Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/26/1988• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 P.M., in the Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Laurie O'Dell, Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, and Alternate Jan Shepard. Staff present included Tom Peterson, Ken Waido, Linda Ripley, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, and Kayla Ballard. Legal Staff was represented by Paul Eckman. Member Strom announced that he was resigning from the Planning and Zoning Board effective immediately. He stated that City regulations require that Board members be residents of the city or the UGA. He stated that he is no longer living in the city or within the UGA. He added that being on the Board was a positive experience and that although some decisions have been difficult, they had certainly not been dull. He stated the highlights had been the people. Staff and the Board was very hard working and committed to quality future for Fort Collins. The development community and the public - at -large, although they do not always agree, certainly were both interested in the quality of life in Fort Collins. They each, in their own way, work very hard to bring this about. He offered some advice to the Board which was to maintain and fine-tune the systems and ordinances. He considered them the best that he had ever seen. Chairperson O'Dell welcomed a class from Front Range Community College. Election of Officers Member Kern nominated Laurie O'Dell for a second term as Chairperson. With no other nominations, Laurie O'Dell was elected by a vote of 7-0. Member Kern nominated Dave Edwards for a second term as Vice -Chairman. With no other nominations, Dave Edwards was elected as Vice -Chairman by a vote of 7-0. Tom Peterson presented the Agenda Review which consisted of: Item 1, August 22, 1988 Board minutes; Item 2, #13-82AK, Oak Ridge Village PUD 7th Filing -Final; Item 3, #53-85S, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, 7th Filing Parcel Q - Final; Item 5, #64-88, Allen Group Home; Item 6, #37-84D, Lakew- ood Estates PUD -Final; Item 7, #53-84F, Warren Farm 2nd Filing - Final Subdivision; Item 8, #76-88,A, Pace Membership Warehouse Annexation and Zoning; Item 9, #72-88, Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Definition of Aquarium Shop; Item 12, #70-88, The Point PUD, Master Plan, Preliminary Phase Plan and Off -Site Street Improvements Waiver - County Referral; Item 13, #71-88, Terry Shores North, Preliminary Subdivision and Off -Site Street . Improvements Waiver - County Referral; and Item 14, #42-88A, Replat of Lot 11, Block 2, East Mulberry Subdivision and Off -Site Street Improvement Waiver. Planning and Zoning Boar Meeting September 26, 1988 Minul:L, Page 2 Mr. Peterson stated that the staff requested Item 4, #63-88, Douglas Manor Group Home; Item 10, i66-88,A, Pine Ridge First Annexation and Zoning; and Item 11, /67-88,A, Pine Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning be pulled for discussion. He informed the audience that the Westside Neighborhood Plan would not be heard tonight but will be heard at the October 24 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda, stating that staff requested Item 20, A77-88, Wetlands and Wildlife Maps and Criteria be heard first on the Discussion Agenda, followed by: Item 16, i53-85W, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD - Amended Master Plan; Item 17, #53-85T, Centre for Advanced Technology PUD, Support Services - Preliminary and Final; Item 18, #146-79Item 19I,, Raintree A96181M, The Market l atUHorsetooth Commons PUD PreliminaryL t nFinal;5 Prelimi- nary. Member Kern moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7-0. DOUGLAS MANOR GROUP HOME - #63-88 Linda Ripley gave a description of the proposed use. Douglas Merle, applicant, stated that their goal was to blend in with the neighborhood. There will be no signage or advertising. He quoted from "Practical Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Small Assisted Facili- ties for the Elderly," which states that group homes had no negative impact on property values or the rate of property turnover. He added the exterior of the home would not change dramatically and that the only change proposed was to have the windows, across the garage, be sliding windows in each garage base. Parking for staff will be in the 3-car driveway and they will not park on the street. Member Walker asked Mr. Merle if he was the owner and will he remain as a primary resident. Mr. Merle replied yes, he was the owner and, along with his wife, will con- tinue to reside there. Member Walker asked if there will be a change in the storage of the trailer due to increase of usage of the property. Mr. Merle replied that there were no additional vehicles on the premises. The trailer was in storage. Member Shepard asked if one of the 4 bedrooms would be large enough for a couple to reside in. Mr. Merle replied yes, one room would be 175-180 square feet, and will be used as a double occupancy room. Planning and Zonin and meeting September 26, 1988 nutes Page 3 • Ms. Ripley gave the staff report. It recommended approval with the follow- ing conditions: 1) The maximum number of elderly residents will be five; 2) The maximum number of 2 staff persons will work in the home at any one time; 3) The elderly residents would not be allowed to drive or store auto- mobiles on the property; and 4) there would be no signage for the group home. Ray Benton, 2912 Worthington, stated that the use was not permitted by the covenants of the area. Covenants are important to a neighborhood to keep the quality of the neighborhood as it was when it was developed. Buyers expect it to stay that way. He stated he was disturbed to find that the City was not a party to this argument and that this proposal was in viola- tion of the covenants. He asked if the City considered, in their deliber- ation of.the approval, that the covenants prohibit this kind of use. Paul Eckman stated that this needs to be addressed in court rather than through the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Benton stated that he did some comparisons of elderly housing through- out the city. He stated that the Fort Collins Nursing Home was approxi- mately 70% filled; Columbine West will have 120 beds in the future. Based on these comparisons of existing homes, the majority of them are empty. Therefore, he questioned the need for this group home in an area where the covenants ido not permit that type of use. Ms. Ripley commented that staff did not believe that it was appropriate to ask the applicant to ensure that there was a need for the use. A group home facility offers a different kind of care than the traditional nursing home. The type of patients that Douglas Manor will accept would be ambulatory and will not accept anyone in a wheelchair, mentally or physically handicapped. These residents will be the type that will require some sort of help such as reminding them to take their medicine. Vicki Kloppe, 2930 Worthington, stated that she was concerned about the traffic that this use will create. These residents will need to be driven for various reasons, and this will create more traffic. There were a number of small children living in the area. The traffic in the area of Worthing- ton and Swallow had produced one accident per month. Additional traffic could possibly add more accidents. Parking will be a problem because there would not be enough space between houses, with staff and visitors. She felt that converting the garage and leaving the driveway would be unsightly. Mike Dudek, 2925 Worthington, stated that he had the same concerns as Ms. Kloppe. He stated that the traffic at Drake through Swallow was fast and plentiful. He agreed that there had been several accidents in the area. His biggest concern was alteration of the garage. Mr. Merle had good inten- tions with the group home but the physical change will affect the neighbor- hood. If the group home is unsuccessful, will they change it back? He felt that this would look like an apartment building in a residential area. There were several rentals in the area and rentals create the demand for extra parking. He felt the neighborhood was at the mercy of the group home. Manning ana coning boa, meeting September 26, 1988 Minu4 - Page 4 Ms. Ripley stated the elderly would not drive or have automobiles. Trips to the doctor were not significant enough to deny the project. Staff believed that the architectural design of the home would remain compatible with the neighborhood. Adding windows to the garage would not significantly change the appearance of the home. The zoning ordinance does not require a residential home to have a garage. Member Edwards moved to approve Douglas Manor Group Home with the recom- mended staff conditions. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Member Walker understood that requirements, as outlined, dealt with lot size rather than house size. He asked if there was any rule governing inte- rior space that has to be allowed for residents in this situation. Mr. Eckman stated that one criteria to be considered was building coverage of the lot. However, group homes were allowed in the R-L zone after the Board approves them. Member Walker was concerned about regulating quality and asked how this was to be controlled. Ms. Ripley stated that the applicant was required to be licensed by a gov- ernmental agency. They were the ones who regulated the care in the home. They have requirements for square footage of bedrooms. Member Walker asked Mr. Merle if ambulatory residents need special consid- erations. Mr. Merle stated the residents will not be wheelchair bound. Requirements necessary, through the state, for a wheelchair bound person could not be met by their group home. Member Klataske questioned traffic counts for the group home. Ms. Ripley replied that there was no information on this. Earlier she had conversed with an owner of another group home and the owner stated that there were few visitors. Member Groznik stated that he seconded the motion because he was concerned with the type of care given to elderly persons. They should be kept active and have them interact with children. He questioned if the skid marks at the stop signs were from people not knowing it was a new sign recently put in place. As the children grew older and get licenses there could be an increase in traffic and possibly more hazardous drivers. Member Kern stated the intention of the law was to get people out of large nursing homes and into neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood rather see this home with four bedrooms and have 5 elderly people or a family with 3 teenagers? He addressed Mrs. Benton's letter by stating that the two issues of traffic increase and property value decrease have had no negative feed- back. The state has mandated that group homes can go into any zone. Fort Collins has tried to regulate their separation and as to the type of homes. This use will remain a group home for the elderly until it comes before the Board as another proposed use. These homes are inspected by the state Planning and Zonin and Meeting September 26, 1988 utes • Page 5 • agency that licenses them. Requirements exist for bedroom floor areas per person. Qualifications for staff were licensed by the state. The state has mandated that the Board not consider this as any kind of rental or commer- cial enterprise. The Board only judges if the land use was appropriate. The Board cannot address enforcement. This would be on a complaint basis. These were private matters and have to be pursued privately. Chairperson O'Dell stated that the Board changed the requirements of group homes last year and she felt confident that this proposal meets all those requirements. Member Kern asked if this controverted having 3 unrelated person in a resi- dence. Mr. Eckman replied that it did not. Member Edwards stated that the same arguments are raised each time a group home is reviewed. He felt the real issue is the threat of change in the use of the residence in the neighborhood. All objections have a flip side. The community should say to do it but in a style to benefit everyone. The safety questions is always raised. Elderly people can add quality, continu- ity and roots to a community as opposed to hot rods and dirt bikes. He felt that a family with 3 or 4 teenagers living in this area could be more dis- ruptive than 4 or 5 elderly residents. There were rentals all around this area. The more statements made about a lot of rentals around just enforces the conformancy of this use. . Member Kern amended the motion by changing Condition /1 to "A group home of elderly residents limited to a maximum of 5." Member Edwards and Member Groznik accepted this amendment. Motion to approve Douglas Manor Group Home carried 7-0. PINE RIDGE FIRST ANNEXATION AND ZONING - /66-88,A PINE RIDGE SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - A76-88,A Linda Ripley gave a description of Pine Ridge First and Second Annexations and Zonings stating that this was a voluntary annexation. She added that there had been a number of calls concerned about the R-F zone. Ken Waido gave a description and history of the R-F zone by stating that this property was an open space area. The only development anticipated in the property was the extension of the foothills trail to eventually meet with the Spring Creek trail. This area will not be developed into a park. The residential zoning was applied to properties in the foothills area. Staff recommended this zone because this is the zoning district that is to be applied to properties in this area. There exists no open space zone or governmental zone to apply to city -owned property in the City Code. A zone district is used which applies to the general vicinity in which the parks are located. Covenants are not attached to restrict any development because covenants are agreements between private property owners and the public. . The County developed.a Foothills Plan in 1982 and the City developed a plan in 1970. This city -owned open space area should be annexed into the city proper. Planning and Zoning Bow Meeting September 26, 1988 Minutes \ Page 6 Member Walker asked if this annexation would require property owners in the area to annex into the city? Mr. Waido stated that this particular annexation did not create an enclave. No property owner would be put into a position that they would be in an enclave and subject to an unilateral annexation by the city within three years. Member Groznik asked if there could be a condition stating that this land be used as open space purposes. Mr. Eckman stated that to impose a condition as part of the zoning would be possible by City Council. This would be subject to change by a future City Council. If the property had been conveyed to the city with a deed restric- tion, then the restrictions would have to be followed. Member Edwards asked if this property could be zoned T-Transition in order that neighbors could feel that, if anything were going to happen on this property, there would be assured of the potentional of public hearings and other recommendations. Mr. Waido replied that the T-Transition zone means that it could be zoned to something else. This could be less restrictive than R-F zoning. This property was bought for open space used for open space. Mr. Peterson stated that if the city came back later with an open space zone, this would be the same zoning condition as in the R-F zone. If the concern was with the neighbors that something, such as a golf course, were proposed, then any development other than trailhead development would go through the process of a public hearing conducted by the Parks and Recre- ation staff. Member Kern moved to approve Pine Ridge First Annexation and Zoning and Pine Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that there were enough safeguards built into the process that makes this proposal appropriate. Member Edwards concurred with Member Walker but felt there was a hole in our zoning ordinances to have an unstated policy that property owned by the city similar to what happens to be around them is a backwards approach to an unstated policy. If there is a way to find a zoning provision called public purpose or open space this should be reviewed. Motion to approve passed 7-0. WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - 75-88 Member Walker moved to table this item to the October 24, 1988 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Member Kiataske seconded. Motion to table carried 7-0. 0 0 r-1 1.J Planning and Zoninaard Meeting • September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 7 WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE MAPS AND CRITERIA - t77-88 Bob Wilkinson, Natural Resource Board, gave a brief summary of the proposed criteria. Member Groznik asked if there was a schedule set to respond to the review of the maps and to see how they impact the LOGS? Mr. Peterson stated the city's intent was to meet with the City Council to discuss this on October 11 to review the entire wetlands program. Based on the outcome of that meeting, there will be a schedule of revisions and rec- ommendations within a year. Member Edwards commented that one area not highlighted enough was the amount of time and energy spent by the Natural Resources Board and the ad - hoc citizens committee has spent on this. He proposed to add "Whereas the Natural Resources Board and Ad -Hoc Citizens Committee of knowledgeable cit- izens have spent countless hours identifying, categorizing and prioritizing wetlands and wildlife habitat within the UGA" to the resolution of Wetlands and Wildlife. Member Shepard stated that this should be incorporated into the first "whereas." She commented that the last paragraph needs to be changed to "Adopted by City Council." She suggested that the fifth "whereas" be changed from "least impact. . . " to "will have minimum impact. . . ." Chairperson O'Dell questioned the last paragraph. She asked if those tech- niques are written, noted, stated or known to people. What would people anticipate when they read this paragraph? Mr. Wilkinson stated that there are no specified mitigation techniques. The existing criteria would be used until changes were made in the code. If certain impacts were foreseen, it would be up to the developer to review what types of impacts were forthcoming and how those might be mitigated. This would be dealt with on a case -by -case basis at this time. Mr. Eckman stated that the last paragraph is intended to state the expres- sion that in the interim period, these maps will be used for informational purposes to guide the public in application of preservation and mitigation techniques. Member Edwards moved to .adopt this resolution with the addition of the following: "Whereas the Natural Resources Board and Ad -Hoc Citizens Commit- tee of knowledgeable citizens have spent countless hours identifying, cate- gorizing and prioritizing wetlands and wildlife habitat within the UGA"; and to change the word "least" in the fifth "whereas" paragraph to "mini- mum." Member Kern seconded. Motion to approved passed 7-0. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - Amended Master Plan - #53-85W Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Planning and Zoning Boar 'eeting September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 8 Frank Vaught, Vaught/Frye Architects, discussed the requested proposal. He stated the goals Of the 1985 plan were the same goals as today. The mixed use plan consisted of high-tech, retail, housing, and recreational uses in a mutually supporting role. Mr. Shepard gave the staff report. It recommended approval, stating that this proposal was in conformance with the LDGS. Alan Lamborn, of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, had con- cerns as to why the applicant amended the uses permitted under the Master Plan on 20 acres in response to a proposal dealing with only 2.2 acres. Staff informed him that it is merely "housekeeping." Staff did not feel it was important to hold a neighborhood meeting on this issue because it was considered "housekeeping." Mr. Lamborn felt "housekeeping" showed a misun- derstanding of the way in which the context affects the substance of the choices actually made. The structure of the LOGS typically gives neighbor- hoods no leverage on land use. The absolute criteria of the LOGS means hold the meeting and collect the minutes." There were no measurable indicators by which to say "no." This was the basic problem by which the LOGS affects the residential areas on the issue of incompatibility. There were occasions where the LOGS and the underlining zoning system cut the other way. The R-P Plaza was an example. This particular lot was originally zoned I-P with business uses designated on the Master Plan. When this was passed, the I-P zone was altered to B-P zoning without citizen input because it came in the form of an amendment by a Board member after the citizen input was over. The parcel was re -integrated into the Master Plan. That was a significant plus for land use planning because previously, it was a stand alone B-P zoning. By re -integrating, this gave the staff, the Board and the neighbor- hoods the potential to influence more of what was to happen on the parcel. If all of Parcel R and V are amended like the 2.28 acre proposal, that has the effect of throwing away any terms of disagreement by the staff, Board, or neighborhood in the future. If this process continued, all that would be left for C.A.T. is site planning. What was proposed was putting beautifully landscaped gas stations on every corner, as it was back in the 1960's. To avoid that outcome, the Board had to "husband" the few assets the system gives for land use as opposed to site planning. He proposed that the 2.2. acres be amended to allow auto -related uses. He was prepared to support the basic concept of having a convenience store, car wash, and retail use on that 2.2 acres. What he objected to was taking almost 18 acres and turning into another roadside, auto -related commercial district. Member Edwards asked Mr. Lamborn if he was speaking for the neighborhood or for himself personally. Mr. Lamborn replied that he used the basic first person pronoun. The con- cern of the neighborhood is two -fold: 1) this was the most important infill project that the city will engage in and that it be done in a way that pre- sents long term objectives rather than short run scrambling; ng; and 2) that this proposed alteration will result in a shopping r integrated with C.A.T., and the indirect effects in traffic. Chairperson O'Dell asked Mr. Shepard to clarify what would be allowed on Parcel R and Parcel V with this change. Planning and Zoning rd Meeting • September 26, 1988 Wes Page 9 Mr. Shepard stated that it would allow typical retail and commercial busi- nesses that were found on highways and arterial streets. Chairperson O'Dell asked if this would be different than a shopping center or a community -wide shopping center. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be in addition to those previously men- tioned uses, neighborhood service and regional community shopping center. Member Groznik asked if there was any way the Board could control curb cuts that will be allowed in areas R and V on Shields and Drake. Mr. Shepard stated that the site access study for the amended master plan has been the "bible" to which all the uses of the master plan are reviewed. All the staff memos received for any project in C.A.T. would always refer to that document. That document is very specific as to curb cuts and the location of the access points. Impacts on Drake and Shields were the prime concern of that study. Member Walker asked for response to the comment regarding the next item on the agenda that would affect this item. Mr. Shepard stated that these two tracts will have direct frontage on the two arterial streets. This was the rationale. Mr. Vaught stated that Parcel W was more integrated into the indus- trial/office area of the overall plan and was never intended to accommodate those types of uses. The original master plan had a 350,000 square foot community center approved in Parcels R, S, and V. This was reduced to approximately 150,000 square feet. This has had a major impact on traffic. The reason Parcel V has also included those uses is because there are other auto -related uses that might be accommodated within this entire neighbor- hood center that might want to maintain the applicant's flexibility. All of R and V were not intended to be auto -related uses at this time. Staff felt that this was not a site that would be considered a neighborhood conve- nience store because there is not an affected neighborhood. It would be reviewed under the Auto -related Roadside Commercial point chart. Member Kern asked Mr. Shepard what staff response would be if Parcel R and V were converted to auto -related business. Would this be proper planning for this corner? Mr. Shepard stated that R and V and S have always been the retail portion. This could conceivably be an auto -related use but this is not the intend. Mr. Vaught stated that they illustrated what their indication was for future use of this center in terms of the corner site. They represented their thoughts of how this would integrate with the entire development. Pads and larger anchors have been looked at to handle the traffic in this area. It would not be appropriate to have the Board say this could not be a specific store at the master plan level. This should be done when this becomes a specific proposal. Planning and Zoning Boar( aeting September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 10 Member Kern stated that the master plan was designed to be flexible. If there was to be increased development of auto -related uses, it would make the traffic plans, as devised appropriate for the master plan, unworkable. What level of auto -related use could be permitted here without making non- sense of the traffic studies that were done for the whole area? Mr. Vaught replied that any use on a master plan was an acceptable use. If a higher intense retail store were proposed than originally anticipated, all of those efforts of traffic analysis would have to be done over to determine if it is appropriate or not. The same holds true with this par- ticular type of use. Member Walker stated that this intersection has the potential to be the busiest in the city with Raintree, Cimmaron Center, and 450 Raintree apart- ments behind the Raintree Center. He asked if these 2 parcels can be auto - related. He felt the traffic was too intense to have another auto -related use at this intersection. Mr. Shepard stated that the 1988 Master Plan was unique in that it was given a full-blown traffic impact analysis. Most master plans do not receive that type of scrutiny. Staff felt the center and intersection were important enough that they requested the study be done. This analysis has identified every parcel with maximum square footage potential and every parcel that comes in for PUD Preliminary must receive an amended traffic impact analysis that fits within the parameter. This was available to the Board in their packet. Member Edwards asked Mr. Eckman if it was possible to table the amendment to the Master Plan and continue it to the next related item. Mr. Eckman replied that it would be awkward to approve the next item condi- tional upon the master plan. The Board could table a decision on this item and entertain discussion on the next item then go back to order and con- sider this item first. He stated however, that he would reluctant suggest that the Board approve a preliminary plan based on a master plan that doesn't fit. roval f the 2.28ea� el site rasoone motionthe a d then move the on andmaster reconsiderpParceloR and V. Member Kern stated he had no objections to having auto -related uses at that intersection. His main concern was for the possible impacts that could develop further. The Board does have control on plans that will appear later but the Board is trying to see if staff will feel comfortable with this sort of designation and if the Board could feel comfortable also. Chairperson O'Dell asked if this were intensely developed in an auto - related type of development, would one portion of that section be non - developable because the limit would have been reached traffic wise. Planning and Zonin and Meeting September 26, 1988 utes • Page 11 Mike Herzig responded by stating that, theoretically, anything can be pro- posed. The traffic study is developed to determine what the impact of that proposed development would be. The traffic study points out what improve- ments are required to make that development compatible with the overall system and what other improvements are to be made off -site to make that project workable. Some off -site improvements might not be able to be done. The traffic study has to be updated and new mitigation measures reviewed each time. Member Walker moved to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology Amended Master Plan for the 2.2 acres on the north end of Parcel R which encom- passes the next item. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Member Shepard commented that the auto -related use seemed to be no more of a traffic generator than a large department store. There would not be as many people getting their car fixed as there are going shopping or some other sort of use. Member Groznik commented that the "housekeeping" on this item means that there was something that should have been considered before but wasn't and now the unfinished business will be taken care of. The public process that happened when the master plan was changed was subverted. Motion to approve carried 6-1, with Member Shepard voting no. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD - SUPPORT SERVICES - Preliminary and Final - #53-85T Mr. Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., discussed the proposed property stating that the Support Services PUD was the beginning of Tract R as a retail cen- ter. The uses generated by Support Services PUD were typical within such a center and will provide the basic on -site conveniences for both the research and retail users. He stated that the site plan illustrated three specific uses proposed. The convenience store, gas station and car wash outlets were evaluated on the Auto -Related Roadside Commercial point chart and scored an 85%. The retail building was evaluated under the Business Services point chart and scored an 84%. The project will be built in two phases. The car wash, gas station and convenience store outlets will be the first phase. The retail building will be built as the second phase as users are determined. He presented to the Board the convenience store's orienta- tion, parking, trash areas, berming, building material, signage and logos, lettering on the building, the height of the store and canopy, the colors of the buildings, the car wash bays, the footage of the property line, the sound buffering, roofing, colors of the car wash, landscaping, lighting, and canopy signage. He then gave the Board the proposed signage informa- tion. Member Walker asked why the canopy is 20 feet when that is above and beyond the clearance height. • Mr. Gefroh stated that the height from the ground to the bottom of the canopy is 14 feet and there is a 4 foot fascia for a total of 18 feet. Planning and Zoning Boarr' 'eeting September 26, 1988 Minute Page 12 Mr. Shepard gave the staff report lowing two conditions: 1) that th e Chairperson O'Dell asked how these conditions could be placed on a final approval. Mr. Shepard stated that the Board would approve with the condition that the signage be whatever the Board decided and that would be the document that would be enforced by the Zoning Administrator when the sign permit was requested. Margaret Fillmore, property owner adjacent to the site, stated she had con- cerns with the traffic in the area. Shields has very heavy traffic and this project will generate even heavier traffic. She was also concerned about the next item on the agenda, Raintree Commercial. She was concerned about having two car washes in the same block. Alan Lamborn, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood, stated he had a concern with the traffic. Members of the association who reside in Hillpond and Sunder- ing have asked to bring to the Board's attention the difficulty of exiting out of Hillpond and Sundering. There was the combination of the volume of traffic and the speed created by the incline on Shields Street. They have also asked to urge the Board to move promptly to place a signal at either Shields and Centre Avenue or at the entrance to Rolland Moore Park. Another concern is the saturation of these types of uses in this area. This pro- posal will give the area three convenience stores with a few hundred yards. There is a fourth convenience store, without gas pumps, already in Spring Creek. A delicate balance was being reached in terms of the mix of numbers of these items that one could have in this area. Freeman Smith, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association Board of Develop- ment Review, stated that another concern the association had was the manda- tory placement of a street signal located on Shields Street, at either Centre Avenue or Raintree Drive. Traffic problems get worse every day. He asked if there would be an allowable U-turn going north on Shields, east on Centre Avenue, at Worthington Street. Mr. Shepard replied he did not have that information at this time. Mr. Smith further stated other concerns were that there was no commitment to vaulted gasoline storage tanks; car wash effluent; the inadequate sound barrier between the residents and the wash bays; the storm drainage provi- sions were unclear; the landscaped area; and, the internal area will create large snow drifts. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated that there was no signal war- ranted at Raintree and Shields but they will continue to monitor this intersection. Additional traffic signals, such as the access to Rolland Moore Park, has potential for traffic signals but does not meet signal war- rant at this time. The other possible location for a signal was Hillpond. This has been measured and does not warrant a signal at this time. Signal warrants are a combination of activity on the main street and the side Planning and Zoning0ard Meeting • September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 13 street. A warrant would indicate that it would need a certain volume of traffic for eight consecutive hours. U-turns would not be prohibited where Mr. Smith inquired. However, future development or a safety problem may make it prohibited. Chairperson O'Dell asked what level of development would cause a need to install a traffic signal at Shields Street and Centre Avenue. Mr. Ensdorff replied that the proposed developments would generate a need for a signal. The traffic study for the center, commercial and Raintree area, all have indicated that a traffic signal would be needed. What can't be seen is the number coming out of the center to generate that. However, the development is in the vicinity of reaching 40-50% of warranting a sig- nal. A traffic signal was usually installed at 90%. Mr. Shepard explained that the car wash effluent drained into the sanitary sewer system and was pre-treated with filtration and grease and sand traps before entering into the system. This was reviewed and approved by the Water and Sewer department and the industrial pre-treatment department. Mr. Gefroh stated that the storage of the gasoline tanks had to be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority. These storage tanks must meet standards and guidelines during installation. He stated that 50% of the landscaping that was on the outside of the brick wall will be of an ever- green variety. The 6 foot brick wall will reduce the noise level. There was also a u-shaped wall that surrounded the vacuum pumps. Chairperson O'Dell asked for clarification as to the three proposed signs. Mr. Gefroh stated that there would be three ground signs. One for the retail building, a pricing sign for the Conoco building and an overall pro- ject sign which will identify the users of those buildings as well as the C.A.T. logo. The main sign would not contain any Conoco or car wash infor- mation. There would be individual, non -lighted signage on the car wash mounted on the building and on the screen wall. Member Groznik asked what was the overall dimension of the free standing ground pricing sign. Mr. Gefroh stated that from the top of the brick base, which would be at least one foot high, the sign would be 5'3" high and 4'6" wide. Member Kern asked if the canopy and building signs count in the signage allowance. Mr. Shepard stated that each platted lot was given an allowance and that can be divided up on the site between the various kind of sign. There was a limitation on the free standing sign whether it be a monument or a pole mount that cannot exceed a certain amount. Chairperson O'Dell stated she viewed the screen wall signage as a free . standing wall. She asked if staff viewed it that way also. Planning and Zoning Boe Meeting September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 14 Mr. Shepard stated that given the length and the 6 foot height of that wall, staff viewed it as a wall mounted sign and that the wall itself does not act as a monument for the sign. Member Kern moved to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology Support Services as a preliminary with the conditions that the staff preference is given to the Board regarding signage in the Memorandum delivered to them earlier and that staff receive information in the form of numbers regarding the sound mitigation to the south. Member Edwards seconded. Member Walker commented that he concurred that the signs on the canopy be deleted. The canopy is taller than necessary and it would draw attention to the sign. Member Kern commented that he would like to see in the final, some clarifi- cation as to what the real height of the canopy is. Mr. Gefroh asked for clarification as to the motion. Member Kern stated that the motion he made was to adopt staff recommend- ation for signage and that, before final, numbers be given to the Board regarding sound abatement. Member Shepard commented that her main concerns were the signage and the proliferation of signage on Shields and she felt it detracted from the retail advertising on the main logo sign. She would rather see the retail not advertised. Member Edwards commented that he felt the issue of signage was still unre- solved. Member Groznik stated that the signage information was available. He felt he could support a free standing pricing sign. However, it could get con- fusing if included in the monument sign for the entire site. He felt there were many unresolved questions on signage but there were answers and there have been standards adopted that need to be researched. Mr. Gefroh asked if the Board could continue the final to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Chairperson O'Dell replied that staff would need to work on that. This could be discussed with staff. There were several questions that the Board needs to have answered that might not be answered before the next meeting. Member Edwards stated that there are three different heights given for the canopy and that does not qualify for definitive information ready for final approval. Motion to approve Centre foe Advanced Technology Support Services Prelimi- nary carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning rd Meeting September 26, 1988 utes Page 15 LJ RAINTREE COMMERCIAL PUD - TRACT H - Preliminary and Final - 6146-79K Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project. John Barnett, ZVFK Architects, gave a description of the gas station, car wash, landscaping, street tree retention, canopy, and signage and pre- sented slide elevations from various directions and slides of sign examples. He stated that they are requesting final approval for the north portion of the site with one canopy sign with a 2 foot stripe attached, a pricing sign with Amoco at the top, food shop signs on the building, the car wash sign, and preliminary approval for the fast food restaurant. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the staff report. It recommended approval with one condition which related to the removal of all remaining canopy signage. Alan Lamborn, Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated he had three groups of issues. The first was a clarification on a matter of procedure as to why no neighborhood meeting was held. Secondly, had the Board considered perfecting the neighborhood convenience center guideline plans if they were passed by Council? Gas stations and convenience stores were very much alike. The association strongly opposed any kind of stand alone operations such as this within a neighborhood community. The associa- tion would like to call to the Board's attention the concern of the number of these types of uses that were piling up on Shields, between Cimarron and the Prospect/Shields intersection. The association felt it was crucial that the parties concerned recognize that all these commercial, industrial and retail developments occurred within an area which was historically predom- inantly residential in character. Future proposals for the remaining vacant infill areas need to take that predominantly residential character as a starting point. Freeman Smith stated that the signage and the landscaping was self-serving and destroyed the quality of what was seen from Shields. He asked that the Amoco representative clarify the double -vaulted storage tanks, the double - vaulted pipes and continuous monitoring. He asked where the future storm water detention would take place. He also asked for clarification as to 6 parking places required. He felt the trash bin could be more aesthetically bermed. Margaret Fillmore stated that she was still concerned about the traffic. She stated that there was a considerable amount of bike traffic on Shields. She also had a concern about the fast food restaurant and adequate ventila- tion. Also, why were there two gas stations and car washes within two blocks of each other. Jane Davis, adjacent resident, stated that another gas station was not needed in the area. An objection she had to the proposal was having a fast food restaurant designated without having a tenant. There were several vacancies in this area already. She opposed the project unless there was a firm commitment to having a tenant. Planning and Zoning Boat fleeting September 26, 1988 Minutes Page 16 John Barnett stated that there was no plan to build the restaurant before there is a tenant. The approval was simply an aid in marketing that site for that use. He responded to the questions put before him by stating that the deceleration lane in its relationship to Raintree Drive exists at this time. It was planned to accommodate a traffic volume that was heavier that what exists now plus what was planned in the area. The original concept would have generated more traffic coming to and from this site than this concept will generate. This condition has been planned for. The site drains through an inlet. There was an existing storm sewer that goes under the private drive and out to the northwest and into a second detention pond. There will be shallow on -site detention in the parking lot. There was a second detention pond located between the two ditches. Water leaves those through another storm sewer and is conveyed through the lower of the two ditches and was discharged directly into Spring Creek. This was already in place except for the inlets for this project. Bruno Procopio, Amoco representative, stated that the vaulted tanks were in areas where there are high water tables. He stated that they follow state and local standards and guidelines. He added that they felt this was an area they should locate in to stay up with the customers they have. Member Edwards asked if the canopy signage is similar to the Vail signage. Mr. Percopio stated that the sign that was preferred was 5'6" x 6'6". He stated that they would basically be replacing the current Raintree sign. The canopy signage was the only sign that shows their identification. They have agreed to cut it down and are willing to give up the food shop signs on the other three sides. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded to the question as to why a neighborhood meeting was not held. She stated that the original Raintree project was approved in 1979 and the most recent phase plan for this area was in 1985. that phase plan was approved after the time we started neighborhood meet- ings. The basis for the decision not to hold a meeting was because there was an approved plan for the entire area, much of that area had already developed prior to this project being submitted, and there was a previously approved plan on this particular area that staff felt was a more intensive use. She stated, as far as why this was not considered a convenience cen- ter, that Council just adopted the convenience center policies and staff has not applied those as of yet. This project and the C.A.T. project were submitted prior to the adoption of that policy. This was reviewed as a neighborhood shopping center project and, based on that, scored a 57%. Staff also evaluated other point charts and this project scored 66% on Business Services Uses and 69% on Auto -Related Roadside Commercial Uses point charts. On the site plan, parking was indicated on both phases. A parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet has been used by the appli- cant. This ratio was a guideline that staff used, not a requirement for parking. The only requirement for parking was based on the number of employees, which required two spaces for every three employees. The LDGS provides a basis for locational criteria for each of the specific use cate- gories and each project was evaluated on site design and characteristics. Member Kern asked about the proposal of a sign that will be 10 or 10-1/2 feet tall sitting on a 3 foot berm. Planning and Zoning and Meeting September 26, 1988 utes Page 17 Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the monument sign with the addition of the words "Amoco" and the logo on top will be a total height of 9'6". There was an existing 3 foot berm in that area. She then showed a slide of the exist- ing sign. She stated that the existing sign can be completely removed and reconstructed at the south end of the site. The existing sign was 9' x 5'6" which does include the base in the height. Mr. Peterson stated that at this point, staff has made its recommendation and staff believed that it is the Board's role to decide which direction they wish to take. Member Walker asked if the master plan allowed this use on the site and if anything would be accomplished approving this preliminary. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that many of the preliminary plans were referred to as paper plans, meaning things we may or may not see in the future. The level of detail provided was adequate to meet the preliminary requirements which included the building elevations and signage. Member Edwards moved to approve the preliminary drive-thru site with the condition that, if seen on final, the drive-thru lanes, access and signage be addressed, and to preliminarily approve the gas station/car wash site and that in the essence of and in the need for even-handedness and fair play, the Board not create an unfair competitive advantage that the issue of signage be a condition of that preliminary approval or that the final be withheld conditional upon resolution of additional information on signage. Before that information was available, it must quantify the impacts of heights of signage, setbacks from the street and that there was not suffi- cient information presented tonight to make that decision. Member Kern sec- onded the motion. Member Edwards commented that this location was an intense battleground. He felt that what was good for one was good for the other. He felt that staff was the entity that can best negotiate a proper resolution of potential conflict. Member Walker commented that the ground sign concerned him since it was over 9 feet tall. He felt that plans should be smaller. The Conoco sign dealt with everything in a smaller sign. He felt the canopy sign was inap- propriate for the site. Chairperson O'Dell concurred with Member Walker pertaining to the ground signage. Motion to approve the preliminary requests carried 7-0. Chairperson O'Dell called for a vote to complete the agenda at this time. Motion to complete the agenda denied 5-2, with Members Edwards and Shepard voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. and will reconvene on October 3, 1988.