Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/11/1988MPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING August 22, 1988 The regular meeting of Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the meeting included, Dave Edwards, Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson Clark, Joe Frank, Linda Ripley, Ted Shepard and Barbara Hendrickson. Director of Planning, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1, July 25, 1988 minutes; Item 2, #13-82AI OAKRIDGE VILLAGE PUD - AMENDED MASTER PLAN; Item 3, #13-82AJ OAKRIDGE VILLAGE PUD, 7TH FILING - PRELIMINARY; item 4, CONOCO SERVICE STATION - EXPANSION OF A NON -CONFORMING USE; Item 5, #58-88 AMOCO SERVICE STATION - EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING USE; Item 7, #57-86H SUNSTONE VILLAGE PUD AND SUB- DIVISION, 4TH FILING - FINAL; Item 8, #11-87B LIGHT AND POWER UTILITY SERVICE CENTER PUD (COMMUNICATION TOWER) - PRELIMI- NARY AND FINAL; Item 9, #90-85E WILD WOOD FARM 1ST PUD -CHARTER MEDICAL HOSPITAL - FINAL; Item 10, #25-81D VILLAGES AT HARMONY WEST PUD - TRACTS C & D -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; Item 11, #146-79B RAINTREE PUD - VARI- ANCE REQUEST AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL; Item 12, #7-82B COLLINDALE BUSINESS PARK PUD - MASTER PLAN; Item 13, 7-82C COL- LINDALE BUSINESS PARK PUD PHASE ONE - PRELIMINARY; Item 14, #59-88, A BUCKEYE FARMS/EINARSEN ANNEXATION AND ZONING. Item 6, #37-84D LAKEWOOD ESTATES PUD - FINAL was continued to the Septem- ber 26 meeting. The Board removed Items 1, 4 and 5 from the agenda Member Shcpard pointed out that the correct vote on the minutes was as fol- lows: June 26 meeting was 4-0 (not 6-0) and on July I I was 2-0 (nut 6-0). Member Kern moved to approve the corrected minutes. Member Shepard sec- onded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Member Groznik seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve Item 11. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0, with Member Edwards not participating on the vote. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 2 Item 4, Conoco Service Station - Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use #57-88 Member Kern had concerns regarding the 601M, increase of a non -conforming use, the lighting, car wash, noise, landscaping and access. Ted Shepard, gave the staff presentation and pointed out the criteria which staff used to recommend approval. Bob Gallcnstcin, the applicant, stated the station needed more room to electron- ically service automobiles. Member Kern asked the applicant about the type of lighting used. Mr. Gallcnstcin replied there would be no additional lighting except in the bay and car wash. He stated the landscaping was designed by Ft. Collins Nursery, reviewed by the City Forestry Dept. and should be acceptable. Member Klataske asked if the lighting was to be recessed. Mr. Gallcnstcin answered that it would be hanging lights, similar to ones used by 7-11 stores. Mcmbcr Groznik asked why there was a planter between the bay and Taft Ilill Road but no trees. Mr. Gallcnstcin answered that it was for traffic safety. He said it could create a vision problem and did not want to endanger the elderly patrons of the station. Ted Shepard gave a staff presentation which included a recommendation for approval, citing Criteria #5 of the Land Use Policies Plan which asks if the overall plan impacts the neighborhood, which this project does not. Member Kern was reluctant to pass this item as he felt expanding 60% negates the zoning given to this site and surrounding area. He stated that Mr. Gallenstcin may perceive a market for this type of facility, but believed the P & Z Board should not determine that market. He asked about the effects of the lighting and noise of the car wash. Mr. Gallcnstcin stated the additional lighting would be limited to the bay and car wash and closing hours would be between 9 and 10 p.m. He pointed out that the nearest neighbor is 100 to 200 yards away. Member Walker was concerned about the increased activity and non -conforming use. He stated that if this was a redesigned plan, rather than an expansion of a non -conforming use, he would rather shut off the curb cuts. Member Walker moved to approve Item 4. Member Shepard seconded. Motion to approve passed 7-0. • • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 3 Item 5, AMOCO SERVICE STATION - EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING USE #58-88 Member Klataske asked staff for a brief presentation. Linda Riplcy, stated this proposal was to relocate the car wash and under- ground tanks, add a canopy, and do interior remodeling. Wcndall Ayres, Holland West, gave a presentation and stated the canopy light- ing is recessed. Member Groznik moved to approve item 5. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0. At this time, Member Edwards asked that the roll be called. Members present at this meeting included: Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Bernie Strom, Jim Kla- taskc, Lloyd Walker, Jan Shepard and Dave Edwards. #46-88 PARK SOUTH PUD - MASTER PLAN Sherry Albertson -Clark gave an introduction to the project, stating the project's location, size and zoning. She added that staff is recommending denial of the master plan on the basis of the anticipated traffic generation and that she . would provide a more detailed staff presentation after the applicant has made a presentation. Frank Vaught, representing Park South Enterprises, told the Board that this project, made up of residential uses, was originally approvcd as a subdivision in the County in 1978 and annexed to the City in July of the same year. 'I'hc project was approvcd with 143 single family lots, with an approximate size of 4,000 square feet and met County street and landscaping standards. He added that the homes ranged in price from $40,000 to $60,000. He gave the Board a brief history and description of the surrounding area at the time of the approval of the original plan, as well as an update to development that has occurred in the area. He described the surrounding land uses and stated he felt the land uses proposed on the master plan are a sensitive transition to the adjacent area for the following reasons: 1) more intense retail uses are in Parcel D at intersection of arterial and collector street; 2) single family lots are planned adjacent to existing single family to the south and west; 3) propose an office park to surround retail to buffer residential areas. He gave an overview of the All Development Criteria Chart and the LDGS's definition of neighborhood compatibility, adding that they have tried to address the concerns of the neighborhood. The initial neighborhood meeting was held on May 4. He stated that staff had been supportive of the plan until completing traffic analysis and when learning of staff concerns on the project, they chose to continue the project. lie stated that on June 14th, he met with a group representing the Villages at Four Seasons and on July 25111, met with a larger group. Because of changes made to the plan, another neighborhood meeting was held on August 10 and the plan showing the overall 20% reduction of land uses was presented. He added that an illustrative plan was presented to the feneighborhood to clarify such things as land uses, setbacks, buffers, building Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 4 types, building heights and landscaping. He clarified that the illustrative plan illustrates a possibility for the site's development. He cited Appendix C of the LDGS, which deals with the mitigation of land use conflicts and discussed possible ways of mitigation, including open space buffers, landscaping and topographic changes, building orientation and physical barriers. He added that the master plan includes more information on it than normally required. The community -type services in the center would access the arterial and the neighborhood services will be accessed by Manhattan. He pointed out that this development doesn't have a food store as an anchor, but has a furniture anchor, something which does not exist in Fort Collins. He stated this is not a regional center and will not attract large business or increased traffic. He then turned the presentation over to his traffic consultant, Bob Leigh. Bob Leigh, Traffic Consultant, stated that the developers have asked him to provide additional information on this development regarding traffic issues. He added that he is specifically addressing the criteria that the project be designed so that additional traffic generated does not have significant impact on surrounding areas. Fie stated that on July 21, project representatives met with staff to discuss traffic volumes staff considered too high, particularly on Manhattan. Based on this meeting, he stated they have made a 20% reduction in floor area in the center, reducing traffic impact. He added that after that meeting, Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, gave figures for acceptable levels of traffic on Manhattan of 4,000 vehicles per day south of Dennison and 7,000 vehicles per day north of Dennison. He provided two pages of informa- tion to the Board, one titled "Buiidout 2010 Daily Traffic' provided informa- tion regarding the number of vehicles per day on Manhattan if Warren Farm and Minerva Business Park arc built out. He added that this data showed that south of Dennison would be between 6,500 and 7,000 vehicles per day where the desired goal was 4,000. North of Dennison would be 11,000 and the maxi- mum is 7,000. He added that if Park South stayed a vacant field and Warren Farm and Minerva Business Park developed, the traffic numbers would be higher than the comfort level of staff. He provided two other development scenarios, adding that if Park South, Warren Farm and Minerva Business Park all developed in single family residential, the traffic would be within the guidelines. He stated that if these guidelines were enforced, they could not do anything with the property. lie continued, citing a criteria from the LDGS "will the project's completion not generate a traffic volume which exceeds the future capacity of the external street system as defined by the City" and stated that this development will not exceed the future capacity. He described the proposed cross section of Manhattan being .widened, which he indicated would accommodate 18 - 20,000 vehicles per day. He stated that on Manhattan south of Dennison, the street has the capacity to carry 12-15,000 vehicles per day. He highlighted several existing collector streets listed on the information presented to the Board and discussed these streets' functions and traffic volumes. lie raised the question of whether Manhattan north of Dennison should be a major collector with a capacity of 10-12,000 vehicles per day, to reflect the street's function. He concluded that the City's current traffic volume guidelines for Manhattan and Meadowlark do not accommodate the existing approved develop- mcnt or this project. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 5 • Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff presentation, highlighting the issues of land use, traffic impact and neighborhood compatibility. She described the residential uses on the plan and stated that the master plan was evaluated under the City's land use policies. She added that staff determined that the residential uses are compatible with the surrounding uses and supported by the Land Use Policies Plan. She described the remaining non-residential uses proposed on the plan and stated that staff is reviewing these uses in terms of a community/rcgional shopping center. She stated that some of the uses proposed would serve a neighborhood, but that because some of the uses would also serve a broader area, as well as the proposed scale or intensity of uses, that the plan would be evaluated as a rcgional/community-scale shopping center. She stated that Land Use Policies 69 thru 74 apply to commu- nity/rcgional shopping centers and read each policy. She added that all but policy 70 arc supported by the non-residential uses of the plan. Policy 70 indicates that such uses should locate near transportation facilities that can provide access to the center but won't allow demand to exceed the existing and future capacity of the transportation network. She stated that this policy is the basis for the staff recommendation for denial of the master plan. She stated that it is staff's opinion that the traffic generated on Manhattan and Meadowlark would far exceed the capacity of those streets, which serve pri- marily residential areas and would have a negative impact on these areas. She discussed the issue of neighborhood compatibility, adding that there have been two neighborhood meetings. Issues raised at these meetings were summarized as buffering adjacent existing residences, proposed land uses, traffic impact and utilities. She stated that buffering has been addressed by a schematic landscape buffer along the western edge of the property, which would provide a minimum 20 foot setback for a one-story building of 20 feet in height and a 25 foot setback for a two-story or 30 foot tall building. She added that the applicant proposes to install landscaping in the setback area along the western edge of the property when constructing the first phase and that this informa- tion is not normally on the master plan. She stated that this information was provided to address neighborhood concerns about the level of detail on a master plan. She staled that the neighborhood expressed conca-n that the land use could be changed from residential to non-residential and discussed the philosophy of the LDGS. She stated that the neighborhood concern of traffic has been discussed. She discussed the water pressure situation, saying that in peak demand, pressure may drop to 20-25 psi in areas of Four Seasons. The installation of a new water main should improve this situation, but if residents continue to have problems, the City would meter pressure in several locations to resolve the problem. She added that the Park South project would not be a further detriment to this situation. with the completion of the new water main. She concluded that staff's opinion is the proposed master plan would signifi- cantly exceed traffic volumes for the collector street and on that basis, is recommending denial of the Park South Master Plan. Member Edwards suggested that Board members should ask questions of staff' and the applicant and then go to public input. Member Groznik asked for clarification of whether commercial uses could occur in area E. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 6 Mr. Vaught replied that is correct, that commercial uses would be ancillary retail uses small in scale and compatible with residential uses. Member Groznik asked for clarification about small scale and compatible and numbers of trips generated by those uses. Mr. Vaught described the illustrative plan, saying that 5-8,000 square foot one and two-story buildings are small in scale. Member Groznik asked if this can be ensured in the development. Mr. Vaught replied that they could commit to that in this area, but might want some freedom in the east boundary of area E. Member Groznik asked if the illustrative plan reflects the adequate amount of parking for the uses. Mr. Vaught replied that it does and is a ratio of 4 cars per 1,000. Member Groznik asked for clarification of auto -related service uses. Mr. Vaught replied this could be a tire store or auto -related services, such as a car wash. Member Groznik asked why there was no grocery store. Mr. Vaught replied that the neighborhood is served by Albertson's and Stecic's. Member Groznik asked if the traffic study took into account the potential to use Troutman, Manhattan and Meadowlark as a cut -through to get to this site since Lopez Elementary is located in this neighborhood. Mr. Leigh replied that they did. He added that the present volume on Manhat- tan is about 2,000 vehicles per day and that by 2010, they assumed the rail- road crossing would be in effect. He stated that with the crossing, some traffic would use Troutman to get cast, rather than using Manhattan to Horse - tooth. Member Groznik asked if the traffic pattern from the Center for Advanced Technology down Meadowlark and Troutman is a desirable situation. Mr. Leigh replied that there would be an increase in traffic because of the employment at the Center. Member Groznik asked if this would be desirable from a traffic flow view- point. Mr. Leigh replied that it would be desirable from a travel path, but from a neighborhood impact or planning standpoint, not so desirable. Member Groznik asked if he could recommend ways to prevent this travel pat- tern or lessen it. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 7 0 Mr. Leigh replied that he could not and that this development depends on Horsetooth from a traffic standpoint and the Meadowlark connection is minor. Member Groznik asked if an indoor theatre is a high generator of traffic. Mr. Vaught replied that it would depend on size and scale of the theatre. Member Groznik asked that since it just says indoor theatres, could he assume anywhere from 2 to 6. Mr. Vaught replied that you can assume that. He added that by being so specific in land uses on the master plan could be risky. They were trying to be specific, while retaining flexibility. Member Groznik asked about a boat, car and RV showroom sales and repair. Mr. Vaught replied these would be fairly low traffic generators. Member Groznik asked for better clarification of seasonal uses. Mr. Vaught replied these could be Christmas tree lots, temporary auto sales areas, ctc. that could be temporarily landscaped and changed with a more definite plan. Member Strom asked Rick Ensdorff to respond to Mr. Leigh's questions. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, defined City street classifications of local, collector and arterial streets. He added that those streets in the information presented by Mr. leigh represent a wide range of streets. He stated that Swallow, a collector street, currently has 5-6,000 cars and anticipates more. tic stated that is happening because of it's location, continuity and it's Proximity to the Mall. He added that this is not the type of street desired by P & Z, Council or the public. He stated there was a "textbook" definition which says the capacity of a collector is 10,000 and there is also a practical capacity. He felt the collector street system in this area, even with reconstruc- tion, would not be capable of handling the traffic this development is propos- ing. The original traffic study for this proposal was to have 12,000 vehicles per day on Manhattan, this figure taking into account the build out of Min- crva Business Park and Warren Farm. This would create another Swallow in a town which wants streets like Stover. He cited other streets and numbers of cars per day: Stover 3,000 with 4-5,000 projected; Hampshire 3,000 with 4-5,000; and Columbia with the same figures and these are the figures anticipated for Manhattan. tic stated staff has had many discussions with the developer but had not come to an understanding and he feels the traffic projections for this site are much too intense. Member Strom felt the main concern was the traffic and asked staff if the standards set by the City would allow the owner to develop at all. 0 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Ensdorff replied that given the surrounding business use by right, the City could have a situation over and beyond the capacity without minor improve- mcnts. He believed Park South has potential for development and although the 7,000 cars per day target may increase, there are things which can be done to mitigate the problems. The difficulty is the increase in traffic south of the project, into the residential area. He believed that if there were more residential and less commercial uses, the traffic numbers can be mitigated adjacent to that site and off Horsetooth. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the land uses as presented were supported by staff and that there were numerous discussions with the applicant prior to formal submittal. She pointed out that this project proves difficult to separate land use and traffic issues. She stated this project is comparable in square footage and acreage to the Pavilion Retail Center on South College. She added that when one looks at the land uses, adding retail, office and commer- cial, it becomes difficult to review them independently of traffic, resulting in staff's difficulty in giving the applicant direction to mitigate this. Member Strom asked Mr. Leigh what measures he would suggest to mitigate the concerns of staff. Mr. Leigh stated the orientation of the project could be more oriented to Horsetooth Road. He stated there is a problem with that intersection, if full movement is allowed, with Riva Ridge on the northside which is right-in/right-out. The access onto Horsetooth is designed right-in/right out and Icft in, but no left out and puts pressure on the intersection. He believed a workable traffic signal 600' off the Manhattan intersection would help alleviate the problem but is not sure it is acceptable. This, he believed, would reinforce the orientation of the project to Horsetooth and take away the emphasis of access on Manhattan and could reduce traffic on Manhattan. Member Strom stated he could see how this plan could reduce traffic adjacent to the commercial area, but understood that the commercial wasn't the area staff was most concerned with. Mr. Leigh replied that in doing the analysis, they are in a "catch-22". He has projected the traffic volume using traditional values for a site this size, with virtually all studies using a supermarket anchor. This type of anchor generates a high volume, using in excess of 60 cars per 1,000 square feet, whereas a furniture store anchor would generate less than 10% of the supermarket rate. If the uses the applicant believes to be appropriate for this center arc used, then the generation rates would be less than those they arc showing. He pointed out that this a service -oriented center, with customers coming for a short period of time, a high value per square foot in sales, but low volume of people per square foot. Member Walker stated that the applicant proposes a left -turn in off of Horse - tooth and believed it was a safety issue, considering the reasonable speed at that location. He asked for clarification of this. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 9 • Mr. Leigh replied that n left in from the arterial would be safer than left out, as the visibility is better there. He believed the critical issue is whether there's enough storage for vehicles to stack for that turn. He stated that with the projected traffic volume on Horsetooth it would be a safe intersection requiring signalization. Member Walker asked Mr. Ensdorff about the City's view of a median cut on Horsetooth. Mr. Ensdorff stated there are no plans for a median cut on Horsetooth. He agreed with Mr. Leigh in that a left out would have a greater impact on safety but a left turn off of Horsetooth would not be as safe as one at a traffic signal 400-500' to the east. He would prefer the left movements to be made there and does not anticipate a left turn facility on that stretch of Horsetooth. He stated the street operates currently on an acceptable level, which he would like to maintain. Member Walker asked if the developers of Warren Farm had been denied a Icft turn at Riva Ridge, Mr. Ensdorff replied yes and when the Horsetooth Improvement District went into effect several years ago, there were discussions on access points and left turn bays. It was determined at that time that the City did not want that to happen. Member Walker asked Mr. Vaught about Area E and what specifically were the uses. He asked if a fast food restaurant could go in at the corner area. Mr. Vaught answered that it would be safe to say that the restaurant would be more associated on Parcel D, rather than with Parcel E. Member Walker stated the landscape buffer along Parcel E illustrates pitched roofs and felt that it would be in keeping with residential uses. He asked if the illustration is to imply there will be pitched roofs. Mr. Vaught replied that this implied the set backs and mitigation measures, berming, and pitched roofing would be appropriate at these distances. How- ever, if a preliminary plan was brought before the P & Z Board with another alternative, then it would have to be reviewed at that time, in terms of compatibility and distance. But at this time, this is what the applicants are suggesting. Member Walker pointed out that on the illustrative plan, a service road along the property line is not shown. He asked how the buildings arc to be serviced. Mr. Vaught stated they intend the buildings be part of that buffer. Lights from parking lot, trash pick up, etc., would be on the cast side of the buildings rather than the west side. Member Shepard asked Mr. Leigh if when the amended traffic study was done, . did Scenario A include the office/commercial uses. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 10 Mr. Leigh replied yes. Member Shepard asked if the originally approved plan done in the county with 143 units could be developed under that approval. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied the plan was still in effect and could be developed under that approval. Member Shepard asked if at the time of original approval, did Warren Farm commercial area push the traffic over the acceptable level. Mr. Ensdorff stated he could not find a traffic study done in the early 80's for this but believed it did push it over the level. It would be re-evaluated when preliminary plans come in. When Warren Farms did come in, the City began looking at changes to the street system. Meadowlark was to be a curve - linear street from Horsetooth to Swallow. Warren Farms broke that up with an intersection. He believed more measures will be needed as new phases come in, to deal with the traffic impacts. Member Kern asked Mr. Ensdorff why the disparity in traffic numbers. Mr. Leigh's count shows 2,000 - 2,500 trips per day, while the City's shows 3,000 -3,500. He asked if the real number is the average of the two. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the numbers may fluctuate but would guess the range is between 2,500 and 3,000. Member Kern asked what the service level will be. Mr. Ensdorff answered that driving down Manhattan is fine but getting to Horsetooth may be delayed, especially a left out onto Horsctooth. He said a right onto Horsetooth is smoother. At peak hours, service levels may be at "D" or "E" Member Kern asked if the amount of traffic exceeds City levels at peak hours Mr. Ensdorff replied yes Member Kern asked what the timetable is for Troutman to be extended across the tracks. Mr. Ensdorff stated the city had a similar situation on Swallow and found that it provided some relief on Drake and Horsetooth but increased traffic more than anticipated on Swallow. Extending Troutman over the tracks is planned but do not want to do this until the need is absolute, so there is no timeframe. The city is also doing other things, such as at Drake and Meadowlark, where the street will narrow, so it will be less desirable to travel. Signalization is another way to make motorists change their route. Member Kern asked if this project could cause Wabash to become more crowded. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page II Mr. Ensdorff stated that the addition of this project will increase the traffic on the street, as it is used to get into the development. Member Kern stated this project is zoned RLP with a PUD. He asked what the density of this development is compared to other RLP's. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated Warren Farm to the north is comparable in size to this project but is zoned RP. She stated RLP zoning can handle 6 units per acre, RP has higher density. There are a number of amendments to Warren Farm Master Plan and the latest one does have mixed uses, which includes 190,000 square feet of non-residential uses. The 35-acre site includes condo units, patio homes and existing single family. On the existing single family area now, there are 500-600 units on that site but the zoning is different. Membcr Klataske said he had concerns regarding the safety of children attend- ing the two elementary schools in the area and traffic from the Center for Advanced Technology and this development. He added that his other questions regarding buffering have been answered. Member Edwards closed the Board's question section and moved to the public input section of the meeting. He called for a break and suggested that spokespersons for the neighborhood speak first after the meeting reconvenes. Clarence Palmer, residing at 701 Arbor Avenue, voiced his concern and those he represented as to the need for another shopping center and amount of traffic on Wabash and Dennison. He showed the Board how Wabash is intended to go through to Shields and out to Manhattan, creating a major collector street. He agrees with the non -left turn lane on H orsetooth, but pointed out the additional traffic volume created would create more traffic in the neighborhood. He stated he and others in the area had concerns regarding the safety of children walking to school and the park, additional noise and exhaust pollution and future of property values. He believes the size of the project far exceeds the neighborhood shopping center designation and is an extension of the College corridor. He said Mr. Vaught stated the pitched roof may be looked at again at submittal and Mr. Palmer asked if that would be true of the whole project. He asked if there was a possibility of submitting suggestions to the applicant such as one entry off of Horsctooth; two entries off Manhattan; no turn off at Dennison, if emergency vehicles need access, make it a locked/chained access; continue extension of Colridge another 300'; 8-5 p.m. office hours; height restriction in Parcel C with consideration in both Parcels B & E; Parcel F has duplexes and should show single family on the plan; the designation of neighborhood center should be changed to commu- nity/regional; adjust planning objectives accordingly, and specify roof style and pitch on office. He then gave Ms. Albertson -Clark his exhibit outlining these concerns. He added that he made notations on the list of proposed uses for the project. Don Hardy, member of Board of Directors of Villages at Four Seasons, stated he lives right next to the project. He said at the last neighborhood meeting he was told the setback on a one-story would be 20' and 25'on a two-story and they were later told the setbacks would be 25' on a one-story and 60' on a two-story. He believes the smaller lot sizes will limit the value of the homes Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 12 built, lowering surrounding real estate values more than would a well -structured office space. He does not want retail sales such as record/video in the retail area, as they operate until late hours. Kit Graham, 3725 Benthaven Drive, stated that her custom home was built two years ago at $100,000. She expressed concerns as to impact this project could have on real estate values, negative impact on housing sales, and traffic safety. She expressed concern regarding the illustrative plan, calling it eyewash and added that uses allowed on the plan include daycare facilities, veterinary offices, and emergency outpatient with ambulance services, all of which are concerns. She believes the developer has used the approved plan as an under- lying threat, to build the originally approved plan if this is not approved. She would like to see larger lots and houses, with some offices along Horsetooth Road. Member Edwards asked the audience not to applaud during the public hearing. Roderick Graham, 3725 Benthaven Drive. He stated that he built a home in this area and is concerned about the quality of the neighborhood, streets past the school and the investment they have made in this community. He stated that if the developer made a mistake in purchasing this property, then so be it. He did not want to be threatened with the options the developer has to build the original plan if this project was not approved. Kent Nichols, 512 Solsbury Court, expressed concern that if the offices remain vacant, it will invite problems. When filled, these offices will require adequate lighting, alarms, will increase traffic and may also invite prowlers. He would like to enjoy the current tranquility of the neighborhood. Scott Elder, 701 Bonita, expressed concern that this project would set a precedent of locating commercial uses adjacent to residential. The examples given by the applicant, such as Toddy's and Drake Crossing differ from this site as they do not abut low density residential and are located on two major arterials. Mark Gicscnhagen, 3806 Tradition, stated that the traffic along Dennison would become too intense, especially around the school. He stated Mr. Vaught gave examples of the Shores and it's uses as an office park near a residential area, but said they are not the same, as this project has solid residential areas on either side of Horsetooth and a proposed project the size of the T.J. Maxx shopping center doesn't make sense. Jim Williams, Vice President of Four Seasons Homeowners' Association, stated he can't speak for the entire 309 members, but has had numerous calls from members against the project. Larry Stoddard, 3907 Manhattan, stated he believes Fort Collins is running out of open spaces and doesn't want to see them destroyed. He added that he enjoys the open spaces along Manhattan on his way home. He would like to see the unoccupied shopping centers filled, as others arc not needed. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 13 Member Edwards asked staff to review the options the Board has at this time and pointed out that this is a master plan. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that this was a master plan and the illustrative plan is not one of the items the P & Z Board is being asked to make a decision on. Several options available to the Board are to approve the project, deny the project, approve the project with conditions, or to table the project for further study and refer the project back to staff, with the applicant doing additional work on it. Member Edwards asked for a motion and added that the Board could debate or discuss the motion. Member Walker made a motion to deny. Member Strom seconded. Member Edwards called for discussion. Member Walker stated he believed this project was overloaded and not specific enough. He said that in order for this site to work traffic -wise, it needed a median cut on Horsetooth which the City has denied once before and felt was inappropriate. He shared in the neighborhood concerns of the traffic re- routing through the neighborhood. He conceded that although this was a master plan and conceptual in nature, in a situation where there is a potential for traffic impacts, specificity is appropriate. He stated the applicant indicated landscape buffering, height restrictions and some setbacks in the master plan and would have liked to have seen him go further. He would not wish to limit the developers' flexibility, but many issues lack specificity. He stated that the detail is too broad for a site such as this and the detail should be a little more definitive. Member Kern also opposed this project, stating there are several unknown traffic factors for Wabash and other local streets, particularly those going through the residential areas. He believed Manhattan will be stressed to overcapacity for any sort of projection. He said that with the exception of Parccl E, he applauded the plan, particularly the mix of neighborhood and community uses. He concluded by stating that although this is zoned RLP and commercial development is appropriate for this site, he did not believe it is appropriate at this level. Member Strom commended the developer going beyond the ordinary level of detail for a master plan, but felt no effort could justify the density of this site. He stated that he was not sure the land use was compatible. He said he seconded the motion to deny based on policy #70 of the LDGS, which states a development will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of existing and future transportation networks in the city. He stated this project exceeds the requirements of that policy. Member Groznik commended the developer and consultants for trying to find a solution that will fit on this site, but thought the intensity too great for the neighborhood, as well as the street system. He cited the Drake Crossing and Scotch Pines developments and their intensity being on two arterials. He stated • the intensity of this project does not belong on a collector and that he would vote against the project. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1988 Page 14 Member Shepard based her vote for denial primarily on traffic reasons, but also because she believed this to be a gradual infringement of the South College Corridor. She also thought this project too intense and the uses are more of a community/regional type use than a neighborhood service center. Member Klataske supported the motion for denial and commended the devel- oper and consultant for the work they have done. He stated that they were looking at the highest use for this site, in terms of real estate, but not necessarily the best use for this site. He added that traffic is the main concern. Membcr Edwards also supported the motion for denial but commended the applicant and the neighborhood and their representatives for making their positions known clearly and concisely. He stated that the LDGS offers mitiga- tion measures, but in this case, the intensity of the master plan cannot be mitigated. He cited policy #70 and thought that the applicant needed to go back to the drawing boards and the neighborhood. He pointed out to the neighborhood that the property rights granted them on their property is also extended to the owner of this property and he has rights as to the use of this land. He stated that the Board does not take issue with whether or not an area should be left as an open space, or the type of homes built on an area, or whether they will sell. He told the audience that the Board is not a market committee and the owner is best suited to take that risk. He stated the task of the Board is to look at land use and private property rights as well. Motion to deny Park South Master Plan carried 7-0. PARK SOUTH PRELIMINARY 046-88A Member Edwards stated that although the master plan was denied and the pre- liminary could not be adopted, he wished a staff report and a vote taken. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. She stated that the master plan must be approved prior to approval of the prelimi- nary plan and based on the staff recommendation to deny the master plan, is also recommending denial of the phase plan. Mr. Vaught asked that the Board review the numbers in the existing traffic impact, as it appears to be the main concern. He stated a solution must be made as to this parcel, or the developer cannot do anything with the property. Member Edwards asked Legal Staff if a motion is required. Mr. Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated yes. Member Strom moved to deny Park South Preliminary. Member Shepard sec- onded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. FORT COLLINS MEDICAL CENTER (FORMERLY PROSPECT-LEMAY OFFICE PARK) Mr. Shepard gave staff report. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - September 26, 1911 Page IS Jim Jungc, applicant, stated the proposal was to add two more buildings. Mr. Shepard gave a brief description including issues which had been resolved; signagc, which is to code; drainage, which is released at a controlled rate into the detention pond; and barrier on Lemay Avenue, whereby the applicant agrees to a mandate right -turn bay and this agreement is sufficient. He stated staff was recommending approval. Member Shepard asked about the berming. Mr. Junge stated the berming already exists on the east side. Member Kern moved to approve the Fort Collins Medical Center. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Other Business Mr. Peterson announced a worksession meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 21, in the CDBG Conference Room regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement. He also asked that anyone interested in applying for the Latimer County Board, please hand in their applications. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 0 0