HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/21/19900
E
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
May 21, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern,
Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd Walker, and
Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent were Jan Shepard.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman,
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Rick
Endsdorff, Mark Sears, and Georgiana Taylor.
Board Members present at the May 18, 1990 worksession included: Chairman
Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Alternate
Joe Carroll. Members absent were Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda.
The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Centre for Advanced Technology PUD,
10th Filing - Amended Final, 053-85AA; Item 2 - Office Park at Oakridge
PUD, 13th Filing - Final, #13-82AY; Item 3 - City Utilities Service Center -
Preliminary, #16-90; Item 5 - Martin Bed and Breakfast PUD - Preliminary and
Final, #57-89; Item 6 - PZ90-6 Utility Easement Vacation, #18-90; Item 7 -
PZ90-7 Utility Easement Vacation, #19-90.
Mr. Al Scott, pulled Item #3, City Utilities Service Center from the consent
agenda.
Member Strom moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Member Burns seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
CITY UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER - PRELIMINARY #16-90
Mr. Al Scott stated that he had talked to staff and had no specific objection
to the center other than the lighting. He stated his property lies to the
northwest and that he had photographs and wanted to discuss the visual impact
of the lighting from the existing lights and the possible impact of additional
lights.
Mr. Shepard stated that Mr. Scott's comments would be taken into the review
of the final. They had met with the architect and with the facilities
department over the extent of the lighting.
Mr. Scott presented to the board pictures of the lights at the service center
from his property and discussed the visual impact it had on him and his
objections.
Mr. Scott added that he was there to ask for some relief from the lighting.
Chairman Kern stated the issue would be addressed at the worksession and
expressed concern that the new lighting be of the downward and inward
pointing variety.
Member Klataske moved for approval of the preliminary PUD for Utility
Service Center with the condition that any lighting being installed would be
inward and downward directed and that the appropriate City departments look
at the existing lighting and what could be done to keep the lighting within the
site.
Member Strom seconded the Motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE ACCE$5 CONTROL PLAN Amendment
Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the South College Access Control
Plan was approved by the City Council about a year ago and the plan was an
agreement between the State and the City to provide guidance and direction on
how access control will happen on South College Avenue from Swallow to
Trilby in years ahead. The plan was derived from the State access code which
was State law in which the City is required to comply with.
He stated the amendment before the board tonight, improves the original access
plan. It allows for the concept of the recirculation street and it allows for the
median to be built on College Avenue. The South College Access Plan is a long
range plan and intended, over time, to provide for an efficient and safe
traffic flow along College Avenue. It did not attempt to continue status quo
on College Avenue. All the turns are out there now, all the access points,
overtime and the continued development and increase in traffic will require
changes and that is what the South College Access Plan does. The Plan looks
as a priority for traffic flow on College Avenue and good placement of traffic
signals and tries to balance that with reasonable access to the surrounding
businesses. Reasonable in our minds will ultimately have to depend on a good
system of recirculation streets, not direct access to properties, but a reasonable
system of recirculation streets.
Mr. Ensdorff stated the amendment was brought about by a PUD on the
agenda, South Grove PUD. The amendment had been reviewed by the State
Highway Department and they as well as the City believe this did improve the
concepts of the South College Plan.
Mr. Ensdorff gave a presentation on the elements of the existing Plan and the
proposed amendment with slides.
Member Carroll asked about the improper left turn into the Cottonwood
Shopping Center for northbound traffic and that he did not detect a traffic
control devise telling him he could not turn left into the Cottonwood Center,
and was this an illegal turn.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that to make the turn you technically had to go
northbound in a southbound lane to make the maneuver and that the median
there would be eliminated by the median project.
Member Walker asked by eliminating the northbound left into Creger, how did
a person get into the Cottonwood Center going northbound.
Mr. Ensdorff replied Boardwalk to Mason, Troutman to Mason, Harmony to
Mason. Customers wanting to use the center would have to change their
-2-
patterns to not deciding at the moment they were at the center to make the
left turn but would have to make it earlier on in their trip to the site.
is Member Walker asked what was it that staff favored in moving the traffic
signal further north.
Mr. Ensdorff replied by moving it north it did not impact the signal
progression on College. They found that in the South College Access study
that there was a window to put a new traffic signal if it was connected to
some recirculation system and the window was in that area. They put it on
the south end of it when they did the South College Access Plan and did not
look at the property lines. When it is put on the north side it then allowed
for the street to split on a property, which is normal practice and shares the
expense as well as the right of way impact of a new street. It allows for an
easier connection of Mitchell Drive, which has a major impact on all the
business on College Avenue and without Mitchell Drive connected they have
limited recirculation opportunities. It also provides a new right -in and
right -out on the east side of College.
Member O'Dell asked why the signal was placed in the southern location at the
time of the Plan.
Mr. Ensdorff replied the main reason was doing the traffic signal study in the
overall development of the South College Access Plan, they found that there
was an opportunity to put a traffic signal in that area. They looked at the
location of the signal and they put it to the southern end of it and felt it was
identifying it well enough at that point with no development at had to tell
them anything else or property lines where it would tell them where a street
might be better placed.
Member Carroll asked if the Plan did not project Mitchell Drive continuing
southward to JFK Parkway.
Mr. Ensdorff stated it was an oversite, and wherever it goes, by the existing
plan or the amendment it will need to be connected to it.
Member Strom asked Mr. Ensdorff whether he felt he was at an ultimate
cross-section for College Avenue with three lanes in each direction and was he
basically using up the right-of-way.
Mr. Ensdorff stated it was not consistent, it was somewhere at 115 to 120 feet
of right-of-way on an 88 foot cross section flow to flow, it was reasonably
within that ballpark.
Member O'Dell asked if Mitchell Drive extends to Horsetooth Road and would
there be a signal at that intersection.
Mr. Ensdorff stated there would not.
Member O'Dell asked if people would be able to turn left from Horsetooth on
to Mitchell.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that the way the Mitchell/Horsetooth intersection would
work is that there would be full access that lines up with the main entrance
to the Square.
-3-
Chairman Kern asked whether Mitchell Drive would be about 400 feet from
College.
Mr. Ensdorff replied 400 to 500 feet.
Chairman Kern asked how far it was from College to Mason Street to the west.
Mr. Ensdorff replied about 550 to the traffic signal.
Mr. Ensdorff added that the median project was contributing to the concern at
this time and wanted to put it in perspective. The plan is a long range plan
and the median was being built this summer and is implementing the plan. So
what they had was a long range plan that was being installed at an earlier
part of the long range plan, so some of the property is not developed. What
ever direction the decision goes the existing plan or the amendment, the traffic
signals will not be put in for a while, but the key is to design and build the
median as efficiently as they can the first time. So what the amendment is
doing is bringing together is a long range plan that was approved and an
amendment that brought forth new information that they thought would
improve the plan, but it was all coming together and having to be looked at in
a short range element and that was because the median was going in this
summer.
Chairman Kern asked what restrictions were placed on them by the State
Highway System.
Mr. Ensdorff replied the South College Access Plan was what was being used
to design the medians. Any future changes to the Plan that could impact the
Median would have to go through an amendment process and agreement
approval by the City Council and the State Highway Department Division of
Highways.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, planning consultant for the South Grove
Property and the one who proposed the amendment to the City, spoke on the
history of South College Properties and accessways, circulation, traffic flow,
traffic signals, streets, the South College Access Control Plan and the proposed
amendment and its effect on the property owners.
Jim Martel, representative of
Albertsons,
spoke on the
concerns that Albertsons
had with the
elimination of
left hand
turns from
North bound College on
Creger Drive,
the lack of access onto
Creger Drive,
the problem with their
truck access,
and the adverse
effects it
had on the
existing businesses. The
percentage of
business that was
going to be lost to Albertson's and the small
business owners in the plaza.
Chairman Kern asked Mr. Martel that if in 1979 when Albertsons developed on
the property that they were aware of a plan to incorporate a median across
College Avenue such that it would block Creger.
Mr. Martel replied no, that was the point, that it would not block Creger. It
would only block the entrance that was being discussed that appeared to be an
illegal turn that goes into the center.
-4-
Peter Salg, operates Wendy's at 3710 South College, stated that the amendment
had benefits for his business. Even a partial Mitchell Drive would help him
• and the median strip would help by people not making an illegal left out of
the restaurant. He did not feel eliminating the left onto Creger was right and
was not fair to the people on the west side of the street.
Mr. Salg asked Mr. Ensdorff if there was a frontage road through Furr's
Cafeteria.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that the situation on the West side of College was that it
had not been defined as a frontage road. What would happen was there was
an existing public access easement through Furr's that allowed the public to
move through Furr's property and that would be kept open. So it would not
be a dedicated frontage road but a public access easement.
Mr. Salg stated that they were proposing a traffic signal that would serve a
one block long street that ends presently at Hereford Drive and a partial
Mitchell Drive. Was there going to be a left hand turn allowed there at the
light.
Mr. Ensdorff replied yes, there was going to be full access.
Mr. Salg stated that what they were proposing was traffic going into Furrs
parking lot to get to Cottonwood Corner.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that was their contention that people would use it as an
alternative to the left turn and had not projected any traffic using it.
. Mr. Salg asked what the light would cost.
Mr. Ensdorff replied $35,000 to $40,000.
Mr. Salg asked if it was paid for by the Developer or the City.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that there would be some sort of combination, some City
and Developer primarily based on what happens on the east side that would
ultimately require the signal. Current traffic and current development did not
come close to warranting a traffic signal so the future development would have
to participate somehow.
Mr. Salg asked if the signal would be going in immediately.
Mr. Ensdorff replied no.
Mr. Salg stated that the loss of business for the people to the west was not
worth the trade off.
Jerry Cash, representing Foothills Auto Plaza and the property owners at W.D.
Moreland on both plats. He presented the board with a petition signed by the
property owners on the west side of College Avenue stating they oppose the
elimination of the left turn from north bound traffic at Creger.
. Mr. Cash asked Mr. Ensdorff why a signal would not go in if the South Grove
project was not approved as stated in his staff report.
5-
Mr. Ensdorff replied that was not true. It would be that a signal would go in
based upon signal warrants, signalized at the original location or at this
amendment. Both fit within a window that the City and State agreed can
accommodate a signal. The reason it was called a potential signal is that it
will go in, in either case, when the signal was warranted.
Mr. Cash asked about the hours the traffic study was done and was it accurate
for the hours that the businesses operated in the area.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that the peak traffic hours were from 4:30-6:30 for the
businesses in Cottonwood Plaza. The study was done based upon looking at
how the parking lot was used. The three times they picked to do the study
was when the parking lot was mostly full.
Mr. Cash asked if there was any study done during the change over of the
Mann Theatres.
Mr. Ensdorff replied no.
Mr. Cash asked how the staff proposed to make the intersection at Mason and
Horsetooth work with the additional 14% traffic directed there.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that not all 14% will use that intersection. They were in
the process of making changes to the intersection. There would be a left turn
signal installed to clear the left turn before the thru traffic movement is made.
Mr. Cash asked about the closure of Creger from northbound College. Would
this require the semi -truck delivery to change routes? Had staff considered
how they were to access there destinations.
Mr. Ensdorff replied no, but they considered trucks an urban environment and
urban environment was not designed to allow semi -trucks to make easy
movements. You see it all over town. They could not design streets to totally
accommodate the wide turning radius.
Mr. Cash asked if the corner of Horsetooth and Mason was engineered to
accept semi -trailer trucks turning with any irregularity.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that it would have to be dealt with and a driver would
have to accommodate the turning radius that he needed. That intersection was
designed as most of the intersections in Fort Collins were.
Mr. Cash asked if there was an enhanced safety problem in the area due to
that.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that he wasn't going to tell him it would improve safety,
but in the truck case it has significantly improved safety by putting a median
on College.
Mr. Cash asked if Mason and Boardwalk were designed to accept the heavy
truck traffic without deterioration and was Boardwalk and Mason designed for
the truck turns.
Mr. Ensdorff replied they were not designed to handle the semi truck turning
radius and that was similar throughout the City. As far as the structural
0
r]
integrity of Mason, Boardwalk, College, and Horsetooth, they were designed to
carry a reasonable amount of heavy vehicles.
• Mr. Cash asked if he had used any of the same principles in projecting South
College traffic to Mason and the continued development of that.
Mr. Ensdorff replied, yes they had looked at the projections for Mason.
Mr. Cash asked why the South College Access Control Plan was separated from
South Grove PUD.
Mr. Ensdorff replied the amendment was separate from the beginning, in
having both at the neighborhood meetings, staff did not separate them from a
process standpoint that we have done tonight. The fact has been from the
beginning, the applicant cannot apply for an amendment, only the City can do
it. They proposed the amendment because of the South Grove PUD and so
when they discussed it with the surrounding property owners, the issues were
intertwined, but it was not the intention for those two issues to continue to be
one in the Planning and Zoning Board process. Without approval of the
amendment, the South Grove PUD cannot be approved as proposed because it
needs Hereford Drive and the location, so they are dependent on each other,
but in the process they are separate.
Mr. Cash asked if the Bockman's are willing to demolish the storage shed that
would be right in the path of Hereford Drive immediately in order to
facilitate the completion of Hereford to Mitchell.
• Mr. Ensdorff replied that the information the applicant of South Grove PUD
had supplied was yes.
Mr. Cash asked in the signalized intersection they were proposing, was it the
intention to extend it into Hereford west.
Mr. Ensdorff replied yes it would in either case be tied to the existing
frontage road, in either case there would be access from the west.
Mr. Cash asked if there was any published written statement that refers to the
window for the light on South College.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that it was in the South College
Access
Study,
which was
the traffic engineering study
that the City had
done to give
them the
foundation for decisions on the
original existing South
College
Access
Plan.
Mr. Cash asked was the recommendation for the window 600 feet south of the
center line of Creger Drive.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that what the study showed them was that there was a
window, which said you could place it in the vicinity between the north
property line of Foothills Chrysler and the south property line. When the
South College Access Plan went to the State, they wanted more definitive
information than just "no closer than", they wanted it pinned down, and we
felt it was acceptable wording and that was how it got into the plan.
. Mr. Cash asked if there would be an encroachment on Foothills property for
the extension of Hereford drive to the west. They go way beyond what we
-7-
state to be City access and it is a clouded issue, but it would require a
condemnation proceeding and who would compensate the property owners.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that they did not believe there was any condemnation
needed. The frontage road and the area between the frontage road and the
highway is public right-of-way, and we have the opportunity to access that.
Mr. Cash asked if he was aware that the frontage road was deeded to W. D.
Moreland.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that it was his information that it was public right-of-way.
Mr. Cash replied that the O & E stated that it is deeded to W.D. Moreland
including the island he was referring to.
Mr. Cash asked if they were closing two of his existing driveways.
Mr. Ensdorff replied no, they would work with the property owners on the
west side to accommodate this. He felt that a traffic light into a property of
that kind would be very beneficial and the need for additional access points
was not necessary.
Mr. Cash asked if the new proposed drive would necessitate a complete revamp
of the interior circulation of the property, who was going to pay for that.
Mr. Ensdorff replied he did not think it would necessitate that. They did not
plan to change any of the access points on the west side of the frontage road
in either case and planned to work with him to make sure the right-of-way
was being used for right-of-way purposes and not vehicle display.
Mr. Cash asked with the extension of the property into Hereford Drive, that
would encroach on an easement to Mann Theatre that was an easement for
perpetuity for the sign that they have on their property. What are they going
to do with the sign and who is going to pay to move it?
Mr. Ensdorff replied he did not know but they would figure it out.
Mr. Cash asked that the drive that was being proposed would result in the net
loss of 40 to 60 display places that they currently have. They value those
display spots somewhere in the area of $8,000.00 minimum loss forever,
resulting in tangible damage to the business. Who would compensate Foothills
for loss for the display?
Mr. Cash stated that they had an approved PUD on the south property for the
erection of an auto dealership and this particular PUD shows access in between
the two properties and also access back onto College. With this proposal that
access is in fact eliminated. He stated that the elimination of this access to
the Moreland PUD decreases the value of the property considerably. Who
should compensate Foothills for this damage? Considerable sums had been spent
in the planning and initial development of this property. The plans would be
useless with the proposed change. Who would compensate them for this? They
have cross easements with the State office building. These become inoperable
under the change. Please put yourself in their position. They bought the
ground, landscaped it, lighted it, leveled it, asphalted it, planned the facility,
bought the Jeep Eagle, Yugo, Suzuki franchises to place on this particular
M
property and under this change all the plans are useless. Was it right to allow
the change to benefit one developer?
• Mr. Cash commented that by virtue of 100% of the property owners on the
west side of the street being opposed to the project, there would be a
tremendous amount of economic damage that would result from the proposal
should it be approved. He would think it would warrant a high degree of
consideration by virtue of the monetary damages and the immense amount of
litigation that would result from this. He would appreciate on the part of
Foothills Plaza, Inc. and the Moreland PUD to disapprove this plan.
Mr. Zachery Wilson, attorney representing Century Properties, Inc. who is the
owner of the Cottonwood Corners Shopping Center, stated that it was obvious
that the parties on the east side of College and the parties on the west side
and the business owners all have their own interests and desires as a part of
their business. It was up to the board to decide whether the City has shown
the benefits provided by the amendment out weigh the injury. The proposal to
modify the South College Access Plan to force the closure of Creger Drive
irreparable injury to the Shopping Center and the merchants that lease in the
Shopping Center. Century Properties and perhaps some of the tenants would be
willing to take what ever action necessary to prevent the modification from
being implemented. The prohibition of the left turn lane would deny
immediate northbound access into the Shopping Center. He did not think the
shoppers would stand for the inconvenience of having to detour, make several
left hand turns, go several blocks in the opposite direction to reach the stores
they really want to reach. When a cost benefit analysis was applied to the
proposal, it was surprising that the modification was even being considered.
• Mr. Wilson stated that the City should attempt to protect existing businesses,
which already have contributed to the City's economic growth rather than try
to accommodate a development that may never occur, but would cause damage
to other businesses. The traffic studies on Creger Drive failed to adequately
account for the consequences caused by the median. This amendment would
strangle the Cottonwood Corners Shopping Center and the businesses of every
merchant in it. He assured the City that if the amendment passed, the small
businesses would not go down without a fight.
Spiro Palmer, owner of Palmer House Florist, stated he supported the new stop
light because it would help the flow on the east side. On an average day they
have about 600 cars driving through there. Twenty percent of the cars like to
make the left turn out. They cannot do that. Without the stoplight it would
be very difficult to do. One of the reasons he purchased the extra lots was to
h e l p b r i n g M i t c h e l l D r i v e t h r o u g h.
Jim Mucklow, owner of Choice Travel, Pelt there should have been more public
input and open access. He stated he was under the assumption that after Mr.
Ensdorff received a letter of denial from the State, that he was dropping the
project. He felt there was a rush to find a spot for the stoplight.
Archie Solsky, owner of Cottonwood Liquor, has been located in Cottonwood
Corners since 1981. He was aware that the median strip was going to extend
down South College. He stated he renewed his lease in the center with the
understanding there would be a left hand turn on to Creger. If the left hand
• turn is taken away it would have a detrimental impact to his store. He stated
the existing plan is reasonable and hoped the board saw it that way too.
IN
Bonnie Hahn, owner of the Redwing Shoe Store, asked Mr. Ensdorff about how
the plan was changed from the original proposal that would give Creger a long
enough space that they could put in a deceleration and stacking lane.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that the State would not accept the plan unless the left
hand turn was taken out.
Ms. Hahn asked if Hereford Drive would be moved further south allowing for
a greater allowable distance for a left hand turn onto Creger from Northbound
College Avenue traffic , would this not be most beneficial for all parties.
Mr. Ensdorff replied yes it would, it cannot be designed, but it would be
beneficial. It was not possible because of the design standards of the State.
Ms. Hahn asked what his long range plan for the Cottonwood Center was by
closing the left turn on Creger into their main entrance.
Mr. Ensdorff replied they did not feel that was the main entrance to the
center. The study showed the Mason Street entrance to be the main access.
Ms. Hahn stated she was hoping to go into her fourth year in August. She
rides a very fine line when it comes to profit along with Albertson's and many
of the other businesses in the center. There were alot of small businesses in
the center who had made the center a profitable center. A decrease in
business this early in the life of the Redwing Shoe Store would very seriously
put the future of her business at stake.
Ron Bockman, owner of the Mountain View Lumber Company, was concerned
with the median and the semi -trucks that come and go from his business. He
was concerned that all the roads and the stop light going in through is
property would damage the chance of selling it. He would rather see the light
moved to the north of the property.
Russ McCahan, Veldman-Moore Commercial Real Estate, asked Mr. Ensdorff if
the 15% loss now would become 30-50% in the future with most of the growth
in the southeast of the City.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that the percentage would stay the same or be reduced as
other grocery stores are built that will distribute the amount of people going to
this particular grocery store.
Mr. McCahan, asked why not wait to determine where the light would be
placed when the collection of properties to the south of Hereford Drive become
developed. He felt that establishing access right now to accommodate one pad
user was ludicrous. He felt the location of the light should be determined
when the major parcels developed.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that yes Hereford might be a driveway for a few years
but ultimately would fit into the scheme and be the best solution for that
scheme in the future. The reason it was happening now is because they are
building the median and they want to get the Access Plan in place and the
median is giving them the opportunity to make some decisions, and they want
the property owners to know what they are going to be dealing with. Either
way, with the existing plan or the amendment, they will move ahead with the
-10-
plan. Without the amendment the existing plan will be put in and will be
designed into the median. Once the median was designed it would not be very
easy to make changes. They did not want to make changes any time someone
comes in and says we would like this. The median makes them want to have
the right solution and that was why they were there with the amendment. If
they could wait there might be an opportunity in the construction of the
median but they thought it to be important to do it this summer.
Brady Frick, general manager of Furr's Cafeteria, stated his major concern was
the placement of the stop light and cars coming through Furr's parking lot and
was concerned about the safety of the elderly and children.
Andy Johansen, manager of Cottonwood Liquors in Cottonwood Plaza, stated it
was his job and his goal to make more business for Cottonwood Liquor. With
the limited access on Creger and the proposed changes, that took away their
complete competitive edge. He stated the truck problem would also hurt them.
Kathy Sole, representing Famous Footwear, presented the board with a petition
signed by customers. She stated as a retailer she could not afford to have 15%
less people come into her store and be a success. She asked the board to
decline the proposal.
Kevin Barnes, manager of Subway, stated as a small business the fine line
between profit and loss was quite close. To lose up from 5-14% could mean the
area of red. The owner had told him that if the proposed closing of Creger
northbound left access was approved, they would almost inevitably in six
months to a year move further south.
Doug DeMaterio, owner of Nate's Steak and Seafood,
stated
his
main concern
was closing the access to Creger Drive and what the
impact
was
going to be
on the traffic flow turning west on Horsetooth and the potential
stack up of
cars wanting to turn left and again on Mason would back
up
onto College
Avenue. Also, the potential stacking of automobiles
from
the
Mason Street
access point backing up onto Horsetooth. He stated he
is for
the
existing plan
but for those reasons oppose the amendment.
Member Walker stated that from an engineering prospective, either proposal
would work. Basically wherever the traffic light is put would be a strange
intersection in the sense that it was not a compete 4-way intersection. There
was no logical place to put a stop light. Any place within the so called
window would be workable from the standpoint that it would provide the kind
of traffic regulation as such a light was meant to do. They do have an
existing plan that had been agreed upon by everyone present and felt the
amendment would have some advantages in the future but agreed with the
immediate concerns to established businesses.
Member Strom asked how short they are for State standards for a left turn at
Creger.
Mr. Ensdorff replied enough so the State said they would not approve it. Not
even half of what they would expect.
. Member Strom asked if the problem was that they had another left turn
southbound into Hereford.
Mr. Endsdorff replied yes, there was not enough distance to do two and the
one at the traffic signal takes precedence.
Member Strom asked if there was more right-of-way, was there any way to
reasonably design a double left turn bay that would be parallel through the
whole distance.
Mr. Ensdorff replied the technique had been used in Denver, but it had not
been used in Fort Collins and have tried to stay away from it, and they had
not proposed it at this location.
Member Strom stated the bulk of the opposition related to not having a left
turn at Creger and if there was some potential engineering solution to it that
would still allow moving the stop light, it seemed it would alleviate alot of the
opposition.
Chairman Kern stated that neither proposal, the existing or the amendment, had
anything that served the west side well, because it was not designed that way.
He stated last year when the Access Plan was being approved he did not recall
alot of effort from this section of town when the issues were raised. He
stated that the plans were pointed at developing a good route of recirculation
on the east side of the street, but the plan as it exists now or is proposed
really addresses what is going on on the west side of the street.
Member O'Dell stated she was not convinced that the amendment was much
better than the existing plan. If the intersection made a logical 4-way
intersection then she thought that would make sense but in both places did not
work. She thought planning ahead to go to the Cottonwood Corners did not
work and was not convinced this was a better long range plan.
Member Strom stated that the persuasive argument to him was that we had
specific immediate damages and adverse effect to existing businesses for the
purpose of somewhat speculative advantages to the future and on that basis it
was hard for him to support the change even though there were some
advantages for future planning. He would like to see the owners work for
another design that would work.
Member Walker moved to deny the Amendment to the South College Access
Plan.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell stated that she hoped in denying this that the people would
start talking and some other solution could be reached.
Chairman Kern stated that no matter what was decided tonight at some point
the decision about Creager Drive would have to be made. As the population
does increase in the south that intersection at Creager is going to become more
dangerous. It would be of long term interest to the people now to start
looking at this issue before something like a Berlin Wall is forced on them.
Motion to deny passed 7-0.
SOUTH GROVE PUD - Preliminary, #22-83A
-12-
Member Burns made the motion to table the item at the request of the
• applicant.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
MARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS PUD Litt. 2. - Amended Final
#96-S I N
Ted Shepard gave the staff report and chronological history of Lot 2,
recommending approval.
Jim Gefroh, architect with Gefroh-Hattman, stated their project was submitted
as an amendment to the currently approved master plan and preliminary PUD.
The current plan was approved under the synopsis (f the Auto -Related and
Road Side Commercial and Business Service use darts. He stated staff
contended that with the submission it sparked a major change in the entire
PUD and therefore re-evaluation of the entire Market at Horsetooth Commons
was in order. He stated that the applicant did not r(present the majority of
the remaining property in the center and could not ;peak for the property
owner in this manner. The applicant only owns Lot 2 which was less than an
acre in size. He believes a change in use for Lot 2 did not change the
character of the entire center but rather supports uses vet to be built on the
center and was compatible with the existing uses o the site. The only
existing use on site was Grease Monkey north of the proposed site. He stated
. the existing approval was for an auto -related road sid commercial use and
that was a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru. Thar submittal was for
auto -related road side commercial and business service giv n the office and the
retail showroom use they had proposed. He stated that : aff wanted them to
look at the fact that all of a sudden this was a neightorhood convenience
shopping center and it indicated that even though they hac'submitted uses that
were retail showroom and office they think the site shoult be evaluated as a
neighborhood convenience center. He stated that if the ',xisting plan were
developed as a fast-food with a drive thru it would be clez•ly in violation of
a neighborhood convenience shopping center guideline criter t, yet it had the
right to do that. He was wondering where staff was head,ig by looking at
the Market at Horsetooth Commons and saying they intend to look at the
entire PUD as a neighborhood convenience shopping center. He stated that
the question of what point chart to use should not be a major issue but would
like to focus on the uses themselves that they were proposinji He stated if
the project was judged under the auto -related and business se vice uses they
achieve 88% and 96% on the point charts. If it was jud ed under the
neighborhood convenience shopping center criteria, they achieve 53%, 2% short
of the 65% required. Staff had indicated they would support a ariance to the
chart. Whether you looked at it from the standpoint of auto-n'ated roadside
commercial or neighborhood convenience center, the chart shoui not be the
issue, it should be looked at by the use they were proposing on tie site.
Mr. Gefroh stated the uses proposed consisted of a 3200 s.f. retail outlet
specializing in classic autos and a 4800 s.f. office building. He )clieved that
the building usage, in their case, was not a clear cut issue and discussions
. with staff in the past 2 months, it was still open to final de.inition. He
stated the use they were proposing was less intense and more in I roping with
a
13-
the neighborhood shopping center criteria than a fast food with drive -up as
presently approved. He stated the proposed use was a retail outlet that would
have sales limited to classic and antique automobiles. There would be no auto
reconstruction or refurbishing on the site or within the building. There would
be no service or detailing either on site or within the building. No repair will
occur on the site at all relative to the cars. The interior of the building
would be used as limited office space, overnight car storage and limited
interior showroom space. Outdoor display was limited and very low key, 4
cars maximum would be displayed at one time. The display surface would be
grasscrete, rather than hard surface and there would be no hard surface
exposed to Shields to view. The cars would not be outside during evening
hours. Outdoor display would be limited due to the nature of the business
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Due to the nature and the value
of the cars, they would be brought in to the car storage area after 6:00 at
night. There would be no outdoor lighting of the automobiles. The only
lighting would be security lighting on the building as with any commercial
building. The entire operation was a very low traffic generator. There were
two employees to operate the facility. The architecture and color would be
similar to the only building that exists on the site.
Peggy Sage, representing the owner of the property, stated that she would like
to ask for an approval of the project based on the logical soft use of the lot
as compared to what could be on it. It would be generating less traffic, the
business hours are limited, much quieter use and thought people would like to
see some classic cars once in a while.
Chairman Kern asked what could go into an auto display showroom such as
was being proposed when it changed use.
Mr. Shepard replied the PUD would be approved for auto display so if there
were a change in inventory they would have to come back through as an
administrative change to the PUD or an amended PUD before the board
through a seven week review process.
Chairman Kern asked Mr. Shepard to briefly give the staff's purpose in
bringing this under the neighborhood convenience shopping center point chart.
Mr. Shepard replied that staff felt it was the most applicable definition. Staff
looked through all the definitions of all the point charts and as an amended
PUD coming back through the full review process, it fell under the definition
most closely for the neighborhood convenience shopping center.
Chairman Kern asked if the landscaping, the berming, etc.., that was proposed
for this site is appropriate for a neighborhood convenience shopping center.
Mr. Shepard replied there were a number of issues that had not quite met the
guidelines for the neighborhood convenience shopping center. Those guidelines
were made to create a higher quality level than a typical auto related use or a
business service use. This particular PUD did not meet several of those.
Member O'Dell agreed with staff recommendation that they judge the project
under the neighborhood convenience shopping center guidelines. On page 44 of
the LDGS it clearly states -how major changes to a PUD needed to be reviewed.
It states "major changes to the PUD shall be approved, if at all, by the
Planning and Zoning Board and must follow the same review and public
-14-
hearing process required for approval of preliminary plans". She stated in this
kind of situation if this were a preliminary plan on this particular site this
• would be considered a neighborhood convenience center and they should work
under that assumption.
Chairman Kern stated he had difficulty with the proposal if it came under the
neighborhood convenience shopping center route. He felt uncomfortable about
granting a variance where the project achieves only 2/3 of the required
minimum. If they considered it under the neighborhood convenience shopping
center then they were primarily directed towards what purpose did the
development serve the neighborhood. He stated this proposed use was not
directed toward serving the neighborhood.
Member O'Dell stated they had received a revised neighborhood convenience
shopping center point chart tonight and that there was an approved
multi -family development to the west and now achieved 63% out of 65%.
Member Carroll stated he was confused by the preliminary plat of the
development for the same reason as mentioned by staff in the comments. If
they would approve a variance on the site did it approve the preliminary plat
or would the variance be just for this specific project.
Mr. Shepard replied the variance would be specifically for Lot 2 as presented
to the board tonight as an amended preliminary PUD. It would not affect the
approval of the Circle K Convenience Store or the 17,000 s.f. retail or any
other undeveloped portion.
• Member Carroll stated if they were not comfortable with the preliminary plat,
the way it was structured, would they move forward with the variance.
Mr. Shepard replied that it would be the logical sequence they would have to
take to get from the fact that they had an amended preliminary PUD coming
in for the full review process that had to be reviewed by the most applicable
point chart which they believe was neighborhood convenience shopping center,
therefore they had to make that finding. He did not think it would be
incongruous to approve a variance and deny an amended preliminary PUD.
Member Carroll stated they would have to approve the variance first and then
move to the consideration of the plat, and if they disapprove the variance then
they were done.
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct.
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that they variance was just a part
of this particular application and if the application would eventually fail for
other reasons, the variance did not survive that.
Chairman Kern asked if they approved it with berming and other landscaping,
that did not meet the normal neighborhood shopping center criteria, what
happened when it redevelopes? Did the next use have to come in with
improved landscaping if the board so wished.
. Mr. Shepard replied yes it would.
Mr. Eckman stated the first step was to consider the point chart to use, the
-15-
next was to consider a variance with respect to the points if they were to look
at point chart J, and then they would get to actual development and would be
looking at either determining, (if using point chart J), whether the use was
similar to other listed uses or if they thought it was not that another variance
should be granted. There was two ways to grant a variance, one was through
the utilization of the hardship approach and no substantial detriment to the
public good, and the other one was the utilization of the equal to or better
than approach.
Member Carroll stated that he was not opposed to the particular use being a
high quality classic car sales area with the proviso that no body work, detail
or repair go on in the building. He believed the applicant demonstrated the
plan is equal to or better than the Circle K that was there before, however, he
was not particularly comfortable with the preliminary plat as submitted.
Member O'Dell moved to consider this a neighborhood convenience center and
judge it under point chart J.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom asked what point chart this came under when it was in the last
time.
Mr. Shepard replied that Lot 2 was previously approved as a preliminary PUD
of the 5.3 acre PUD. It was a combination of point charts, auto -related uses
and business service uses. Two point charts were used.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member O'Dell moved to approve the variance based on the second criteria for
variance procedures.
Member O'Dell stated if they said they were going to review it under point
chart J and then don't grant the variance then he would not be able to do
anything. Because of that it would cause an exceptional hardship.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated that he had to take issue with the idea of approving a
variance based on exceptional undue hardship on the owner. The owner was
not the one proposing the use and he did not see that this owner had any
exceptional circumstances relative to any other owner of similar type properties.
He was left with the dilemma of basing a variance on a better plan and his
judgement was this plan was not better. He was going to vote against the
variance even though he did not have a problem with the use at that location.
Chairman Kern agreed that it did not place an undue hardship. He did not
see how they could use that as a basis to grant a variance.
Member O'Dell stated the intent of her motion was to say that they just voted
to be considered a neighborhood convenience center so they had to judge it
based on point chart J. He did not meet the minimum required points on
point chart J, so that meant he could not do anything with his land. He was
left without the ability to make a change, therefore she was saying that it
resulted in an undue hardship for the applicant and therefore they needed to
-16-
grant a variance to the pointchart.
• Mr. Eckman stated having elected to go with point chart J there was no
development that could be proposed that could reach the minimum requirement
of point chart J.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Carroll stated under the uses allowed, the use of a limited showroom
for antique automobiles, perhaps not in the manner of the proposed
preliminary plat, was equal to or better than that of the previously approved
plan.
Member Carroll moved to grant a variance allowing the use as proposed by the
applicant.
Mr. Eckman stated that they were at the approval stage and if they granted a
variance of being equal to or better than, if they had concerns about the site
plan they needed to include them in their vote now.
Member Carroll withdrew his motion.
Member O'Dell asked what other part of the City this use would be
appropriate in.
Mr. Shepard replied a neighborhood service center which was usually anchored
by a major grocery store, the H-B Zone on College Avenue or in the Industrial
. Zone.
Member O'Dell asked why this would be appropriate in a neighborhood service
center and not in a neighborhood convenience center.
Mr. Shepard stated the neighborhood service center had a larger draw, a larger
area that just a neighborhood. They were typically located 1 per square mile
section and the market share would be more than from the immediate area.
For neighborhood convenience, the idea was for it to be more restrictive, that
it would be going directly into the neighborhood.
Member Strom stated that he thought this was an appropriate use at this
location, but in its current form it qualifies for a variance to allow it to
happen.
Member Strom moved to table the item for a month to allow the proponent to
revise the plan in terms of landscaping and setbacks to attempt to accomplish a
submittal which will justify a variance that would be equal to or better than
the previous plan.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5-2, with members O'Dell and Kern voting against.
ARBOR PLAZA PUD, Pizza Hut - Preliminary & Final, #137-80G
• Steve Olt gave the staff report recommending approval with conditions as
stated in the staff report.
-17-
Chairman Kern asked that in worksession it was pointed out that there was a
sediment grease trap that was proposed and no answer had been received on
that item.
Mr. Olt replied that it was a request of the City, it wasn't a sanitary grease
trap, it was strictly to mitigate water quality, and it was not a requirement
that could be made.
Gary Bolton, Winter Enterprises, stated that this was going to be the Cadillac
Pizza Hut of the state and the only thing he was worried about was the
lighting.
Mr. Bolton presented the board with pictures of another Pizza Hut restaurant.
He stated because of the lateness the business stays open on the weekends, he
would like to keep the lighting underneath the caves.
Member O'Dell asked about the lighting at the Riverside Pizza Hut.
Mr. Bolton stated he thought what they were proposing was better than the
Riverside Pizza hut, not so dark.
Chairman Kern asked if Mr. Bolton knew how he was going to respond to the
grease sediment trap issue.
Mr.
Bob Schilgen replied that the stormdrainage grease
trap
was a problem, the
initial
comments from staff were misunderstood. It was
his
understanding that
the
request for the grease trap was a recommendation
and
not a requirement.
He
thought at this point their attitude was that if it
were
not a requirement
they
would not care to do it.
Member
Klataske
asked whether there was an issue of
security in the
parking
lot for
lighting.
If there was an issue, there needed
to be security
lighting
installed
vs. trying
to use lighting around the perimeter
of the building.
Mr. Bolton replied that he thought the lighting was sufficient enough, it was a
borderline situation, and the only request was at the back of the building, to
have a light above the back door that shined out back where the dumpster
was.
Chairman Kern stated that could be done through an administrative change.
Member Strom moved for approval with the conditions as indicated.
Member Burns seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Member O'Dell nominated Member Klataske for Chairman.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
-18-
Member Klataske was elected 7-0.
. Member Klataske nominated Member Strom for Vice-Chariman.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom was elected 7-0.
Mr.
Peterson
noted that this public
meeting would be continued until June 14
for
the purpose
of consideration of
a recommendation to City Council on GID
#1
(General
Improvement District.)
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
n
�J
•
-19-
Ll
x
....... .:. .........
::: ........... FORT:: FORT::.
..
n .... °d ... (..... ..... .... ...
... ....... ..... ::«_OWF DDOCDCPT D11
r....
�....0p,r�......
...
:':.... ....... .5 :.. ::...:::..:
FOUR S:::::::
_:I:::
SATURN of FT COLLINS
LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD
. G
City Limits: 1.1.90