HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/25/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
• June 25, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom,
Lloyd Walker, Laurie O'Dell, and Jan Shepard. Joe Carroll was absent.
Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City
Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Linda
Ripley and Kayla Ballard.
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item
1 - Minutes of the May 7, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - #16-90A, Utility Service Center
PUD, Final; Item 3 - #17-90, One Prospect PUD, Preliminary; Item 4 - #25-81I,
Regency Park, 2nd Filing PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 5 - #22-90, Twin
Spruce Farm PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 6 - #23-90, Burns Annexation and
Zoning; Item 7 - #24-90, Foothills Water Tank Annexation and Zoning; Item 8 -
#25-90, Resolution PZ90-8 Approving Findings and Recommendations of the
Wastewater Treatment Expansion Report; Item 9 - #31-90, Amendments to Chapter
2-46 "Appeals Procedure" and Chapter 29-526 "Land Development Guidance System
for Planned Unit Developments"; Item 10 - #41-89C, Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary
and Final was continued at the request of the applicant; Item 11 - #96-81N, The
Market at Horsetooth Commons PUD, Lot 2, Amended Preliminary, and; Item 12 -
#29-90, Public Hearing Harmony Corridor Plan (no action required).
• Staff requested that Item 5, Twin Spruce Farm PUD, Preliminary and Final, and
Item 9, Amendments to Chapter 2-46 "Appeals Procedure" and Chapter 29-526
"Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments" be pulled to
attach conditions respectively.
Staff also requested that Item 11, The Market at Horsetooth Commons and Item
12, Harmony Corridor Plan, be reversed due to the number of people present to
hear Item 12.
Member Strom moved to approve Consent Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Member
O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
#22-90 - TWIN SPRUCE FARM PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the proposed property.
She
stated that staff pulled this item for two reasons. The first was to clarify
the
number of employees proposed as 10 employees, as well as the two principals
running the company who would reside in the home on site. She stated that
the
parking would be adequate to support 10 employees and the two principals.
The
second reason for pulling this item was to provide a condition, at the Board's
request, to limit the intensity of future office use on this site. Staff
was
recommending the following condition: Future office uses at this site would
be
restricted to those office uses that would not generate traffic impacts in excess
of
• 30 VTE (vehicle trip ends) per day.
Member Walker moved to approve Twin Spruce Farm PUD, Preliminary and Final,
with the condition suggested by staff. Member Carroll seconded the motion.
The
motion passed 6-0.
#31-90 - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2-46 "APPEALS PROCEDURE" AND
CHAPTER 29-526 "LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM FOR PLANNING
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS"
Tom Peterson stated that this was essentially a housekeeping amendment to take
into consideration changes City Council was proposing to the appeals procedure to
the LDGS. He stated that two other sections should be included in this request of
amendments to provide final decision -making authority to the Planning and Zoning
Board in the case of an appeal of an administrative decision. Those sections that
should be included were Section 29-372, RC River Corridor Zone, and Section
29-419, I-L Light Industrial Zone. The City Attorney provided the Board with two
additional sections of wording that needed to be added to the original
recommendation request to City Council.
Member Carroll commended the City Attorney's office and the Planning staff for
the promptness and speed in consideration of this matter.
Member Strom moved to recommend approval to City Council of Section 2-46,
Sections 29-526 (F) (c) and (5) (a), Section 29-372, and Section 29-419. Member
Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval passed 6-0.
HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN
Tom Peterson stated that staff had been working on the Harmony Corridor Plan
since August 1989. This plan was one of the land use elements that was being
proposed as an element of the Comprehensive Plan that would set the nature and
tone of development in the foremost entrance to Fort Collins. The purpose of
doing this plan was to review the entryway corridor that Harmony Road presented
and some of the unique characteristics of that corridor. It was the major
southernmost entrance to Fort Collins and had a full interchange access with I-25,
had a number of environmentally -sensitive areas, and had some premiere sites that
have already been developed or had potential for development for economic
purposes in Fort Collins. Staff looked very carefully at the visual appearance of
the corridor, how it appeared today, and how it will appear 20-30 years from
now. Staff wanted to do a close examination of the economic opportunities that
were perceived as the corridor having. Staff also wanted to examine, in detail,
some of the environmental issues that had arisen in the gateway area of the
interstate interchange and Harmony corridor. The plan, as proposed, created a very
unique vision for a unique place. In this plan, there was a large component of
urban design that took into account past events and attempted to build on those
to promote a wonderful, unique beauty along the corridor. Staff did not want to
repeat some of the planning misfortunes that have occurred in other cities, such as
Colfax Avenue in Denver. There was a vision that included land use, historic
character, and unique sensitive natural areas that are in the corridor. Staff had
been working on two tracks of this plan; the technical planners part which
resulted in a large amount of information developed and mapped, and; a strong
citizen participation component, which consisted of a number of open houses,
neighborhood meetings, and P&Z involvement. There have been several drafts of
the plan. The May 25 draft, staff believed, captured the essence of what should
be happening in the corridor and the essence and desires of the people that would
be affected by planning activities, design and land development of the corridor.
The plan contained a number of policies being suggested that would guide how
the city acts and how the private sector acts, and how the community acts as a
whole in the corridor.
-2-
Linda Ripley stated that Chapter 2 described existing conditions in the corridor.
Existing conditions included: land form characteristics, natural resources, wetlands
• and wildlife habitat, existing utilities and master plans for utilities, as well as
existing transportation conditions. Harmony Corridor is a state highway and as
such, the State Highway Department had jurisdiction over the highway now in
terms of its physical appearance and operational aspects. The Harmony Road
Access Plan has been adopted by City Council and the State Highway Department
in 1989. In that plan, access along Harmony Road was limited. The plan spelled
out where future access locations would be and also determined future signal
locations. The Harmony Corridor Plan does not have a transportation element.
The transportation section dealt only with existing conditions.
Ms. Ripley stated that Chapter 2 mapped existing land uses as well as existing
city and county jurisdictions as well as the zoning districts in the city and county.
Recreational facilities and historic resources are also documented in the plan. Staff
did a visual analysis of the streetscape along Harmony corridor which aided in
highlighting some of the strengths of the corridor such as dramatic views to
Long's Peak and the front range that are viewed coming in from I-25 as well as
some very sophisticated development and very nice landscape along Harmony Road
which already existed that staff would like to see more of. The visual analysis
also pointed out problem areas such as a lot of visual clutter along the Union
Pacific railroad tracks in the midpoint of the corridor and the problems associated
with the fact that as you approach College Avenue, setbacks were narrower and
there is no median. Analyzing those conditions helped staff to identify potential
problems and revealed opportunities in the corridor. As Mr. Peterson mentioned,
there are three basic focus areas in the plan. The first was land use, second was
urban design and the last chapter dealt with the gateway area near I-25.
• Ms. Ripley discussed the urban design. She stated that given the existing
conditions and the overall goal of establishing a unified urban design theme and
landscape character, the next step was to develop a design alternatives and to
evaluate those alternatives. Staff developed three distinctively different alternatives
and those are described in detail in the plan. Those concepts were then evaluated
based on the following criteria: The ability of the concept to unify the corridor,
general attractiveness, seasonal variety, ease of implementation, construction and
maintenance cost, and land owner values as well as general public values. In the
final analysis, staff selected the Harmony Oaks design concept as the one with the
most potential to be successful.
Ms. Ripley stated that oak trees were selected as the dominant tree species. Oak
trees combined with a narrow plant palette would help unify the corridor over
time. Oaks grow slightly slower than the average tree so staff coupled the strength
of the tree with wildflower masses that would provide a unified dramatic
character in a shorter time frame. The combination of oak trees planted in groves,
naturalistic rolling berms and a meandering trail system would create a pleasant
and attractive setting not only for development and future development but would
provide an attractive setting for people that live and recreate in the corridor. The
concept compliments existing development such as Hewlett-Packard and Charter
Hospital which already provide meandering trails and berming. The naturalistic
and informal character of the design provides needed flexibility for individual
projects that may have different character. The proposed landscape will consume
low to moderate amounts of water and would be expected to cost less to install
• and maintain than the average landscape that has been installed in the last few
years. Given that it met all the criteria and did the best job filling staff's
objectives, the Harmony Oaks concept was selected.
-3-
Ms. Ripley stated that Chapter 4 concluded with five urban design policies and
nine implementation actions. The first policy directed the city to implement the
Harmony Oaks design concept; the second directed the city to establish a well
planned and attractive gateway entrance at the I-25 interchange; the third directed
the city to promote the development of an extensive recreational trail system; the
fourth directed the city to coordinate the long range planning efforts of other
city departments as well as governmental agencies, and; the fifth directed the city
to support efforts to preserve historic heritage associated with the original
community of Harmony. Implementation actions are extremely important because
without them this would become another document that would sit on the shelf. Ms.
Ripley encouraged the Board to review the implementation actions thoroughly and
add to them if they felt the need.
Ms. Ripley stated that the first implementation action was entitled "Design
Guidelines." Those guidelines have been drafted and are included in the plan.
The action was to adopt them and implement them. The second directed the city
to develop a conceptual master plan for a recreational trail system. The third
dealt with wildflower research. Test plots should be established to ensure the
appropriate seed mix and maintenance practices. The fourth directed the city to
develop a coordinated public signage system that would enhance the urban design
image of the corridor. The sixth directed the city to continue to work with the
State Division of Highways to establish a common vision for the physical
appearance of Harmony Road. She stated that those issues were listed in the plan. -
Ms. Ripley stated that the last three tasks dealt with specific landscape plans.
Number 7 called for a design development plan for the median. The design
concept called for wildflowers and oak trees but a specific landscape plan was
needed to address the design of curb and gutter, splash block, specific plant
material and irrigation as well as establishing a funding source. Number 8 called
for a similar kind of detailed landscape plan for the 1-25 interchange itself.
Number 9 called for the same type of work to be done for the College/Harmony
intersection.
Ms. Ripley stated that Chapter 5 dealt with the gateway area which was located
between the Poudre River and the bluffs east of Hewlett-Packard. There are
unique physical qualities in this area that included open water, wetlands, wildlife
habitat, and mountain views. All four quadrants of the interchange have
underlying gravel deposits. All of the conditions create several development
constraints and offer educational and recreational opportunities. The combination
of a state highway and interstate highway made the area have development
potential despite the development restrictions. The existing commercial development
and the kinds of commercial development that interchanges typically attract did
not mesh well with the naturalistic and scenic qualities of that site. A
combination of those facts led staff to believe that this was a very important
area. Currently it was under a different governmental jurisdiction. Staff felt this
was a key focal point and some additional planning work was needed to ensure
that this gateway was the best gateway that it could possibly be in the future.
Staff developed three different alternative approaches. The first alternative was to
simply do nothing. The second alternative was to allow development to occur in
the corridor but to orient it toward the naturalistic and scenic qualities of this
site. The third alternative was to pursue public purchase of the entire area and
remove the existing commercial development so as to provide a pristine open space
gateway. Open houses and workshops were held with various groups to discuss
and collect input of those three alternatives. The overwhelming response was a
general dissatisfaction with leaving things as they were. The community tended to
want more planning done and, at the same time, there was a resistance toward
public purchase of the entire area. There was support for purchase of some of the
-4-
area. She stated that with that feedback, the plan suggested that the middle of the
road alternative be pursued and continue with gateway planning phase 2, which
was a whole series of further research, design and coordination as well as further
citizen participation activities.
Mr. Peterson stated that both City Council and Planning and Zoning Board, under
state law and city charter, have the responsibility and authority to undertake the
preparation of long range plans and policies. The planning effort for Harmony
Corridor offered a unique opportunity to establish a refined vision for the
corridor. This included the creation of a desirable living and working environment
for future inhabitants and establishing an exciting gateway into the community.
Staff believed it was the most important center for business and commerce in this
community in the next couple of decades. The land use alternatives ranged in
terms of the intensity of development, the character and the practicality of what
was proposed. The plan before the Board was a synthesis of what staff believed
was appropriate in what input was received from the community that were
impacted by the plan. The intent of the land use element was to provide for an
orderly, efficient and attractive transition of vacant rural land to urban use. The
plan was intended to maximize the use of existing services and facilities. Staff
also believed it was important to promote the development of the corridor as a
high quality, self-contained compact business center. It was also important for the
city to continue to promote and accommodate diversification in our economy. The
corridor was an excellent location for base industries in the city and staff hoped,
through the plan, to identify some prime locations for such uses. IT was also
important to provide shopping and services areas convenient to both residents and
employers in the corridor along with a wide variety of housing types to
accommodate the different needs of people in the housing market. Finally, staff
• believed it was important to preserve and protect the existing residential
neighborhoods from both intrusive and disruptive development as it begins to
develop in the corridor. Therefore, a goal had been developed in the land use
element that simply stated that the land use plan should develop and take action
to make Harmony Corridor a major business center of northern Colorado by
attracting both desirable industries and businesses and serving as a regional market
that staff believed can contribute to the economic health and stability of the
entire community while at the same time supporting a broad variety of housing
opportunities and the continued vitality and livability of existing residential
neighborhoods.
Mr. Peterson stated that there were eight land use policies that staff believed
would meet that goal. The first was to recommend that a number of elements of
urban design be adopted and be the implementation of the corridor. Staff believed
it was important to encourage and support light industries and businesses that
produce goods and services for export outside the community. Destination retail
uses and community regional shopping centers in certain areas of the corridor,
such as east of Timberline, were not appropriate. Policy 4 stated that, because of
the ownership pattern, it was important to do advance planning now of the large
undeveloped properties in the corridor area. Finally, retail and commercial
development and compact shopping centers would be encouraged within industrial
business parks. He stated that it was also important to focus high intensity land
uses and decrease the intensity as the distance of a major intersection increases.
Staff also recognized the importance of livability and stability of the existing
residential neighborhoods that are throughout the corridor. Mr. Peterson stated that
• staff believed it was important for people to have the ability to live, work, shop
and play in the same area. The existing residential and future development needed
to be sensitive to each other.
-5-
Mr. Peterson continued with the last policy by stating that there should be
transitions or cushions of lower intensity uses or open space between existing
neighborhoods and the more intense type of developments that were proposed for
the corridor. There were a number of implementation elements in the plan that
would achieve those goals.
Mr. Peterson added that there had been a great deal of participation to date in
the planning effort. The Planning and Zoning Board has met in five meetings
since November 1989 and reviewed various aspects of this plan. The UGA Board,
a joint board between Larimer County and the City, has been involved in the
review. The Natural Resources Board has been discussing this plan at every
meeting since April 4 and has come forth with a recommendation to the Board.
There have been eleven meetings with the Steering Committee of property owners
and have had a number of meetings with various other organizations, including
the County Planning staff. Finally, and most important, there have been no less
than 5 open houses between September 1989 to June 1990. For each open house,
not only were they advertised, but every property owner that was potentially
affected in the corridor, 850 in all, received a personal notice for each meeting.
The attendance suggested the degree of interest that has occurred on the plan. He
stated that tonight was the culmination of all the participation that has happened
before. He added that in the May 25 version of the plan there were proposals that
the Board will have to weigh that are set forth and decide what would be
appropriate to recommend to City Council for adoption as a Comprehensive Plan
element of the city.
PUBLIC INPUT
Fred Gardner, 713 Westshore Court, stated that he had a concern with the design
guidelines of the plan. He stated that these could become an issue to the small
businessperson as well as to those in the signage industry. He believed that it was
not as straightforward as being "nice guidelines" that would be conformed to. He
believed there was more teeth in this than just design guidelines. He questioned on
how it would be used, how it would be enforced, and if trade-offs would be
allowed. He believed that this could be a legal nightmare for the city to deal
with. He also had concerns on how the PUD process was being utilized to control
signage as it was now. The sign industry was not consulted with the drafting of
this plan and he felt confident that they would not support the section of the
draft as written. He highlighted the discussion of off -premise signage which the
current sign code does address fairly. He stated that the city had a sign code that
worked effectively and was administered very well by the Zoning staff. He
believed the sign code should be utilized to its fullest extent. The draft plan
discussed letter styles or the sign face, the use of upper case and condensed
letters, low profile signs and color restrictions. For the small businessperson, this
form of advertising would be the least expensive. Signage design should not be
judged by a group of staff or volunteers because they would be too subjective,
would stifle design creativity, and would create sales tax competition. He
recommend that the sign code portion of the plan be eliminated.
Gina Janett, 337 Edwards Street, commented that the Steering Committee meetings
were made up of developers and large landowners and speculators. No corridor
residents or homeowners were on the committee. She stated another concern was
that comments given by the citizens at the open houses were not incorporated in
the plan. She also had a concern that this "draft" plan looked like a final
document rather than a draft. She believed that the concept of planning the
corridor was a good concept, however, that effort should be done for other areas
of the city as well. She also supported the land use policies, particularly the ones
concerning no free standing highway commercial, no regional shopping in the area,
-6-
integrating serves with offices and industrial, targeting basic industries and the
• superblock planning. She felt this plan protected the gateway and the natural
resources that exist. She encouraged the city to investigate the establishment of an
open space acquisition fund, that could be used anywhere in the city, to purchase
unique natural areas or open space as they come on the market. She stated that
between Alternative Plan A and B a medium ground should be identified. She had
concerns about the implementation of the land use and the gateway components.
She felt something stronger needed to be added in terms of mandating transitional
land use around residential areas. She felt the "fast track" needed to be reviewed
and citizen participation should be involved. She believed this plan was not ready
for adoption because of the lack of real implementation guidelines. The air quality
and transportation problems should be resolved before development occurs. She
believed the commuter bikepath should not be meandering and should be a direct
route. Carpool parking and bike racks should be under roofs with carpool drop
off points and designated bus stops for the time that the transit would be there.
She strongly suggested a park-n-ride lot at the interchange larger than the existing
one along with a shelter. She encouraged the city to review more mandatory ideas
regarding xeriscape and water conservation.
Chairman Klataske asked Ms. Ripley for her comment on the input of the May 25
meeting and why the plan appeared to be in final form.
Ms. Ripley stated that May 25 was targeted as the date to have the plan adopted
by the Planning and Zoning Board. The effort of putting this plan together
required staff to be prepared two months prior to that date in the event that the
Board would adopt the plan. A text only version was produced and printed on
recycled paper and distributed promptly for public review. There was so much
• response that staff recommended to the Board that this meeting be only a public
hearing and not considered for adoption at least until the August meeting. The
pasteup was complete so it was decided that the plan would be printed and
distributed for public comment. The only addition to the plan was the nature of
graphics and artwork. The text was exactly the same as before. Staff has every
intention of printing a second version, which was customary for a document at
this.
Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Peterson for his comment on his composition of the
Board as far as reviewing the Steering Committee.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Steering Committee was one of many groups that have
reviewed this plan. The impetus for this plan came from the property owners in
the area who stated the Harmony corridor was a very important corridor and they
thought the city should do some planning for that area. The property owners have
maintained an active role as one of the groups reviewing the plan. Staff has met
with the individuals constantly. There was a member of the Planning and Zoning
Board on the Steering Committee from the beginning so the Board would have its
own idea of what the concerns and comments were of the Steering Committee.
Chairman Klataske asked if there was citizen input in the Steering Committee.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Steering Committee was a committee set up by the
land owners to follow what was happening with the plan. They were free to give
what input they wished. All of the open houses, meetings, etc. comments were
• either reflected in the May 25 draft plan or will be incorporated after this
hearing.
-7-
Arthur Judson, 5825 Hogan Drive, stated that he had studied the plan and
discussed it with Planning staff on several occasions. He believed that none of the
input offered by the citizens committee that he was involved with was accepted
by the Planning Department. He believed the plan for streetlights should be
changed to soften the glare of the lights, the intensity decreased and the spacing
of the lights increased. This would create less impact for motorists and the
residents. He felt the proposed use of Red Oak with local stock in the corridor
was questionable on a technical basis. He disapproved of the newly proposed fast
track review system for industry in the corridor.
Bill Swets, owner of Swets Farm, stated that three plans were scheduled for his
farm. He stated that Alternative Plan A sounded good on the surface but by
placing restrictions on his land, his property could be damaged and, if so, he
should be reimbursed for any damages. He stated that if he were to g along with
this, there would be less a cumbersome review process which he believed sounded
like blackmail. He stated that $5.3 million would not buy his land as Alternative
Plan B proposed. He felt the first alternative was the plan to follow.
Tom Morroni was a land owner in the corridor. He stated that he agreed, as a
land owner, some attention should be paid to the future of the corridor. He felt
there was a lot of competition among land users but they could not deal with a
long term process. What was originally conceived was that if you were going to
have very high quality development, with stringent guidelines, you would have to
follow the process. A letter was written to the Board that put forth comments
that, conceptually, the Steering Committee agreed with, however, there should have
been a statement in the draft plan that stated this was just the beginning of the
process and not a complete process.
Linda Hopkins, The Group Inc., stated in the premise, the Harmony Corridor
provided a unique planning and design opportunity. She believed that, through
consistent design guidelines, an attractive entrance to Fort Collins could be
promoted. However, a number of issues required further thought and clarification.
She stated she was aware that the neighbors were concerned that master planning
and the LDGS may not offer enough certainty. The adoption of this plan added
to that uncertainty. She felt the imposition of the corridor plan put existing plans
of the Timberline Farm area residents into limbo. The status of the existing
approved plan of the corridor need to be clarified be fore proceeding. She felt the
land use section of the plan seemed restrictive. She stated that to add land use
restrictions would be contrary to any of the city's underlying philosophies and
existing policies and belays the attempt to rely on the success anticipated by the
design guidelines. She questioned if the transitions were the responsibilities of the
residential areas and who would buffer who. She felt the plan warranted further
consideration prior to Board action.
Tim Johnson represented the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He stated that he
appreciated the suggestion of the plan serving as a catalyst for future community
discussion. He stated that the NRA Board have discussed the Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) that was being developed and how plans such as this
would be integrated into the EMP. He stated another concern was the idea of fast
tracking and what it meant. He questioned what review factors would be waived.
These factors were of concern because of references in the plan suggested that the
plan only provide guidelines. He asked what if a developer on the fast track
rejected the guidelines. He stated that the gateway portion of the corridor,
especially along the Poudre River, was a great natural area, potentially, with lots
of options. If there was significant land acquisition funding, Alternative Plan A
should not be rejected.
-8-
Bob Everitt, Chairman of the Board of Everitt Companies, stated that one year
• ago he envisioned the importance of Harmony Road land owners coordinating the
planning of Harmony Road. It was his hope and desire to have this major
entrance to the city to become special and to provide a good place for people to
live, work, shop and a place for recreation. He also believed a good access plan to
the various parcels was vital to making this something to enhance the traffic flow
along Harmony Road and the coordination of landscaping, setbacks, stop lights,
signage, and utility planning would provide this area and all of Fort Collins a
long range plan that would make this area special, but would also have an
attractive entryway into Fort Collins. He stated it was not their intent to abandon
the LDGS but rather to coordinate the planning of the various planned unit
developments that would evolve along Harmony Road. He stated that they hoped
to have a system with preconditioned requirements for certain targeted industries
that most of the citizens would agree were attractive industries to bring to Fort
Collins. These requirements should be landscaping, setbacks, types of materials,
parking ratios and more aggressive restrictions so that any industry that might
come to Fort Collins would know in advance what they were required to do.
Thus, those businesses that knew the requirements could be fast tracked through
the system. If they did not meet the requirements, they would have to go through
the normal Planning and Zoning process. He stated that, in his opinion, Harmony
Road is the only area of town where it could almost be guaranteed that there
would be substantial development over the next ten years. He believed that some
of the restrictions in the plan would have a detrimental affect on the quality
development of this area. He believed that some of the property owners would
rather go back to using the LDGS and let it play out as it has in the past rather
than placing restrictions as proposed in this plan.
• Michael Dolen, chairman of the Sierra Club, stated that the Harmony Corridor
Plan was a good idea but needed some definite improvements before
implementation. These improvements would be more retail uses, the targeting of
certain areas of the gateway for commercial/industrial development, and the
overall plan for transportation and the potential traffic problem, including a good
direct route bikepath and alternative transportation.
Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove, encouraged the Board to support the land use
policies as stated in the plan, especially those that restrict regional shopping
centers in the corridor. He supported the vision of the plan for establishing a
business employment center on the east side of the corridor. He felt a restriction
should be placed on the Harmony Road access plan to forbid amending the plan.
Additional curbcuts and traffic lights should not be allowed that was currently
called for in the plan. He addressed the alternative process plan by stating that no
new development process should be introduced without further attempts to get
adequate public input from all residents of the Harmony corridor and other
interested citizens. He believed staff should seek public input when determining
the rest of the details of the plan that remained to be worked out which included
the development of the alternative development process, the list of criteria for
targeted industries, development of buffering between residential and
non-residential land uses, and the development of superblock planning
requirements. He felt that the land use of the mobile home park should have high
density residential restrictions placed on it with special attention to the need of
the low income housing for the displaced residents of that park when that area
gets redeveloped.
is Jim Rhodes, 3309 Buckskin Trail, stated the process and input has been good and
well-intentioned. He believed that great ideas were not created by restrictions, they
were created by creative development ideas. He was opposed to the restrictions of
having retail on the east side of Harmony Road.
IQ
Mark Thomas, 5020 Hogan Drive, stated he believed that a real impropriety
existed in the process. He stated that none of the citizens input had been
impregnated into this document. He stated he was disturbed by the fact that
taxpayers' money was spent on this document all at the request of the
development community. He questioned who initiated the concept for this plan.
He was concerned the city was circumventing the process that was very important
to this community, which was the LDGS.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, presented a letter to the Board regarding
mixed use development and why it was still a valid concept. He felt Harmony
corridor was the ideal site for major business employment centers. He stated the
plan listed destination retail communities as being inappropriate or incompatible
with a major employment center and avoiding strip commercial. He believed this
was more a visual consideration than a functional one. He felt the problems with
commercial development were that it would be continuous and are characterized
by frequent curbcuts, inadequate landscaping, haphazard signage and highly
fragmented ownership without coordinated site planning. These would be
associated with problems of strip commercial development. With this plan, there
was an opportunity to avoid those problems. He felt all of these uses could be
integrated that were oriented toward regional markets and not segregate out the
retail uses because of worries that were not defined.
Member Carroll stated that he was concerned as to narrowing the issues and what
was agreeable and disagreeable to various people. He asked Mr. Ward to define
specifically what he was searching for in terms of mixed use development and its
language.
Mr. Ward replied that LU-3 of the plan was the crux of the problem and another
phase in the text that discussed other uses that would be considered inappropriate
with the vision of the Harmony Corridor. He stated he did not disagree with
Member Carroll but he was not trying to say to not be worried bout strip
commercial because it would not happen. He felt that what made strip commercial
bad was not the use but the frequent curbcuts, inadequate landscaping, fragmented
ownership, the chopped up uncoordinated planning that would happen. The city
has the opportunities to cure these ills. He supported LU-5 and LU-6 and felt
there was no sense in saying that those problems of fragmented ownership would
be overcome.
Renee Clements -Cooney, 4454 Hollyhock a member of the Parks & Recreation
Board and a board member of Citizen Planners, stated that Citizen Planners
supported a Harmony Corridor Plan but one with substance, such as a plan that
can show implementation detail, design guideline details, and citizen input that
would be listened to. She was concerned about how all the plans will be
integrated, such as the Harmony Corridor Plan, the EMP, the LDGS and the
Transportation Plan.
Roberta Martin represented G.T. Land Inc. She presented a letter from Peter Kast
regarding the disapproval of the limitations on land use which were not necessary
and were impractical to achieve the desired results, retail sales tax, access points,
the support of the landscaping design guidelines, the encouragement of major
employment centers east of Timberline Road, restriction of types of industry along
Harmony Road, the support of having jurisdiction of Harmony Road from the
State Highway Department, the further study of the gateway, and the unnecessary
and unwarranted degree of regulation and the negative impact upon the future
economic health of the city.
-10-
Harold Swope, 4925 Hogan Drive, stated that a lot of elements of this plan were
• excellent such as the open space issues and the parkway, however, 80 foot setbacks
seemed too narrow. He commented that the lighting issue was a very crucial
element. He felt the proposed lighting would be an energy user and that the lights
would be too glaring. He felt that the proposed lights would nullify all the effect
of buffering. He stated that if certain signage would be undesirable, then they
should be prohibited. He stated that the gateway area was critical to this plan. He
felt that every effort should be made to preserve that area.
Nancy York, 130 S. Whitcomb, had concerns about the people entering on Harmony
Road, then work their way slowly toward the north end of town which was
contradictory of air quality or transportation plan. She stated that she would like
to see a city wide plan, such as for Prospect being a gateway, and Mulberry being
enhanced. She believed that some of the city's wealthiest property owners
commanded the attention of city staff and used city taxpayers' money so they
would benefit from the development. she questioned who would be responsible for
the cost of implementing this plan.
Ms. Ripley replied that land owners, as they developed property along Harmony
Road, would pay for their development right up to the edge of the roadway. The
landscaping proposed along the edges of roadway, the meandering mike trails, the
berms, trees, etc. would be paid for by the developer, The only exception would
be the developer would pay for a 4 foot wide sidewalk and the city would pay
for widening it to 8 feet out of oversizing fees. Who would pay for the median
has yet to be established.
Ms. York had concerns with the competition with downtown businesses and the
• corridor. She felt the efforts were going south of the city instead of the desire of
going north. She believed this plan should be examined and that greater citizen
input be facilitated.
Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Peterson to clarify how this plan was started.
Mr. Peterson stated that in August 1989, City Council put this project in the
Planning Department's work program. City Council was the one that authorized it
and reviewed what the scope of services and work would be with this plan.
Member Strom stated that it was a great idea to develop this plan and the fact
that the city decided to consider it and go ahead with it was an example of
advance planning that we try to do in this community. He stated that this was
not the first specific area plan done in Fort Collins.
Chairman Klataske stated that there has been discussions about the possibility of
this being done for the other gateways, Prospect and Mulberry, and Vine Drive.
Chairman Klataske closed the public input portion of the meeting and thanked the
audience for their input. He stated that there was more work that needed to be
done on this plan before it would be ready for implementation.
#96-91N - MARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS PUD, LOT 2
AMENDED PRELIMINARY
• Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project and the history
of previous Board meeting actions on this item, concluding with the
recommendation of approval with conditions.
-ll-
Member O'Dell questioned the difference of the staff report given to the Board
tonight from the report received earlier.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the staff report given to the Board this evening
added the condition dealing with the 40 foot building setback from the
right-of-way. Staff previously did not have that condition incorporated into the
staff report and Item B was expanded to be more helpful and clearer as to what
setbacks would be required.
Member Shepard asked why a variance was needed. She stated that no points were
received on the point chart for being part of a planned center. The Neighborhood
Convenience Center guidelines stated that they should receive points if they were
considered functionally a part of a multi -family development.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that being contiguous to and functionally a part of
referred to contiguity which would allow contiguity to a multi -family development.
63% was calculated in last month's staff report.
Mr. Eckman suggested that, with respect to the variance, the Board could either
find this to be a like or similar use and the variance would not need to be
granted or grant a variance because the plan was equal to or better than such
plan.
Member Shepard withdrew her variance question due to her believing that, at the
beginning, the Board was considering this variance on whether or not this current
plan was equal to or better than what was proposed last month. She stated she did
not realize that it meant the restaurant, which was the existing approved plan.
Mr. Eckman stated that this kind of variance could be addressed as to whether
this use as proposed was equal to or better than the restaurant. He stated the
point chart, at 65% as opposed to 63%, was dealt with at last month's Board
meeting.
Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., represented the owners of the property. He
stated that after last month's meeting, it was indicated to him that the land use
was approved and that they were only dealing with design guideline issues. He
stated that he discovered that this was not the case. He proceeded to briefly
discuss the proposed retail use stating that the owner of the specialty shop would
deal with the restoration and sales of classical automobiles. The number of
vehicles would be very limited. He indicated that the applicant would have a
maximum of seven vehicles on the site at any one time. He stated that they would
limit the outside display area with this use to a maximum of four vehicles. The
vehicles would be set on a surface that would be a grass-crete surface to soften
the impact of the display area. He stated that the outdoor display of the vehicles
would be limited only to day time use with the business hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. The automobiles would be moved inside the building and stored there
overnight. He stated that there would be no night display of vehicles. The
function of the building would serve as a showroom of approximately 900 square
feet which would contain about three vehicles, with the rest of the building a
small office with night storage for cars. There would be no restoration or repair
work in the building or on the site. The traditional auto -related dealership would
substantially generate more traffic, inventory and visual impact to the street
system. This site would not create these problems. He stated the retail office
building was in conformance with the uses allowed and contained 4,000 square
feet which was located at the northern end of the site. The site would contain 17
parking spaces. He stated that the applicable. elements to the design guidelines that
they have conformed to were building coverage, building and parking setbacks,
-12-
circulation and parking, storage loading, landscaping and streetscapes, architectural
form and scale, outdoor signage and phasing of improvements. He stated the new
staff report goes into detail on each of those items of which these criteria have
been met. He clarified that the building setback and building size would be
adjusted to reflect 40 feet from the building to the property line at time of final.
Mr. Gefroh stated that they have intensified the landscaping by creating a
continuous berm as well as street trees along all the major street frontages. They
have also increased foundation plantings associated with the building and along
parking areas and the display area. He stated that the architectural character was
similar to that proposed last month and they were incorporating elements that
were existing on the site which were combinations of brick, block, stucco, and
metal roof panels in colors that would blend and be compatible with the existing
Grease Monkey building. He stated that they concurred with staff in analyzing the
issue of outdoor display and determined that this was not an active auto -related
function.
Member Walker asked if it was an important issue to have the street frontage and
turn the building around so the display would be internal to the site.
Mr. Gefroh
replied that, given the nature of the
limiting
factor of the number of
vehicles in
front and that they would be there
only on
display during daylight
hours, they
did not feel that there was a long term
visual
impact to the street.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Gefroh if he would anticipate that the indoor display
would be lit during the night and that the cars would be visible from the street
at night.
• Mr. Gefroh replied that they would not be lit other than security lighting inside
and outside.
Member Walker asked if there were any master plans or other approved plans on
the southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection.
Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the northeast corner was part of the Cunningham
Corners Master Plan for business and commercial uses. The southeast corner was
part of the Four Seasons development which was business and commercial uses.
She characterized the uses of Cunningham Corners as being office and retaiLtypes
of uses in smaller scale. The Four Seasons development had not gone past a master
plan level and those uses were still somewhat broad.
Member Strom commented that the retail facility appeared to be a garage and the
office facility had a residential character. He stated that he would like to see a
more specifically compatible architecture within a given center.
Chairman Klataske asked what were the measurements of the berming from the
building.
Mr. Gefroh stated that they had to measure out 20 feet from the foundation of
the building height of 23 feet.
Member Walker asked what the south elevation of the building would consist of.
• Mr. Gefroh replied that they had anticipated it having glass. Architecturally, this
could be broken up by utilizing different building materials. Wing walls have also
been incorporated on the south side of the building.
-13-
Member Shepard asked Mr. Gefroh if he would consider specific limitations to
seven vehicles on the site.
Mr. Gefroh replied that he would have no problem with this consideration.
Member Strom asked if there were possibilities of making the retail building
architecture less stark and less commercial -looking.
Mr. Gefroh replied that this could be done.
Member Walker stated that he was concerned with this area as being defined as a
neighborhood convenience center and that would imply certain uses. He stated that
staff determined that this would be a similar use of which he disagreed. He
believed that there was a purpose of having a neighborhood convenience center in
the sense that it was a small compact area that could blend into something with a
residential quality. He did not believe that this would work because this had
elements of roadside commercial with glassed area and the characteristics of an
auto dealership. He felt this was an inappropriate use as a neighborhood
convenience center site.
Member Walker moved to deny this proposal in that it did not meet the guidelines
of the neighborhood convenience center. There was no second to the motion.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Eckman to clarify granting a variance in this situation
rather than determining that this fits in with the strict guidelines that applied to
neighborhood convenience centers.
Mr. Eckman stated that the LDGS provided that the Board was empowered to
grant variances to the provisions of this section under the following circumstances:
"That the applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better
than such plan incorporating the provision for which variance is requested." He
stated that there was a plan that already contained an approved restaurant on the
site. This could be interpreted, for purposes of determining whether something is
equal to or better than. The Board could look at all the uses that are contained in
the definitions for the neighborhood convenience shopping center and make a
determination as to whether this use was being proposed as equal to or better than
those types of uses that were required to be limited to under those provisions of
the LDGS.
Member O'Dell moved to approve the item based on the fact that it was equal to
or better than the existing plan and the existing plan would have been allowed
under the neighborhood convenience center guidelines and with the following
conditions: 1) the two conditions outlined by staff concerning outdoor display and
the 40 foot building setbacks from the R-O-W of Shields; 2) the architect redesign
the retail building to more closely match the architectural character of the office
building proposed, and; 3) that the number of vehicles to be displayed be limited
to seven. Member Shepard seconded the motion.
Member Shepard concurred with Member O'Dell in terms of being equal to or
better than and was in keeping with the intent of neighborhood convenience
center guidelines. She believed that intent was to keep commercial development in
residential areas to a small scale and that it was compatible.
Member Carroll concurred with staff's recommendation comments that this was not
a traditional auto -related use. He stated he wanted this to resemble a limited retail
use rather than a small auto -related use and that he would support the motion.
-14-
Member Strom stated that he concurred with Member Carroll but understood
• Member Walker's concerns. He did not believe this was a typical neighborhood
center and would not categorically support this use in any neighborhood center in
the community but he felt it was appropriate on this site.
Member Walker felt there were too many conflicts to support the motion because
he saw this as a roadside commercial project.
•
•
Chairman Klataske stated he would support the motion but stated he felt
uncomfortable because there were several items that were drawn on good faith,
such as the redesign to appear more like retail.
The motion passed 5-1 with Member Walker in the negative.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Peterson informed the Board that a worksession would be scheduled for July
11 to discuss the LDGS audit and the Harmony Corridor Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
-15-