Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/20/1985MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MAY 20, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Members present were: Tim Dow, David Gilfillan, Don Crews, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Sharon Brown, and Ingrid Simpson. Member Lang was not present at the meeting. Members Gilfillan, Ross, and Lang did not attend the work session on Friday, May 17, 1985. Staff present included Sam Mutch, Joe Frank, Elaine Kleckner, Steve Ryder, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, and Renee Oldham. Legal representative was Steve Roy. Sam Mutch reviewed the Agenda, stating one item had been pulled off the Consent Agenda. Item #65-82E, CHARLESTON AT FAIRBROOKE PUD - Preliminary was pulled by Member Simpson. Member Ross asked about the signing of the final plat by the Evangelical Covenant Church. Elaine Kleckner stated the applicant felt the signed plat would be received by May 27, 1985. Member Ross and Chairman Dow stated they have a conflict on item 7, #30-85, Jones Viking Exemption and will not be voting on this item. They will be voting on all other consent items. Member Crews made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda items: 1) Minutes of April 19, 1985, meeting; 2) #13-82F, OAK RIDGE VILLAGE PUD - Final; 3) #146-79G, RAINTREE PUD, Phase 2 - Final; 4) #9-858, EVANGELICAL COVENANT CHURCH - Final, with the condition the signed final plat be received by the City by May 27, 1985; 6) #63-81C, COTTONWOOD PUD, Tract B, Phase 1; 7) #30-85, JONES VIKING EXEMPTION; and 8) #35-85, OUT -OF -CITY SEWER SERVICE - 301 EAST LINCOLN. Member Ross seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 for all items with the exception of #30-85, Jones Viking Exemption which carried 5-0. #65-82E CHARLESTON AT FAIRBROOKE PUD - Preliminary Steve Ryder gave a summary of the project, recommending approval. Carr Bieker, ZVFK, representing the applicant, gave a summary of the type and style of units. Member Simpson asked how this project will impact Tract C, approved for a day care center, with plans to change the use. Bill Neal of Wheeler Realty stated they are looking at converting from a day care center to low density (duplex) use on Tract C. They feel this will be a better use than a day care center. Minutes of the P1 ng and Zoning Board May 20, 1985 Page 2 Member Simpson asked how much the anticipated change will increase the overall density. Neal stated with development, the tracts are coming in at lower density than was approved for the Master Plan. Member Simpson asked what type of mature landscaping would be planted. Bieker stated there would be a lot of plant material, this will be addressed at the final hearing. They are exceeding City standards at the preliminary stage. Member Simpson is concerned with landscape buffering, and asked what type of plants will be used. Bieker stated the drawings are just sketches and do not represent specific species. Chairman Dow asked Bieker to verify the setbacks from Etton Drive, it looks like they are 20 feet. Bieker responded they are 20 feet. Chairman Dow stated they seem to be packing in quite a bit close to single family area. He would like the applicant to work on the setbacks to give the single family area more room. Deanne Vink, resident of the neighborhood, stated she has many concerns with the development of Fairbrooke. 1. The storm drainage and Michaels property was discussed in 1982 and at that time the problem was to be taken care of before the final plat was recorded. Sam Mutch, Planning Director, responded that Mauri Rupel from the City's Engineering Department, has stated there have been attempts to assist Mr. Michaels. Bob Smith from the Water Department is working with Mr. Michaels to resolve the problem. 2. Would like to have the wind erosion problem addressed. There has been no evidence that anything has been done to stop the wind erosion. Mutch responded that Rupel sent a letter to Wheeler requesting something be done regarding the erosion. The letter was sent in August, 1984, and there has been no follow up by the City. 3. There was an extension granted for Tract A, what is happening on that project? Tract B shows a loss in acreage from the Master Plan. What happened to the .5 acre? The Master Plan was marginally approved. What will happen to the points if the day care center is changed? Chairman Dow responded the points are not assessed until a specific preliminary plan is presented. Mutch added Tract A has expired. 4. When will Prospect be upgraded to a 6 lane street? Minutes of the PAD ng and Zoning Board May 20, 1985 Page 3 Mutch responded that Mauri Rupel, SID Coordinator, is requesting it be upgraded as soon as possible. Chairman Dow added the final will address the upgrading of Prospect specifically. Neal stated he will reinforce what Mutch said. There is money going into escrow with each closing to finance the upgrading of Prospect. Don Parsons, engineer for the applicant, stated the canal has been realigned since the Master Plan, Sommerville and Cedarwood have been built. The acreage shown is what there is now. The Master Plan was for all undeveloped acreage. Chairman Dow asked staff to follow up on the wind erosion issue. Member Georg asked why staff has not enforced this issue. Mutch responded staff will ensure the conditions are met and Michaels' lakes are dealt with. Member Georg asked the recourse of the City if things are not done. Mutch responded a fine or revocation of the approval could be imposed. Member Georg stated he did not feel the Board should consider any new plans until these matters are taken care of. Member Ross questioned the Michaels problems. He felt this should be tabled until the issues are addressed and corrected. He also felt the Board should not approve the final if the conditions are not met and stated the Board needs more information concerning compliance with the conditions imposed by the Board. Member Gilfillan asked the applicant what he would do in answer to this matter. Neal stated he claimed ignorance of the drainage situation. He stated the City has purchased Tract I (corner area). The Master Plan points have changed since its approval. Member Gilfillan stated the applicant should get together with staff regarding the water problems and make sure conditions are being met. He would move to recommend approval of the preliminary with the condition something be done in 30 days to combat the wind erosion. Member Ross stated 30 days was too much time. He would like to see 15 days. Member Brown shares Member Gilfillan's concern about knowing that the wind erosion and water issues are met. She would suggest tabling the item until next month. Mutch responded it would be better for the neighborhood to make the motion with a 15 day period to remedy the problem, than to table it to next month. Staff would work with the applicant and give a report to the Board next month. The Board can continue this item to later in the meeting and Steve Ryder will do research about the wind erosion problem to see if it was covered on the Master Plan. Minutes of the PI Ong May 20, 1985 Page 4 and Zoning Board • Member Gilfillan moved to table the item until the end of the discussion of item 9 (Sunshine School PUD). Member Crews seconded. The vote was 7-0 to table the discussion until after Sunshine School discussion. (The following took place after the discussion of item 9, Sunshine School.) Steve Ryder stated that after researching the files, there were no specifics mentioned for erosion or drainage in the Master Plan submitted by the applicant nor in discussion before the Board. Neal stated he had done some checking and that most of the concerns are off -site. Erosion and water purification should be handled by City staff and the construction manager. He stated he will make a commitment to have the wind erosion remedy in place when they return for the final. The water runoff is causing a problem for all of Fairbrooke. The applicant will work with City staff (Bob Smith from the Water Department) to remedy the problem. Member Crews stated if a citizen makes a complaint about anything, something has to be done about it. Member Ross stated there was a problem on First Christian Church on the blowing dust. The City was to have dealt with that problem. Steve Roy stated the Development Agreement has a clause in it for the developer to install erosion measures. Member Gilfillan stated he would like a time period statement from Neal on the water and wind erosion problem. Neal stated they would commit to begin working with staff the next day. Member Ross stated he would like to see the measures underway within 15 days. Neal stated they would do it. Chairman Dow stated the engineers will have to work with staff for the proper measures to be taken on the wind erosion and drainage problems. Member Gilfillan moved for approval of the preliminary plan for Charleston at Fairbrooke. Member Ross seconded then withdrew the second because the time limit was not placed in the motion. Member Georg seconded the motion stating he expects staff to follow through on the issue of wind erosion control and the drainage problem. Member Brown stated she would like to have the time included in the motion. The vote was 3-4 with Members Ross, Brown, Crews, and Simpson voting no because they would all like to see the time included in the motion. Member Ross moved to approve the preliminary plan with the condition the applicant have in place wind erosion measures within 30 days, to be worked out with staff and the procedures begun within 15 days. Member Crews seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Minutes of the PlIbing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 5 #23-85 SUNSHINE SCHOOL, INC. PUD - Preliminary & Final Chairman Dow stated there is a one hour limit for this item, including staff report, applicant review, and statements from the audience in favor of and against the project. Joe Frank gave a summary of the project, recommending approval. Wendie Kahler, director of Sunshine School, gave a history of Sunshine School. Presently, there are six (6) staff persons with a degree in Child Development or related field. The school is overcrowded at their present location on Mountain Avenue. They have been looking for a new location to meet, or exceed, state regulations. The state requires 40 square feet per child for inside care, the proposed location would exceed the state requirements. A chart showing the location of clients' work and home was shown. In the new location the school can increase from 30 to 75 children. The school does have a waiting list of people to get in. Sunshine School is one of two day care centers in Fort Collins that operate with a sliding scale fee. Member Ross asked if Sunshine School would be the owner or a tenant. Kahler responded Bob and Karen Furst will be the owners and Sunshine School will lease the building. Member Ross reminded the Board that the issue is a day care center in a residential area, not Sunshine School's credibility. Jim Cox, Architecture Plus, stated the site is easily accessible, will serve as a buffer, it is on the corner so people will not drive through the subdivision. The house is handicapped accessible. It has a large front yard to accommodate the proposed circular drive. The back yard is large enough for active and passive play areas. Sunshine School will improve the sewer and water taps to the property. A small, one square foot, sign close to the building will help down -play the non-residential use of the property. They have put in more parking spaces than required. There will be berming and screening on the south property line. The lawn will be maintained by a lawn service. The south property line will have a six foot double wood fence to help buffer the neighbors from any sound. They are looking at wood rather than metal for playground equipment. The area, the plan, and the project fit the goals and objectives outlined by the City in the Comprehensive Plan for a day care center. Member Simpson asked what will happen to the existing landscaping. Cox responded they will try to save as much as possible, if unable to save, they will berm and put in new landscaping. Member Simpson asked about visitor parking. Cox responded there are 6 spaces for staff and 4 additional spaces. There will be 4 in the driveway for short term parking. Member Ross asked why traffic was not an issue at this site, but was at a site previously considered by the school in its search for appropriate sites. Kahler stated it did not open onto a major street, the previous site had the Minutes of the Pl.ing May 20, 1985 Page 6 driveway on Shields. Prospect. and Zoning Board • Cox stated the traffic would not be entering off Frank stated the PUD agreement will limit the project to a non-profit organization, limited to 75 children that will operate from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The driveway will be one-way with 3 visitor parking spaces, 1 handicap parking space. The applicant will pave Michael Lane to the south property line from Prospect. Staff identified three major issues: 1. Land Use. The LDGS states child care is compatible with single family residences and encourages accessibility of day care in single family areas. 2. Noise Impact. The noise impact will be mitigated by the following: a. A 6 foot double -sided wood fence on the south property line. b. There will be buffering between the parking area and the play areas and the property to the south. c. The active and passive play areas have been located to minimize the impact to the neighbors. 3. Traffic. The impact of traffic is well within the limits of City guide- lines. Stacking should not be a problem turning off Michael Lane. The day care center will add 4% more traffic to Prospect. The center will generate an additional 290 trips on Michael Lane. The fact it is located on the corner helps mitigate the traffic problems for the rest of the street. Staff believes the applicant has mitigated the problems, and recommends approval of the project. Member Ross stated the applicant has done a good job to mitigate the problems. The change of use in the neighborhood is the question, what should the neighborhood expect? Frank stated the LDGS states the neighborhood should be protected from intrusive changes. Member Ross stated the Unfug property on East Elizabeth had a distinct effect on the neighborhood, and that was just adding on to an existing use. Member Ross asked how much the additions will add in terms of percentage to the building. Cox stated it will increase the building by 56%. Frank stated day care centers had been approved in many areas of the City. He stated the LDGS and the goals of the community state that day care centers should be encouraged to locate in single family neighborhoods. Adding 56% of the floor area will not change the appearance of the home since the applicant intends to use the same paint, siding, and lines of the existing home. Minutes of the P1 •ing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 7 Frank stated the traffic increase is not unacceptable. The applicant has tried to mitigate the noise and parking problems. Zoning does not protect the neighborhood. If a zoning change had been requested, the neighborhood would not have been able to participate in a neighborhood meeting, have a traffic impact study done, or have been able to look at the landscaping, which would not have been as intense as through the PUD process. The discussion from the audience began with those opposed to the project. Lucia Liley, representing the residents on Michael Lane, started with defining what is not at issue: 1. To vote against this project is not to vote against day care. 2. The quality of Sunshine School is not the issue, the proposed land use is the issue. The major question is, "whether the conversion of a home to a child care center with 75 children appropriate?" This property could be sold and operated by any child care center at some future date. The neighborhood is given no assurance of Sunshine School as a permanent tenant. The appropriateness has been based on the LOGS goals and objectives, not much on neighborhood identification. Day care is encouraged to locate in neighborhoods. There are several day care centers in the area that are not operating at capacity. Social compatibility with the neighborhood avoids the impact of additional traffic. How does the day care center fit in with the neighborhood, a rural setting, no noise, and single family? What is the difference between conversions, infill and new construction? Conversion from one use to another negates the choice of type of character in the neighborhood. Older areas are not protected by covenants as are newer areas. The property owners view change as disruptive. The total number of vehicles, trainees and visitors add significantly to the increase in noise that a fence will not alleviate. Traffic data from Sunshine School is colored and not true, the information is taken from the report submitted by Sunshine School. Parking and stacking is not sufficient and there will be spillover onto Michael Lane. A Boulder traffic consultant was contacted to check day care centers in Boulder for parking. He found comparable centers have 20 parking spaces. For special programs the center holds, parking will extend out into Michael Lane and disrupt the neighborhood. If Sunshine School leaves, the property owners will be left with a day care center and possibly another commercial business will purchase the property. Kent Andrews, 1843 Michael Lane, asked if neighborhood expectations were taken into consideration. When the area was annexed into the City, the neighbors were assured R-L-P zoning would not change the neighborhood character. This neighborhood is unique and the neighbors would not like to lose the quality of life they have come to know. Nell Van Driel, 1212 West Mountain, stated she lives 3 doors from a day care center on Mountain. The children do not contribute to the noise that much, Minutes of the Pl Ong and Zoning Board May 20, 1985 Page 8 cars make more noise. People are thoughtless about where they park and the noise they make dropping children off. Mary Beth Cline, 1929 Larkspur, requested the Board not approve the project. After living in the area for 10-15 years, the neighbors should not be subjected to change. Day care in the home cannot add on or make additional parking at their home the way Sunshine School is requesting to be done to the existing home. Joe Boudig, 2016 Evergreen Court, stated the Board should look at the way the people will be effected emotionally. The City should not force people out of their homes. Ed Schweizer, 2012 Evergreen Court, stated the neighbors do not want the day care center. The children will impact on the geese, deer and other wildlife in the area. Mary Balls, 2024 Evergreen Drive, stated the water pressure is lousy and the addition of 75 children will affect that. Also, Evergreen is used by people that want to avoid the light at Prospect and Taft Hill Road. The following comments were made by persons in favor of the project. Lew Wymisner, 1525 Remington, Board member of Sunshine School, stated most day care centers in town are not on a sliding scale as Sunshine School is. The children should be allowed to share in the joys of country living. Bob Furst, 210 Jackson, Board member, stated everyone would like to see day care in neighborhoods, but not their neighborhood. The conversion of the house would be compatible with the neighborhood. Children need a nice place to be cared for and Sunshine School offers quality care. Sunshine School has lease for 15 years. Sunshine School is more interested in quality care than the quantity of children. The neighborhood is not just the street where the center is located. The visual impacts of the changes have been addressed. Michael Lane is not the panacea the residents would have you believe. There will not be long waiting periods to turn off Michael Lane onto Prospect. The children will not chase the geese, deer and other wildlife. The applicants have addressed every point the City raised. The children should be able to enjoy a homey atmosphere. Would you rather they spend the days in an institutional setting? The applicant will also be putting in 2 water systems. Jeremy Lever, former student of Sunshine School, stated they have lots of rules, but it is a good place to go and the new location would have lots of room for play. Member Brown thanked Lever for taking the time to talk to the Board. Greg Norman, 411 Park Street, stated he had been unemployed and the Sunshine School's sliding scale allowed him to go to school and he now has a job that he would not have been able to get had he not been able to go back to school. Minutes of the PI 0 ng and Zoning Board S May 20, 1985 Page 9 Mary Shine, 1655 Larch, stated she pays one-half of what she would at another day care center. She would not be able to afford day care unless she could send her three children to a day care with a sliding scale fee. There has been a change in the last few years towards day care. Years ago most children were raised in the home, not day care; now most children are in day care. Too many times the day care centers are in churches with gravel, pave- ment, and no grass. Michael Lane would give the children the benefit of a home -like atmosphere and a yard to play in. Maryann Snyder, 619 North Sunset, stated a day care center should be part of a residential neighborhood. Scott Abbott, 1501 West Mountain, lives near the present Sunshine School location. There is not much noise, some laughter and subdued voices. The neighbors have no traffic problems; no bad feelings about the school; have a good relationship with the staff of the school; and are invited to and enjoy the school functions. Member Ross asked how long Abbott had lived in his present location. Abbott responded approximately 5 years. Member Ross stated that Sunshine School was in its present location when Abbott moved in and asked if Abbott would have approved a day care center starting up after he had lived in the neighborhood for several years. Abbott responded it would be difficult to say what his feelings would be. Member Ross asked if there was a parking problem. Abbott responded there was no noticeable problem. Member Ross asked Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, about the stacking problem turning off Michael Lane onto Prospect, whether there would be a left or right turn only. Ensdorff responded there would be a one lane exit; one lane entrance to Michael Lane. The traffic impact will be significant, in the sense of what the people on Michael Lane are accustomed to, but the operations on Michael Lane will still be at an acceptable level. Even with the day care center there would be a lot less traffic than on many local streets entering a major arterial. Member Ross asked Ensdorff's opinion on what the traffic would be like during the peak hours, rush hour traffic. Ensdorff stated the traffic studies always use the worst case, if that is acceptable, the rest of the day will be acceptable. The time used in the study was the p.m. peak, 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ensdorff stated traffic movements will be acceptable during all periods of the day with the additional traffic generated by the school. Chairman Dow asked about the plan for Prospect, what would be required of the applicant? Ensdorff stated there will be a continuation of 2 lanes with a center turn lane. This is a high priority on the City's capital improvement projects and should be done in 3-5 years. Property owners have dedicated ROW and contributed to the capital improvement fund for upgrading Prospect. Chairman Dow asked about restricting left turns off Michael Lane. Ensdorff responded that would impact everyone on Michael Lane and did not seem warranted. Minutes of the Pleing May 20, 1985 Page 10 and Zoning Board . Member Ross asked about the process of dropping students off at schools. How will the addition of a school bus impact parking. Cox responded a small van would be used, but would not be left overnight, rather taken home by a staff member. Member Simpson asked about plans to expand on the site. Cox responded the only changes would be those indicated on the present plan. They will have only 75 children, no more than 75 are on the premises at one time. Member Brown clarified by saying at any one time. Cox responded that was correct. Parties are for the children. Any activity to which parents are included would be picnics in the park or outside programs that would be held in a church or elsewhere. Member Brown asked about the summer day camp for older children. Kahler replied this would be for 8-10 children and these children would be included in the 75 total number. Member Brown asked about interns, volunteers and parents. Kahler responded they have C.S.U. students for 2 hours per week, one at a time; occasionally a high school student after school and parents one at a time. These people are always scheduled and never more than one at a time. Member Brown asked if conferences were scheduled. Kahler replied conferences were scheduled in homes, restaurants, or wherever is convenient for the parent. Member Brown asked if these interns, volunteers, etc., would add additional trips to the area. Kahler stated not all employees are there for the entire 12 hours. The employees have varying shifts. Member Gilfillan asked if they own or lease their present site and asked if they had considered keeping this site and adding another location. Kahler stated the present site is too small for all the kids, plus administrative work that needs to be done. The one positive note in their present location is the proximity to City Park. Member Georg stated there are many positive and negative policies and opinions on the project. The issue is one of land use. Member Georg moved to deny the project for the following reasons: 1. Encroachment of commercial development in a residential neighborhood. 2. Neighborhood compatibility. 3. Technical issue. The parking is survey of day care centers in parking spaces.) inadequate. (He conducted a random the City and found most had more Member Brown seconded, stating she feels the same as Member Georg that the project is intrusive to the neighborhood. Minutes of the Plaing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 11 Member Simpson stated she recognizes the City's goal to put day care in residential area, but the neighborhood should support the project if it is to go in the neighborhood. Member Crews felt there is a conflict of the goals and objectives of Fort Collins for conversion. He does not feel the plan is intrusive to the neighborhood and therefore does not support the motion. Member Ross stated the rules and regulations are not geared toward conversion, there seems to be a hole in the LOGS. The project would have less problem if it were to be built on vacant land. Chairman Dow opposed the motion and agreed with Crews that the project is not intrusive to the neighborhood. He felt in the long run this project could be a positive change for the neighborhood. The motion carried 5-2 with Member Crews and Chairman Dow voting no. 152-84A AMENDED MILAN/HIEGERT EXEMPTION Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the requested exemption, recommending denial. Randolph Milan, applicant, gave a history of the illegal subdivision and the steps that brought him before the Board. He stated the owner of the smaller parcel, which was subdivided before he bought the property, would not dedicate the ROW to the City. Member Gilfillan asked Kleckner the recommendation from the County. Kleckner replied the County has no clear-cut recommendation. Member Ross moved to recommend approval based on hardship. Member Simpson seconded. Member Ross stated Hollywood was in the City, but the ROW would not cause a hardship on the City. The motion carried 7-0. #31-85 WARREN EXEMPTION Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the requested exemption, recommending denial. Roger Warren, applicant, explained the request. He owns 10 acres which he would like to subdivide into two tracts, the area he is building his house on is 6.3 acres and the other would be 4.1 acres. Member Ross stated the property is located between subdivisions, why not subdivide? Warren replied he could not afford it. Minutes of the May 20, 1985 Wing and Zoning Board • Page 12 Chairman Dow asked where the access is located. Warren pointed out the access on the slide showing the property. Member Gilfillan asked about a utility easement. Warren responded there is a Public Service Company easement. Member Ross asked what the terrain was like. Warren replied it is rolling. Member Gilfillan asked if the exemption request was for one lot or for two. Kleckner replied the exemption must be approved before a building permit will be issued. Member Simpson asked if this was the first exemption. Kleckner replied yes. Member Simpson asked if there was any input from the County. Kleckner stated the County shares the City's concern about the terrain and the landscaping. Member Brown moved to recommend denial based on access and drainage. Member Crews seconded. Warren stated he obtained a special permit from the County to have the road put in. The County has reviewed the landscape, terrain and drainage or he would not have been issued a special building permit to put the road in. Member Gilfillan will not support the motion and feels staff should work with the applicant. Member Brown stated she does not feel the access is the best and supports the motion. Member Ross feels the burden of proof is on the applicant and the applicant has not proved the request. Chairman Dow does not feel the requirements have been met. The motion carried 5-2 with Members Gilfillan and Simpson voting no. #32-85 STERLING/TAFT HILL BATCH PLANT SPECIAL REVIEW Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the request recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The UGA Streets Phasing Criterion requirements shall be met or a waiver shall be obtained. 2. Army Corps of Engineers permitting requirements should be met. 3. A landscape plan should be submitted to address screening from public areas. Chairman Dow asked the enforcing body on the conditions. Kleckner stated the County enforces it, the City will not see it again. Minutes of the PI Ding and Zoning Board . May 20, 1985 Page 13 Chairman Dow asked how the Board can approve the project without seeing it. Kleckner stated the recommendation is the only mechanism the Board has, perhaps the Board or staff should talk to the County. Member Brown asked if it is implied that without conditions we approve the request. Kleckner responded it is. Dallas Williams, representing the applicant, stated there should not be added street impacts because the concrete plant will be located on the other side of Taft Hill Road. Chairman Dow asked Williams if he was familiar with the conditions and if the conditions were agreeable to him. Williams stated he was familiar with the conditions and they were agreeable. Member Brown stated the City and County have the Urban Growth Area agreement and both entities should follow what is outlined. Kleckner responded the UGA says a project may or may not request special review. There needs to be continuing discussion between the City and County. Member Brown stated she is distressed because the system seems to be falling apart, the County does not seem to consider the City's recommendation. Chairman Dow stated the Board does not have a problem with this application, but the logistics are a problem. Member Georg moved to recommend approval of the application with staff conditions outlined above. Member Simpson seconded. The motion carried 7-0. #33-85 HARMONY BATCH PLANT SPECIAL REVIEW Member Gilfillan excused himself because of a conflict of interest. Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the request with a review of reclamation and landscape plan, recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The UGA Streets Phasing Criterion requirements shall be met or a waiver shall be obtained. 2. A landscape plan shall be developed to address screening from Harmony Road and I-25. Dallas Williams, representing the applicant, stated they would follow the same procedures as used at Sterling. This would not be a full—time plant. Member Brown asked if the applicant would agree to dust abatement procedures. Williams responded they have plans to do so. Jim Campbell, owner of property to the north of the site, was concerned with the compatibility of development on Harmony Road. Will this project adversely affect the sale of his property. He has talked to the applicant Minutes of the PI.ing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 14 about limiting the location of the plant to 1/4 mile off Harmony Road. He feels an agreement can be reached if given enough time. Chairman Dow stated any plant will be 1/4 mile south of Harmony. Campbell stated he does not have a problem with the batch plant. Member Ross stated the applicant did a good job reclaiming the Sterling site. Campbell stated he does not object to Sterling as a neighbor. Williams stated they have a 700 foot setback from Harmony. Chairman Dow asked how surrounding owners feel about this request. Kleckner responded the City does not notify the owners, the County does. Chairman Dow stated this is a key entry into the City and questions as to what this will look like, access points, street lights, streetscapes, etc. Kleckner responded they are eligible for annexation into the City and then would be processed as a PUD. Williams stated the site will be reclaimed after mining and will leave one lake. Member Brown asked who owns the property across I-25. Are they planning to mine? Kleckner stated we have received no word. Member Georg stated the 700 foot setback is adequate. Member Georg moved to approve the application with staff conditions. Member Ross seconded. Member Simpson stated the applicant should work with staff when this goes back to the County. Chairman Dow stated he is against the motion because Harmony should be Master Planned, and thinks the property should annex, consistent with the recent Stute annexations on both sides of the site. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-3, Member Ross, Brown and Chairman Dow voting no. Member Georg moved to deny the request and recommend to the County a special review not be used; and that the applicant be encouraged to annex into the City and develop under the CA6d D661'o'merit Ouidahce"5yst'em as a PUD because of the sensitivity as an entrance to the City -of Fort Collins. Member Brown seconded. The motion carried 6-0. #8-83A COLLAND CENTER SUBDIVISION REPLAT, TRACTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 Elaine Kleckner gave a summary of the request. Staff recommendation is denial and that a UGA amendment and annexation into the City be pursued and Minutes of the PI*ing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 15 the access reviewed. It makes sense to have urban development such as this in the City limits. Staff does not recommend approval because of the outdoor storage, there is limited access and it needs more screening. Randy Larsen, representing the applicant, stated the property was zoned over eleven years ago. The applicant wants to keep this area in line with what has been developed including lot size and density. The applicant would like to complete the area. The access point is on County Road 32. This area has been excluded from the corridor. Member Ross stated he has just acquired some rental property and has a conflict on this item. Chairman Dow asked if staff would have problems with this project if it had been annexed into the City. Kleckner stated access can be worked out, but many questions remain unanswered. Chairman Dow asked about expanding the Urban Growth Area to include this property. Kleckner stated new data would be needed because of the corridor. Member Gilfillan asked the input from the Highway Department on access. Kleckner responded the state's position is set because they have been "grandfathered" in. The access was approved many years ago and cannot be changed, except by the applicant. Member Gilfillan stated this is strip commercial and would like to see the access restricted from Highway 287 and County Road 32 and Colland Drive used instead. Member Simpson stated County Road 32 is unpaved. Member Georg stated it is unpaved now. The City would not like to see strip commercial along south Highway 287. The Board is not looking at the total PUD. An eastern entrance is needed. Member Gilfillan stated more information might complicate the matter more. He cannot support direct access off Highway 287 or annexation. Member Georg made a motion to recommend approval to the County with the following conditions: 1. No access be allowed off Highway 287, access to be onto County Road 32 and Colland Drive. 2. A landscape and screening plan be provided and reviewed by City staff and the County. 3. A finding that the density is acceptable. Member Gilfillan seconded. Larsen stated the landscaping is covered in the covenants and the access has been approved by the Highway Department. Minutes of the Pl10ing and Zoning Board • May 20, 1985 Page 16 Sam Mutch, Planning Director, stated the access is governed by the City traffic department. The Highway Department will go along with the City's recommendation regarding access. Chairman Dow stated he feels the area should be annexed into the City and the Urban Growth Area should be amended. Member Brown agreed with Chairman Dow. The motion carried 4-2 with Member Brown and Chairman Dow voting no. OTHER BUSINESS Sam Mutch reminded the Board of a meeting on May 30, 1985, with City Council to discuss the Land Develdpment Guidance System Summary. If the Board has any changes or comments, p ease ma a notes. Chairman Dow stated he is of the opinion the County feels the City and the Planning and Zoning Board can drop dead rather than consider recommendation to the County. He feels staff and the Board should meet with the County to work out differences. Member Crews added County referrals are a joke now. Member Georg stated he does not feel the Board's recommendations are considered by the County. The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.