pointed out the Housing Authority "concentration" map for Fort Collins. The map was prepared at the request of City Council Member Gerry Horak, whose district contains the Impala Village proposal. The Planning Department, to date, has made no analysis of the map. • Rochelle Stephens clarified the day care center situation. There has been some dialogue with the United Day Care Center, a United Way agency; any plans are still at a conjecture stage. The idea was for a possible collaboration with Poudre High School on an internship program for its family development students. Ms. Stephens extended an invitation to community members to come visit current Housing Authority facilities and projects. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Impala Village PUD, Preliminary, with the conditions stated by staff. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney spoke about the need for affordable housing within the community and urged citizens to get involved in a variety of ways. She stressed the complexity of the issue. She added she would like to show her support for the project, since she appreciated the fact that it was a high density in -fill project, and did not contribute to urban sprawl. Member Clements -Cooney also urged residents to contact the School Board in regard to its open campus policy, which may be contributing to the current traffic problems in the 40 neighborhood. P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 24 Member Strom said he would support the motion. He said he wanted to make a few brief, points. He stated that when asking to see the slide of the units, he was more concerned about the scale and mass of the units, rather than the condition of the materials. Member Strom said he did not believe there would be undue traffic impact from the project. He said he had some concern about the concentration of low income housing units, but also understood that it was a function of such variables as affordable land. He noted the difficulty of the rental housing situation in Fort Collins, and the currently limited options. Vice Chair Carroll reiterated that the Board was required to follow the Land Development Guidance System and consider the point ratings for each project. He noted the in -fill nature of the project and the attempts to provide insulating boundaries to the proposal. He also touched on various housing issues. Vice -Chair Carroll noted that the Housing Authority went beyond City requirements in terms of occupancy. Under the Zoning Code, there are no occupancy limits for related persons. He said he would support the motion, and stated that reviewing controversial proposal often involved complex issues, and that the Board sought to find a balance when making its decisions. Member Cottier said she would support the motion and urged citizens to accept the tour invitation extended by the Housing Authority. Motion passed 6-0. OAKRIDGE PUD. BLOCK ONE - PRELIMINARY. #13-82BB OAKRIDGE PUD, BLOCK ONE, 1ST FILING - FINAL. #13-82BC Steve Olt gave the Staff reports recommending approval of both projects with the standard development agreement, final utility plans and final P.U.D. plans condition on Block One, 1st Filing - Final. Bruce Hendee, Bruce Hendee Associates, went over the site plan with the Board and noted how the buildings were staggered, how the buildings were all low buildings and how the brick and roof materials were very compatible with one another. He stated that the applicant has tried to create and provide a lot of variety in the streetscape image. Mr. Hendee clarified that the site plan shows two buildings, but that only the right -side building was up for review. The applicant plans on bringing the other building before the Board for its review in the next month or two. Mr. Hendee went over the location and materials of the retaining wall, which would tie the two properties together. . P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 25 Mr. Hendee stated they would be saving the existing cottonwood trees. Member Strom asked about the architectural consistency throughout the site. Mr. Hendee replied that in addressing the whole 11.8 acres, the applicant was trying to establish a range of brick values and building materials,: which would be within a selective range, as would the roofing types. He presented a drawing of the two buildings designed so far and stated that it was representative of overall building appearance. Member Strom asked if the applicant was going to carry the brick and roof styles throughout the whole development. Mr. Hendee replied that that was correct. PUBLIC INPUT None. . PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Klataske asked about signage and backlit neon on the bank. Mr. Hendee replied that there were several sign types. The identification signs for the bank would be a rear illuminated with a dark background and a light letter face. There were some small onsite directional signs that would not be illuminated, just metal plate signs. There would also be a project identification sign on Haxton Drive going into the property and that sign would have a brick base and an aluminum black background with an internally illuminated source with white or light letters. Member Strom asked about the ID sign, and whether it was the same size as the sign already out there. Mr. Olt replied that that was his understanding. The sign is 10 feet tall, as is the sign existing at Wheaton and Harmony. Member Klataske moved for approval of the Oakridge PUD, Block One Preliminary. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 0 P & Z Minutes March 29, 1993 Page 26 Member O'Dell moved for approval of Oakridge, Block One, Lot 2, Tract A and right-of- way for Haxton Drive PUD. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. None. The meeting adjourned at 11.15 p.m. No Text