HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/23/1987C
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 23, 1987
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:35 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 La Porte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Board members present at the meeting included Tim Dow, Linda Lang, Sanford
Kern, Dave Edwards and Alternate Bernie Strom.
Staff members present included Tan Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Debbie
DeBesche, Mike Herzig and Chris Randall. Legal representative was Paul
Eckman.
Tom Peterson noted the agenda changes. The following items from the Con-
sent Agenda will be continued next month as requested by the applicants:
#7-87, O'Neill Subdivision - Preliminary and Final; #13-82T, Oak Ridge
Business Park PUD, 8th Filing - Preliminary and Final; and, #3-84F,
Upland's Prospect Business Park PUD -Glass Warehouse Facility -Preliminary
and Final. The following items from the Discussion Agenda will also be
continued next month: #16-86B, Skyline Acres Subdivision - Rezoning;
C #16-86C, Crystal Faire PUD - Preliminary; #75-86C, Spring Creek Farms Third
PUD - Master Plan; and, #75-86D, Spring Creek Farms Subdivision, Filing 1 -
Preliminary. There was also a change on #9-87A, Dueck Annexation and
Zoning, (the zoning recommendation is for T - Transition.) Mr. Peterson
then gave Agenda Review, consisting of the Consent Agenda: 1) February 23,
1987 Minutes; 2) #53-85C, Centre for Advanced Technology, Phase II -Pre-
liminary; 4) # 13-82R, Oak Ridge Business Park PUD, 7th Filing Superblock
- Master Plan; 5) #13-82S, Oak Ridge Business Park PUD, 7th Filing -Pre-
liminary; 7) #1-84C, Sandcreek Village PUD, Tract One PUD Replat -Amended
Preliminary; 8) #45-83E, Second Amendment to Troutman 2nd Filing PUD -
Preliminary and Final; 9) #144-80E, Quail Hollow PUD, Phase II -Final; 11)
#69-84C CSU Bull Farm PUD - Phase I - Year Extension of Preliminary
Approval; 12) #62-80A, Rule Rezoning; 13) #13-87A, Hoffman Mill Annexa-
tion and Zoning; 14) #10-87A, Service Center 3rd Annexation and Zoning;
15) #11-87A, Service Center 4th Annexation and Zoning; 18) #2-87, Pulse
PUD - Amended Master Plan; 19) #2-87A Pulse PUD - Preliminary; 22)
#6-87, The Square PUD - Amended Master Plan; 23) #6-87A, The Square PUD -
Reflections - Preliminary; 24) #6-87B, The Square PUD - Hardee's - Preli-
minary; and, #9-87A, Dueck Annexation and Zoning.
Items #14, #15 were pulled from the Consent Agenda by the audience.
Because of potential conflict, Tim Dow was unable to vote on Items #7 and
#13.
Member Edwards moved to approve Items #7 and #13. Member Kern seconded and
( the motion carried 4-0.
March P&Z Minutes • •
Page 2
11
A
Member Kern moved to approve Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Member
Strom seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
SERVICE CENTER - 3rd Annexation and Zoning #10-87A
SERVICE CENTER -4th Annexation and Zoning #11-87A
Because of potential conflict, Member Dow did not take part in the discus-
sion of Items 14 and 15. Member Kern chaired.
Joe Frank gave a description of the request for annexation and zoning of
the two parcels of land.
Al Scott, who resides just north of the property, made statements and asked
questions concerning these two items:
1. The parcels are not eligible for annexation unless they are combined.
2. Will the use be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood?
3. Would there be an increase in truck traffic?
4. Does the City intend to eventually purchase the Milligan Lumber Company
property?
Steve Zeginhagen, a member of the audience, also had questions concerning
these two items:
1. What is the City's long term plan for this area? Will it become more
industrial?
2. What will be the benefits to come from the annexation?
3. What is the current zoning in the area? What exactly would an R-C zone
allow?
4. Were the people living in the surrounding area notified about the
annexation?
Tom Peterson stated that they were notified about the current action, but
not about the effects of the annexation and zoning.
Greg Dawster, a local resident, stated his concerns about the annexation
and its future effects.
Connie Dawster also had questions concerning the annexation and zoning:
1. What would an R-C zone mean for the area?
2. What is the City's overall plan?
March PR Minutes • •
Page 3
C
Member Kern asked the staff to address these issues:
1. What are the implications of the R-C zone? What can and can't be done?
7. What effect is this annexation expected to have on the area?
3. Are there long range plans for the area and nearby portions of land?
4. What would be the effect on traffic?
Joe Frank explained what the R-C code is. He stated that it is a mixed
land use zone that allows for limited industrial uses, retail uses, office
uses, research and residential land uses. In response to what effect the
annexation would have on the area, Mr. Frank stated that the property is
eligible for annexation according to the Tntergovernmental Agreement. It
is not being annexed in order to expand the North Woods Street Service Cen-
ter. There would be no change in traffic as a result of the annexation.
F-A zoning is an agricultural district.
Member Kern asked, if further use of the property was requested, would that
request be brought before the Board for review? Paul Eckman stated that it
would.
Member Kern stated that local neighbors would be notified and able to pre-
sent their views before the Board.
Mr. Eckman noted that the contiguity has reached across dine Dr., making
this land eligible for annexation.
Dave Edwards noted that the Board was only making a recommendation to the
City Council, who will eventually be the final decision makers.
Member Lang asked if the County asked the City to annex these two pieces of
property. It was determined that they did not. Mr. Peterson stated that
the City has a policy to annex city -owned property when that property
becomes eligible.
Member Strom asked if it was known how much of the property was used for
the City maintenance yards. It was not determined.
Mr. Scott commented on the already existing problems with truck traffic in
the area, the lighting and the noise.
Member Kern asked about applicable restrictions to this area. Mr. Eckman
stated that the City should conform to the uses as determined by zoning,
and if there is a violation, the City ought to bring the uses into com-
pliance with the zoning that exists.
Member Kern asked, to what extent does the Board have to divorce the com-
plaints from the annexation? Mr. Frank explained that State Statutes, as
well as the Urban Growth Area Agreement, provide the criteria for the
annexation. The zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
March PR Minutes •
Page 4
Member Lang clarified that the land is already the city's to use, and that
the issue is its annexation to the city.
Joe Frank explained that these complaints concern zoning and that they need
to be taken to the zoning office if the city is in violation.
Member Kern stated that the reason for the annexation is to get more con-
trol over the type of use that goes on.
Member Lang noted that until it is annexed by the city, all complaints
should be taken to the County Commissioner.
Member Kern also noted that once in the city, the zoning will come before
the Board for review.
Paul Eckman stated that City policy does not state that the city is exempt
from zoning laws.
Mr. Zeginhagen asked if any of the Board members knew what the R-C zone
meant and why it was chosen.
Member Kern explained that an R-C zone allows mixed land use. It was
instituted with the intention of protecting the river corridor while still
allowing existing uses to remain.
Member Edwards asked staff, other than the R-C zoning, what would be the
most appropriate zoning classification for this property?
Joe Frank stated that the zoning would probably be heavy commercial. R-C
would limit uses to light industrial uses; uses that are more compatible
with the river and adjacent uses.
Mr. Zeginhagen questioned the, reason for the R-C designation.
Tom Peterson explained that an R-C zone will give the City more control
when allowing what uses go on the land.
Mr. Zeginhagen asked if surrounding lands would he brought into the City in
a similar way, as R-C.
Joe Frank explained that the R-C zone was designed to be applied to the
river corridor. When properties become eligible for annexation that there
would be a good chance they would be zoned R-C.
Member Edwards clarified the intent of the City to gain more control over
the direction of the use that goes on within the river corridor.
Paul Eckman noted that although the City could have designated this land C,
commercial, it is limiting itself by designating the zoning R-C.
Member Lang commended the City for choosing the R-C zone.
March PR Minutes •
Page 5
40
Member Edwards recapped a few points made earlier:
1. The property is being annexed because it is eligible for annexation
(the City and County have an agreement that once property is eligible
it will be annexed.)
2. The river corridor requires special controls for the long term benefit.
3. The Board is only making a recommendation to the City Council and that
citizens will have further opportunities to express their concerns.
Member Strom stated that these complaints are not with the annexation, but
with the land use that is already going on.
Member Edwards moved to approve agenda item #14, Service Center 3rd Annexa-
tion and Zoning. Member Strom seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
Member Lang moved to approve agenda item #15, Service Center 4th Annexation
and Zoning. Member Strom seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
PULSE PUD -Amended Master Plan - #2-87
PULSE PUD - Preliminary 42-87A
Tim Dow chaired. Ted Shepard described the Master Plan Pmendnent. The par-
cel would include commercial, as well as residential uses. There would be a
9.4 acre commercial tract. The uses would include a health club, restau-
rant, retail, car wash, convenience store, offices, bank, day-care facility
and gas sales. The residential tract would consist of 94 multi -family
attached units, and 37 single-family attached units. Open space would be
provided on both tracts. Surrounding these tracts are other parcels zoned
R-P, R-L, and B-P.
Mr. Shepard then gave a description of the Preliminary PUD. It is a
detailed site plan for the two parcels. Mr. Shepard also noted that there
were two neighborhood meetings held and several meetings between a subcom-
mittee from the neighborhood and the developer.
Jim Gefroh, of Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., described the design aspects of the
project. He explained that the open space on these properties is part of
the project and under the ownership of D & S Properties. The main objec-
tive of the preliminary plan is to provide a location of the Pulse health
facility. Mr. Gefroh described the roads, how they would connect, and
what they would access. He also stated that pedestrian walkways and lands-
caping would be well provided. He then described the commercial uses. The
Pulse is the center of the project and is the largest building on the
site. Next he gave the setbacks of the buildings. Parking needs were
determined by looking at existing conditions at both the Fort Collins and
Boulder health clubs. A worst -case scenario was found. 201 spaces will be
allocated as shared parking with the health club.
He then gave the number of the parking spaces provided to each of the other
uses: retail - 40; restaurant - 40; and bank - 13
March PR Minutes •
Page 6
E
C
That leaves a net of 108 spaces for the health club that would not be
shared.
Mr. Gefroh then described the convenience store. The car wash was reduced
in size in order to provide more open space. The architectural designs of
the buildings include sloped roofs, brick and stucco. The only buildings on
the commercial tract that would be residential in character would be the
offices and the day-care center. The uppermost heights of the buildings
range from 27-35 feet. He then showed slides of the impact the heights of
the buildings would have. He finally noted that they have had two public
meetings with the Prospect -Shields Association and four meetings with.its
subcommittees, and that design measures have been taken to mitigate their
concerns.
Dave Huber gave a brief background description of the Pulse Health Club,
and the efforts that have been made to make this project a successful one.
Ted Shepard stated that the request is in conformance with the Land Ilse
Policies and recommends approval. Staff recommends approval of the Preli-
minary PUD with three conditions:
1. That a sidewalk he provided along the entire length of the drainage way
as shown on the site plan.
2. Upgrade architectural design of the convenience store to match the
health club and other buildings.
3. Do some final design work on the median and bike path along Shields
Avenue.
There are no conditions concerning parking, but staff requests that should
the health club expand its membership that there be a corresponding
increase in parking spaces.
Tim Dow asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the areas
along Spring Creek and the importation canal. Mr. Shepard stated that the
City would be responsible for the Spring Creek trail easement and stream
area.
The rest of the floodway and open space is under the responsibility of the
developer.
Tim Dow also asked if there was any particular phasing being proposed. Mr.
Shepard stated that the health club would be the first building con-
structed, followed by the retail and lastly the residential.
Mr. Gefroh stated that the layout of the street will be part of the first
phase. There will be no speculation construction.
Tim Dow asked how undeveloped areas would be maintained. Mr. Gefroh stated
that would be addressed in the Final.
March PR Minutes • •
Page 7
Harold Worth, 1501 S. Shields, spoke as a representative for the Prospect -
Shields Neighborhood Association. Mr. Worth gave a succinct description of
the Associations goals and objectives as well as how they have become
involved.
A list of their concerns include:
1. traffic on Prospect and Shields (especially the effect on the inter-
section).
2. safety of pedestrians, especially school children.
3. demographic and economic stability.
4. proximity to CSU and the kind of development the university attracts.
Dr. Alan Lamborn, 1929 Sheely Dr., presented a neighborhood survey in which
240 people responded to (see attached copy). Dr. Lamborn then listed sev-
eral characteristics of the existing neighborhood, both positive and nega-
tive. The Association's conclusion to oppose the high density, multi-
family development was based on existing problems with the percentage of
transient residents and the problem with traffic and parking.
CThe features of the plan that received the most opposition were:
1. the convenience store
2. gas pumps/car wash
3. high density, multi -family units
Other concerns include: boisterous conduct, lighting, noise, loitering,
crime, and flood control of Spring Creek. 50% of the projected traffic in
and out of the tract will be generated by the convenience store, gas pumps
and car wash. These uses are the ones that the Neighborhood Association
has found the most objectionable.
Next Dr. Lamborn reviewed the traffic study. Finally he commended the
developer for their courtesy and efforts but stated that clear objections
make it impossible for the association to support the plan. He did list a
set of conditions for the Board to consider:
1. Parcel B-1 include the health club, residential office buildings, the
day-care center, bank and restaurant. All other uses be restricted to
those which operate during normal business hours, (eliminate car wash,
convenience store and gas pumps.)
2. All of parcel B-2 be developed in low -density, residential
Tim Dow thanked the Association for the manner in which they addressed the
item.
March P&Z Minutes • •
Page 8
Jerry Nix, representing Brinkert Development Corp., who is developing the
Spring Creek Office Park on the west side of Shields Street, expressed
their concern that more apartments may have a detrimental effect on sur-
rounding property values. He also stated that they did not find the
heights of the buildings, the convenience store, gas pumps and car wash
compatible with the neighborhood.
Dave Edwards asked Mr. Dellich to respond to the concerns of the neighbor-
hood for traffic. Matt Dellich, traffic engineering consultant, explained
that the 1984 counts are used as historic information. Conclusions and pro-
jections were made from 1986 data. The study was conducted at the peak
hour of traffic, not during the peak hours of facilities. Additional traf-
fic lights will soon be installed at Center street and at Rolland Moore
Park.
Dave Edwards also asked if any off -site street improvements have been dis-
cussed and is it part of the application. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic
Engineer, stated that off -site improvements have not yet heen completely
determined. Discussion will be in regard to a median on Shields St. and a
full arterial improvement on Shields Street. The lights at Rolland Moore
Park and Center Street will result from the City Improvement Plan.
Member Edwards stated that because of the conflict as to how many members
there are enrolled with the health club, he has a concern for the shared
C parking and traffic. Mr. Huber explained the discrepancy in numbers. At
any one time many memberships are frozen.
Member Kern, referring to the survey presented by the Neighborhood Associa-
tion, noted that those who supported the Pulse and supported it with condi-
tions equals 37%. Only 38% were unfavorable. 62% either favored it to
some extent or didn't care.
He also expressed his concerns about the convenience stnre, gas pumps, and
the traffic. What percent of the trips made to these facilities will be
attributable to internal use? It was determined that 10-15% of those who
live in the residential area will use these facilities. The use -generation
study did not determine from where the users came from, it was noted that
more than half of those who would uti lize these faci lities would be pas-
sers-by.
Member Lang commended the developers use of photos to show the impact of
the heights of the buildings. She also questioned Mr. Nix's interest in
this project.
Mr. Nix stated that the developer has enough profit built into the project
to eliminate the convenience store, car wash and gas pumps, and to reduce
the multiple -family units. Chairperson Dow stated that the Board does not
consider the financial aspects of proposals.
Member Strom stated that the profit is not a concern for the Board, what is
a concern is whether or not it is an appropriate spot for a convenience
store, car wash and multi -family development. He also made the point that
the multi -family development is compatible with the area.
March PR Minutes •
Page 9
C
Dave Edwards stated that there is a lack of criteria on which to base the
appropriateness of locating a convenience store. Member Kern also
expressed his concern for the location of the convenience store. If it
passes, he would like to see a condition added that limits the operating
hours of the facilities.
Member Kern moved to approve the Pulse PUD - Amended Master Plan, N2-87.
Member Lang seconded, and the motion passed, 5-0.
Member Edwards stated that he still had concerns about the present plan as
it has been presented. His concerns include density, shared parking and
the location of the convenience store.
List of conditions:
1. decrease the density over the R-2 portion of the project to a more
acceptable level
2. additional research done on the shared parking concept
3. reconsider different aspects of the convenience store, (like the hours
of operation, having no gas pumps, or eliminating the car wash)
Member Lang asked the applicant if they would like to continue the item
next month.
The applicant asked staff if it was more desirable to locate a convenience
store on the intersections of arterials and collectors, rather than on
intersections of two arterials.
Tim Dow stated that the consensus of the Board is that there are a number
of good things and a number of bad things about the project, and although
the Board may not totally agree with all the concerns of the neighborhood,
we do share some of their concerns. The decision of the Board needs to bal-
ance concerns of the neighborhood, developer and City policies. During the
break we discussed alternatives with the applicant, the Planning Director
and designated spokespersons from the neighborhood. The consensus of the
Board is to address the fundamental concerns and still allow the project to
go ahead in the approval process. Those concerns are primarily with the
convenience store/gas station operation and car wash. Therefore, it is my
feeling we will probably approve the project, perhaps with some condition,
but in effect eliminating those particular uses from those particular sites
so that a portion of the preliminary PUD would in effect be erased from the
map, so to speak, and those particular uses and designs not approved. I
think the applicant is willing to continue the efforts which are remarkable
for both the applicant and the neighborhood to continue to work on that
aspect of the design.
C
March PR Minutes
Page 10 • •
Member Kern moved to approve Pulse PUD - Preliminary, #2-87A, with the
concerns as stated by Tim Dow as conditions. Additionally, Mr. Kern would
like to see the intensity of the multi -family dwelling decreased so that
there would be less pressure on the neighborhood and make more parking
available. Also included in the motion are the conditions as presented by
staff.
Member Dow wanted to clarify if the parking needs would be re-evaluated and
that the multi -family density also be reevaluated.
Member Edwards noted that there were four more conditions yet to be
addressed. One, that should the health club expand, more parking would be
added.
Tim Dow restated the motion. The motion is for approval of the Pulse PUD
Preliminary, with the following conditions:
1. The conditions as stated in the staff packet, as long as they are not
inconsistent with other conditions set by the Board.
2. The convenience store, gas pumps operation and car wash be eliminated
from the Preliminary PUD as currently designed with the understanding
that this is an area of the preliminary plan that will be evaluated by
the applicant.
3. The applicant evaluate and provide the Board with as much information
as possible on the parking needs of the health club.
4. The density of the 94 multi -family dwelling units located in the center
of the project be evaluated for possible reduction, (there is no speci-
fied amount.)
5. Before the health club changes its schedule or significantly increases
its membership that the parking needs of the health club be reevaluated
to determine what adjustments need to be made on the PUD.
Bernie Strom commented that he did not share the concern about the residen-
tial density, because the open space provides a buffer and that the den-
sity is appropriate for that site.
Tim Dow stated some additional conditions:
1. A maintenance agreement be entered into by the City and the developer
relative to the construction and maintenance of improvements along the
Spring Creek trail and the importation canal.
2. The Special Improvement District, with the Center of Technology be part
of any final approval.
3. Any final approval of the PUD needs to include an agreement with the
City relative to the maintenance of any undeveloped tracts.
Dave Edwards seconded and the motion passed, 5-0.
March
P&7_ Minutes
Page
11
•
•
DUECK ANNEXATION AND ZONING, JM7A
Joe Frank described the request to annex and zone approximately 20 acres
located east of College Ave., and north of Robert Benson Lake. The original
application was for H-B, Highway Business. A T, Transition has been agreed
upon by the applicant and staff in order to allow the land use to be deter-
mined at a later date. No PUD condition would be required since a T, tran-
sition would allow a continuance of existing uses but no new uses.
David Moore, representing Dueck Properties, made himself available for
questions.
Charles Davis, 6705 Debra Drive, asked if this property is annexed, would
the housing development located nearby be annexed also?
Mr. Frank stated that those properties are not part of the annexation
request and showed the boundaries of the area to be annexed.
Mr. Davis stated his concerns about this item:
1. There is already an existing water problem in the area.
2. There are large cottonwood trees on the site that he would like to see
remain standing.
C3. He would not like to see an increase in traffic in the area.
Mr. Moore stated that a new water line has been put in on Lemay Ave. and an
additional line will be added in the future. There are no trees on the
property.
Dave Edwards moved to approve Item #25, the Dueck Annexation and Zoning,
#9-87A, and that the zoning be T, Transition. Bernie Strom seconded, and
the motion passed, 5-0.
THE SQUARE PUD -AMENDED MASTER PLAN, #6-87; THE SQUARE PUD - Reflections
-Preliminary, #6-87A; THE SQUARE PUD - Hardee's - Preliminary, # 6-87B
Dave Edwards asked for clarification as to who the owner is, because of a
possible conflict of interest. It was determined that Jim Sullivan is
still the owner.
Ted Shepard described items #22,#23 and #24. The request is to change the
land use to include offices, a fast-food restaurant and more retail. All
three are currently zoned H-B, Highway Business.
March P&Z Minutes
Page 12 •
•
Linda Ripley of ZVFK, Architects and Planners, represented Jim Sullivan and
Gene Mitchell. Ms. Ripley listed the reasons for amending the Square Mas-
ter Plan:
1. To increase the mix of land uses on the site.
2. Better utilize existing parking.
3. Increase pedestrian traffic through the Square.
4. Improve overall attractiveness through architectural design and lands-
caping.
Ms. Ripley listed the changes from the original Master Plan:
1. Creating two new pads in the far northwest corner, where an office
building and fast-food restaurant are planned. A third pad has no
immediate development plans.
2. Extensive parking lot improvements. Redesign is to promote safety. An
extensive parking study was conducted.
Ms. Ripley concluded by stating that the proposed changes are in confor-
mance with City's Land -Use Policies and Comprehensive Plan, and the new
uses are compatible with existing uses.
Ms. Ripley continued with the review of the preliminary site plans. DK
Properties is the developer of the Reflections PUD, represented by Debbie
Tamlin. The proposed land -use is for a 15,000 square foot office building.
The setback from Monroe Avenue is 35 feet and the setback from College ave-
nue is 60 feet. The projected height of the building is 50 feet. Building
materials include rose colored glass. A shadow study was done to insure
that the height did not adversely effect any other land uses. Parking will
be shared. Conditions set by staff were found reasonable by the applicant.
Member Strom asked if there were any comments from the staff concerning the
architectural design of the building. Staff felt that it was an appropri-
ate design for that location.
Member Lang moved to approve #6-87A, The Square PUD - Reflections -Prelimi-
nary with the four staff recommendations along with the fifth recommend-
ation for the median strip. Member Strom seconded and the motion passed,
5-0.
Member Kern moved to approve item #24, #6-87B, The Square PUD - Hardee's
-Preliminary with the conditions as imposed by the staff. Member Lang sec-
onded and the motion passed, 5-0.
Joe Frank announced that a work session would take place on April 9, 1987
with the Parks and Recreation staff at 7p.m. in the CIC room of the New
City Hall.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
a,a
•
yo Fo,e�fs
R�rr•R,rTv.
z/75/B7
PRUSPECT-SHIELDS NEIUHRURHUUD
ASSUCIATIUN
y=
Y65
Nelghborhood Attltudnn mr the PULSE Plnnnnd
Unit Uevnlopmnnt
N =
NO
R EsP6AtS E
N2 =
Nu
Please let un know how ynu feel shout the proposer) PULSE dnvn.lorm,nnt by nnnaaring
tl,e following ggnsttnnn. The Ilnanr.lntlnn'n Bunrd w111 dnvn)no n formal posi-
tion to oreannt at the March 73 Planning nnrl Z"ning Iloord hnnring boned on
the nnnwers we qnt. Or you need further informnt n call Hal Worth
(484-4447) or Emily Smith (487-4517), y= 3 ? ' _ 46
I (we) attended the January 13 Neighborhood MeatII�q - `!S The February 19 HaatiAli 6
What is your overall imprnsslnn of the PULSE davalopment, as now proposed (revised
Plain presented at the February 19 meeting)? cy�
011
favorable � Unfnvornble fI favorable, with conditions (Plsnoe state)aLL l/iQ
Assuming suitable rocilit)ns and fees, would you use the PULSE henitlr club?
yea 493— No LY�T Maybe -6-3 N2
Would you use a suitable child dny--cnre center In this location?
Yes IL Nov204 Maybe -ay NR 2
If you answered ^yea` to either of the abovee two quentlnns, how wnuld you get
to the facility? --�� `,�/
Walk �9 Drive � Bike N2 /337'
How do you feel about the following fentures of the plan, as now proponad7
Fedor Some Ub.lectlon _Strong Ubt^.ction
Health club 9.
.,:Convenience store _-3/L 7�f
Ras Idantinl style / J /
Office buildings
Gas pumps
Car wash
Restaurant (not
fast food)
Town/patio homes
?Multifamily residential
unite
Day-cers center
Landscaping
Architecture OF buildings
Height of PULSE club building
:Height of suit 1femlly unite
Configuration or Stuart and
Hobbit Streets
Bank office
U 7°ion
R
to
7
2
fly
T/
.�"0
tb
1L
-17
#1
153-
13
2
2j
r vrn
�y
'�,r
�i
5a
u
JA
96
L021
_Z1�
3
50
How would traffic congnstinn ❑n Shinlds Street nrid nt the Prn^nE, Shields
and Stuart/Shields intersections be afrertrd by this development?
Not appreciably I_ Some 3 ? A lot 38 Oisasterously //3 /V R ,2
Would the following rectors become significnr/t problems fur the neighborhood
None
Some
Snriuus
No Upinion
Il4
S3
-ALL
Naive
7
6
Boisterous conduct
126
$
97
a�
Crime.�
Parking
�9
y�
Trarric safety (oedes-
trinn and vehicular)
�%2
_157
Z
Which would you prefer in the
development, Be proposed,
wny
or
of development
high -density
for this
site , the
PUL
Previously aoproved7
residential
development,5as
PULSE (Ja High -density
condominiums
or
apartments
NEJTHE'Q�
additional comments:
Address
Phone
Please return Emily Smitlt, 1000 W. Prospect, 8OS26