HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/31/1985MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
January 31, 1985
The adjourned meeting of the January 28, 1985, meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Board members present were David Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Don Crews, Ingrid
Simpson, Sharon Brown, Randy Larsen, and Tim Dow. Member Gary Ross was not
present at the meeting.
Staff members present were Sam Mutch, Jan Shepard, Joe Frank, Ken Waido,
Steve Ryder, and Renee Oldham.
Legal representative was Ken Frazier.
N137-80B
Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the project.
David Wood, attorney representing the applicant, Kroh Brothers, stated the
summary of the project would be given by Jim Gefroh. He stated the applicant
is willing to make off -site improvements to streets, including connecting
Mason Street from the present end of Mason to across Harmony and attaching to
College as shown on the site plan. The applicant feels the layout of the
project is harmonious with the site. The applicant is also willing to
landscape Mail Creek and attempt to preserve as many existing trees as
possible. He then introduced Carl LaSala.
LaSala gave a short presentation concerning Kroh Brothers Development
Corporation. He stated Kroh Brothers is based in Englewood, Colorado. It is
a 75 year old, family owned, development company. He stated it is a full -line
commercial development company which has over 11 million square feet of
aevelopment in it states. He stated they are equity developers who develop
for their own account. He stated Kroh Brothers wanted to retain the site of
the Arbor Commercial Plaza. They want, not only to develop in Fort Collins,
but to maintain the project in Fort Collins. Slides of various projects
which Kroh Brothers have done were shown.
Jim Gefroh, architect representing the applicant, gave a summary and showed
slides of the proposed development. He stated the main element of the
project is a community size shopping center. He stated a home furnishing
store and a supermarket are used as anchors for the project. Supermarkets
along College Avenue will not hurt outlying shopping centers as staff would
have the Planning and Zoning Board believe. He then explained the site plan.
Mason Street will move through the site. He stated the project is
approximately 202,000 square feet. He reviewed the surrounding uses with the
Planning and Zoning Board. He stated Harmony and College are major arterials
at this point. The site plan centers around Mason Street which runs through
the site.
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 2
Gefroh stated that after talking to the Traffic Department, the applicant had
done the design around Mason Street with minor adjustments. The applicant
had agreed, on January 25, 1985, they would construct Mason Street north from
Harmony Road. The applicant also agreed to work with staff to come to
agreement concerning problems prior to the final approval, when it is
requested, concerning the traffic problems. The applicant agreed Mason
Street should be designed for a speed of 30 mph.
Gefroh stated the project is divided into two main sections by Mason Street.
The southwestern parcel has 3 entrances from Mason Street and service from
the western portion of the site. Pad 1 at Mason and College is geared to
fast food. The second parcel is proposed to have a bank and office uses.
Pad 5 is for a savings and loan. Pads 2 and 3 are for restaurants, while
Pad 4 is the smallest and would be used for some type of specialty shop. The
design is well integrated into the site. The applicant disagrees with staff
in their assessment of the site plan.
Gefroh stated the applicant incorporated a greenway/pedestrian system
throughout the site. The applicant had received comments about the need for
buffering Building D. Slides were shown of the tract with trees. The
applicant sees no need for additional buffering for Building D.
Gefroh spoke of Mail Creek, which bisects the site. Only at the insistence
of staff has the applicant investigated saving trees on Mail Creek. The
applicant has found there is no real value to the trees along Mail Creek. The
applicant does intend to preserve the trees at the eastern edge of Mail Creek
on the state owned property. Gefroh stated the trees are an eyesore, a
danger and will be replaced with valuable urban plantings.
Gefroh stated the department store/home furnishing store has been setback 40
feet from Harmony Road. The solid wall will be heavily planted to mitigate
its visual effect on Harmony Road. Cross -sections of the department store/
home furnishing store were shown. He stated the southern facade would be 25
feet above ground level while the northern facade would only be 15 feet above
ground level. The home furnishing store does not have an adverse impact on
Harmony Road.
Gefroh spoke of facades and accent towers on the remainder of the project.
The home furnishings store would compliment the grocery store. The outlying
buildings have not been designed at this time for the remote pads.
Gefroh turned to the discussion of the trees along Mail Creek. He stated the
trees had been a continual point of discussion between the applicant and
staff. Slides of the Creek area were shown. The intended route of Mason
Street was then shown. The alignment of Mason Street would have a
devastating effect on the Creek. Various elevation drawings of the Creek
were shown. He spoke of the man made elements of this portion of the Creek.
He stated the east end of the Creek has nearly vertical rises from the
creekbed to College Avenue. The area has been used for livestock, the banks
are steep and any erosion controls would mean loss of trees.
Gefroh stated the staff has recommended denial of the project based upon
Criterion #13 and #14. The applicant believes they have saved, to the extent
Planning & Zoning Bid Minutes •
January 31, 1985
Page 3
practical, the trees that can be saved on the site. From a wildlife
standpoint, staff has stated the area is significant. Gefroh countered with
a letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife that says the area is not
significant. This letter stated the wildlife is urban in nature and the
project will not adversely affect wildlife from a regional or state
standpoint. The applicant believes they have met Criterion #14. Staff
failed to discuss Criterion #11, which calls for the applicant to safe -guard
life and safety on the site.
Gene Erley, Landscape Associates, stated he had been employed by the
applicant to review the trees on the site. He stated he was an arborist who
had many years of experience. The criteria he used to review the site is the
same which was used for the Glenwood Canyon/I-70 project. These trees were
reviewed with regard to their scenic value. He looked at 33 out of 125 trees
on the site. All the trees are in a declining phase. The growth increments
were small in the last six years. According to the review and the criteria
used, the trees represented only 2-3% of the total value that could be
optimized from the trees on the site. It would take an extreme amount of
work to bring these trees into good shape. This is because of the dead wood,
a liability, and the need for additional pruning. Slides of various trees
were shown and elements of the trees which were included in the survey were
discussed.
Chairman Dow thanked Erley for reviewing each of the trees included in his
study, but asked for a summation of findings.
Erley stated it was his opinion these trees have such a low value to the site
that they need not be preserved.
Gefroh stated the project is viable taking some traffic off College and
Harmony and routing it to Mason Street. He stated the bank building and
associated pads would not be developed at this time. These pads will be
developed as there is demand for them. The applicant will work with staff
concerning landscaping and filling on the project.
Wood stated this project would not be a problem for the City of Fort Collins
and should be approved.
Paul Heffron, owner of the property, stated he has had many inquires about
the property, but the applicant is the first to bring a viable project to the
City. Chairman Dow asked Heffron to comment during discussion of the
meeting.
Frank stated what the Planning and Zoning Board sees is a request for a
shopping center. He stated the property was zoned with a PUD condition. The
property now contains a single family home and has Mail Creek running through
it. The property is at the southern end of the regional shopping center area
along College Avenue. It is bordered on three sides by commercial
development. A previously approved plan was shown. This plan retained the
trees on the site. Staff's review of the plan was outlined. The major
issues staff felt were important for the review by Planning and Zoning Board
were:
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 4
a. Land Use Issues. If a grocery store on College Avenue is appropriate
and if a home furnishing store could be used as an anchor for a
community sized shopping center.
b. Traffic Issues.
c. Design Issues.
Frank stated these would be addressed separately.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner City of Fort Collins, stated staff was concerned
with a number of policy issues concerning land use. The appropriateness of
grocery stores on College Avenue was questioned, recognizing the goal of the
community to foster neighborhood shopping centers within neighborhoods. The
second issue is if home furnishing stores could be permitted as a principle
use in a community size shopping center, and meet the definition of an anchor
for a community size shopping center.
A map of grocery stores in the community 10 years ago was shown. The policy
was changed to foster neighborhood shopping centers off College Avenue was
discussed. This was changed in 1979 by the Land Use Policies Plan. Specific
shopping center criteria was addressed. By establishing grocery stores on
College Avenue, the policy for neighborhood centers may be hindered and
either forestall or preclude grocery stores within neighborhood shopping
centers. A map of existing and proposed neighborhood shopping centers within
the community was shown. The most appropriate location of a neighborhood
center is at the intersection of an arterial and collector within a
neighborhood. The location of grocery stores on College may delay
neighborhood shopping centers. Staff feels this is detrimental to the public
purpose as outlined in the Land Use Policies Plan.
Waido then addressed the home furnishing store serving as the major element
of a community size shopping center. The definition of a community/regional
shopping center was read. This definition states:
"A cluster of retail and service establishments designed to serve
consumer demands from the community as a whole or a larger area.
The primary functional offering is at least one full -line depart-
ment store. The center also includes associated support shops
which provide a variety of shopping goods including general mer-
chandise, apparel, home furnishings, as well as a variety of ser-
vices, and perhaps entertainment and recreational facilities."
Waido stated the Planning and Zoning Board must decide if the home furnishing
store meets the definitional requirements for setting up a community/regional
shopping center. Staff feels this is a policy issue which can only be
determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. However, staff feels home
furnishing store does not meet the strict definition for establishing a
community size shopping center.
Planning & Zoning Be Minutes •
January 31, 1985
Page 5
Frank stated there are a number of traffic issues to be discussed. The
majority of the information on traffic was received on January 25, 1985.
Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the intersection of Harmony and
College will have the highest traffic count of any intersection of the City
in the future. Mason Street is currently constructed from Horsetooth to just
below the Target Store. Mason Street serves as a frontage road in this
vicinity. Mason Street is designated to divert traffic from College to help
re -circulate the traffic. If the applicant agrees to improve Mason Street
north of Harmony Road, the traffic department will support the project. On
January 25, 1985, Ensdorff had verbal verification the applicant agreed to
make the connection of Mason Street from the site and north of Harmony Road.
The issue of access onto College was discussed. To allow the limited left
turn to work on the site, islands would need to be placed on College Avenue.
The applicant agreed to this on a conceptual basis. The third element of
discussion concerning traffic is Harmony Road. Harmony Road is designated as
a major arterial. It is the Traffic Engineering Department's recommendation
that Harmony be improved to major arterial standards by the applicant. These
three issues were the key issues the applicant agreed to meet as stated by
the Traffic Department. Much work needs to be done to meet City standards.
The State Highway Department has concerns about the alignment of Clubhouse
and Mason that need to be addressed before final approval could be granted.
Another issue is who would install a traffic light on Mason Street.
Member Georg asked about the ROW on Harmony and Mason. Ensdorff stated there
will be an opportunity for payback from future developers along Mason.
Frank stated the planning staff had concerns on the traffic problems. Before
the recommendation had been written, the elements of the traffic problems had
not been solved. The information presented at the meeting was presented to
staff on January 25, 1985, concerning traffic. There are still some
outstanding issues, but these could be worked out before final approval.
Frank then presented issues concerning Mail Creek. An explanation of Mail
Creek was given. Unlike many areas in Fort Collins, it is covered by mature
cottonwood trees. The trees are a landmark and it is one of the last natural
areas existing in the City that has not been developed. Slides of the stand
of trees were shown and it was pointed out how they dominate the skyline from
various perspectives on College Avenue. Slides of the creek and the interior
of the site were shown. Staff feels the creek is a natural resource rather
than a detriment and can be used in the design of a commercial site. The
City's Goals and Objectives and the criteria for reviewing a PUD lend support
to the idea this creek should be maintained.
Frank read the following criterion from the Land Development Guidance System:
#13 - Does the project preserve existing vegetation to the extent
practical?
#14 - If the site contains an area which serves as a habitat; natural
food source; nesting place; wintering place; or source of water
identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as significant and
in particular need of attention, has special precaution been
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 6
implemented in the plan to prevent the creation of environmental
influences adverse to the preservation of these areas?
Frank stated staff does not feel the applicant has tried to maintain the
important natural feature, Mail Creek, on the site plan.
Tim Buchanan, City Arborist, stated he had reviewed the site from an
ecosystem perspective rather than an individual tree aspect. Identifying the
trees as dying does not mean the area will not regenerate itself. A
management plan for the area could be implemented to plant new trees, manage
the existing trees, and make this an even more important natural aspect to
the City of Fort Collins. The trees now serve as a windbreak which is
significant for soil stabilization. The aesthetics of the area are also
important and have been pointed out by Frank. From a distance, the trees
give a sense of distance and scale which is lacking in most of the City. The
trees give this area a mature look. From a close point, the trees may look
cluttered or threatening. On the positive side, this area is a very
productive use of the land, not a non -productive area as the applicant
believes. The Creek could be designed into the site plan. If the area is to
be preserved, it should be closed off with appropriate landscape plan and'
management plan for the trees.
Don Yon, Natural Resources Department, spoke of the wetland and wildlife
issues in a general sense for the entire community. The Natural Resources
Department believes Mail Creek is important to the community.
Andrea LaPointe, Natural Resources Department, spoke of the cottonwood/willow
association found in the Mail Creek area. The area was reviewed based on the
following factors:
1. Biological productivity.
2. Vulnerability.
3. Local importance.
4. Scarcity.
LaPointe stated the cottonwood bottomlands are scarce. Only six other areas
of cottonwood bottomland associations occur within the City of Fort Collins.
According to an inventory, this habitat is vulnerable. The importance of
these habitats was discussed. The quality of trees is important because this
is a maturing area and with proper management could regenerate itself. The
decadence of the trees is important to some wildlife species. The small size
of the site does not diminish the importance as a focal point for the
community. The Planning and Zoning Board should consider the cumulative
effect of removing the Mail Creek site as a natural habitat within the
community.
Chairman Dow asked about the letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
LaPointe stated the Division of Wildlife has a statewide, or regional,
perspective rather than a local perspective. She stated the Department of
Natural Resources does disagree with the letter sent by the Division of
Wildlife and the City sent a letter stating this disagreement. From a local
standpoint, this site is environmentally sensitive and unique and should be
preserved.
Planning & Zoning *d Minutes .
January 31, 1985
Page 7
Frank stated there are problems with the design and arrangement of the
buildings. The ideas were summarized by 1) the separation of the department
store competes with the other portions of the project; 2) the setback of the
department store is not adequate. The City wants to maintain Harmony Road
as a major entranceway to the City of Fort Collins, therefore requires
additional setback from that right-of-way. 3) The placement of pad 1 is not
consistent with the setback and landscaping criteria set by the City. 4) The
desirability of pad 4 for development was questioned. 5) The facade as
presented by the applicant was a problem. There is no problem with the
architecture per se, but the facades must be cohesive in nature. Only a few
of the buildings were shown and prior to final approval all facades would
have to be shown.
Frank stated the landscape plan can be improved. The amount of green space
on the project is minimal. Staff wants a formal street tree planting program
to be incorporated into the site. Along the arterials staff recommends
berming as a landscape treatment. The applicant must provide a landscape
plan for the medians in College Avenue.
Frank summarized that overall staff believes there are significant issues'
that have not been resolved by the applicant and there were a number of
policy issues to be answered before the project could be approved. The
recommendation of the planning staff was to deny the preliminary plan for
Arbor Commercial Plaza PUD.
Paul Heffron, owner of the property, stated Kroh Brothers have shown they are
willing to meet the requirements of the City. There is a contradiction on
the use of the land.
Frank stated he had received a number of telephone calls on the project.
Hazel Craig and Bob Peterson expressed support for the shopping center.
Someone from the nursery to the south of the project supported the shopping
center.
Gary Nordic, owner of 13 acres west of the site, stated this site will be a
commercial project. The Kroh Brothers have done a first class job on the
site. The wildlife habitat on the site is not important.
Member Georg asked if the state could deny a curb cut off Mason onto Highway
287. Ensdorff responded the City has the authority to review the curb cuts
from the state within the City limits. The state will agree with the City
review.
Member Georg asked if the Highway Department could force the City to
signalize Mason and College. Ensdorff stated there is the possibility of a
future signal, although the Traffic Department would not like to put one
there.
Chairman Dow asked about potential stacking problems at Mason and College.
Ensdorff responded this was considered in the deliberations of the Traffic
Department. The Traffic Department allowed the design because of the
elimination of left turns onto College, there should be no problem. There
would need to be approximately 200 feet for stacking.
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 8
Member Gilfillan asked if 40 feet is an acceptable setback on Harmony Road.
Frank stated this was a hard question. The applicant showed some mitigation
in the design which the staff had not seen prior to the meeting. Frank stated
staff would have to look at a number of factors to determine if 40 feet was
sufficient.
Member Georg asked what the setbacks were given the 30 mph instead of 25 mph
for pads 2, 4, and 5. Gefroh stated he believed pad 2 was 30 feet from
flowline to the edge of the building; pad 5 was about 35 feet off Mason and
45 feet from Harmony; and pad 4 is 25 feet from Harmony Road.
Member Georg asked why the design of the elevations had not been supplied to
staff. Gefroh stated the applicant did not supply it because they did not
realize they had to supply the information for preliminary plans.
Member Georg stated they wanted to see the design of the buildings on the
pads before final approval. Would the applicant commit to having a design
for each of those buildings on those pads? Gefroh stated the applicant would
be willing to give some general guidelines at final plan approval. The
applicant would be willing to discuss this prior to final approval with the
staff. Most pad users need their own identity and therefore it is difficult
to design a building for the plan.
Frank stated this is a submittal requirement for final plan approval.
Member Gilfillan asked if it would be better, from an environmental
standpoint, to fill in the two outparcels at either end of Mail Creek on the
site. Gefroh responded it was the intention of the developer to channelize
the water from the railroad tracks to College Avenue. It is the applicant's
intention to channelize the creek and keep as many trees as they could on the
eastern side of the property. The railroad does not object to the applicant
filling in the property on the west side of the site. The State Highway
Department had not given an indication as to what they would permit on their
property on the east side of the site.
Member Larsen asked if the applicant would be willing to come back in total
with a plan for the site. Gefroh stated he would.
Member Larsen asked if the applicant wished to give guidelines for the design
of the pads. Gefroh stated it might be possible to give guidelines at final
for the design of the buildings on those pads.
Member Larsen asked what type of grades were present from Harmony along Mason
to College Avenue. Gefroh stated the grade was less than 2%.
Member Crews stated he was curious how the arborist had picked 25 out of 133
trees to be surveyed on the site. Erley responded he picked the trees while
he was doing the study on the site. Member Crews responded he was
disappointed that trees had not been picked at random. He also stated that
by selecting large trees, Erley could be assured that the vigor of the trees
would be questioned.
Planning & Zoning Od Minutes •
January 31, 1985
Page 9
Member Brown asked the life span of the existing trees on the site. Erley
stated the trees are in a stressed condition at the present time. There has
been no maintenance of the trees. A conservative guess is that 15-20 years
for the trees on the site would be an appropriate life expectancy. He did
not believe the trees were worth saving.
Member Simpson questioned whether the department store separation made sense.
Gefroh responded that it is important for a main entrance to be oriented to
the south of the project. He thinks the open space between the department
store and the rest of the site would be a benefit to the site and the breakup
is appropriate.
Member Simpson asked given the mass of the building, how did the architect
plan to make a smooth transition. Gefroh explained this item.
Member Brown asked if there were potential tenants for the east side of the
project. Gefroh stated there were none. Member Brown asked about tenants on
the west side of the project. LaSala stated typically Kroh Brothers will
have a major tenant before construction begins. The small shops will
probably be leased during construction.
Member Brown asked if the department store or grocery store would be built
first. LaSala stated they would both be developed at once.
Chairman Down asked specifically
furnishings store or a department
furnishing store "with departments".
if Kroh Brothers envisioned a home
store. LaSala stated it was a home
Member Brown asked how far the project is from the nearest shopping center.
Frank stated it is approximately 1 mile south of the shopping center on the
southwest corner of Horsetooth and College.
Chairman Dow stated he was struggling with the land use concerns. He
questioned what is the difference in a grocery store at this site and one on
North College, which the Planning and Zoning Board would be hearing later in
the meeting. Waido responded there are significant policy differences
between a shopping center on South College and North College. The policies
of the City are to encourage development to the north of the City. The North
College shopping center is specifically addressed in the policies of the City
of Fort Collins. He again stated staff questioned the home furnishing store
as meeting the criteria for development of a community size shopping center.
Staff also questioned the placement of grocery stores on South College
because they would tend to delay neighborhood shopping centers from
developing. Staff believes grocery stores on South College may be
short-lived. Staff wants grocery stores to be pedestrian oriented also and
the project does not have a grocery store which is pedestrian oriented.
Chairman Dow asked if the project is evaluated as a community shopping
center, does it meet the required number of points under the Land Development
Guidance System. Waido stated it does meet the required number of points as
a community size shopping center, but if it is evaluated as a neighborhood
shopping center, it does not meet those points. Frank emphasized the remarks
made by Waido.
Planning & Zoning Board lutes
January 31, 1985
Page 10
Sam Mutch, Planning Director, stated he wished to have the Planning and
Zoning Board decide from a policy standpoint whether the home furnishing
store met the criteria for the establishment of a community size shopping
center. The definition of a community shopping center was read. The
definition is:
"A cluster of retail and service establishments designed to serve
consumer demands from the community as a whole or a larger area.
The primary functional offering is at least one full line depart-
ment store. The center also includes associated support shops
which provide a variety of shopping goods including general merchan-
dise, apparel, home furnishings, as well as a variety of services,
and perhaps entertainment and recreational facilities".
Wood stated he did not profess expertise as a planner, but when considering
questions of land use, he deferred to the planners outlook. He did see full
line department stores in decline. What the Planning and Zoning Board is
looking for is a destination store for the entire community. The idea is
that the City wants neighborhood shopping centers, but the City does not want
them on College Avenue. The trees in Mail Creek are a species that are,
discouraged in Fort Collins. Staff was speaking of the non -consumptive use
of the property as if they owned it. "I submit that the design of the
buildings is not enough to deny the preliminary plan".
Member Georg stated he disagreed with Wood. He wanted to discuss the
consistency in the City policies. It is his belief that a home furnishings
store is an appropriate substitution for a department store, but is not a
department store in and of itself. He would not consider a final plan
approval without elevations on all buildings, including those buildings which
are proposed for the pads. He spoke on the setbacks on the home furnishing
store north facade. This facade was dull and must be addressed before the
applicant can hope to get final approval.
Member Georg moved to approve the preliminary plan per staff comments with
the stipulation that the final plan have elevations on all buildings and all
pads, final plan have a better landscape plan.
Member Gilfillan stated he would second this motion if Member Georg included
stipulation adding furnishing stores as meeting the criteria for meeting full
line department stores within the Land Development Guidance System. Member
Georg accepted the stipulation for the second.
Member Larsen stated he thought the project had a good design. Rather than a
strip center, the Planning and Zoning Board sees a well balanced plan. He
did not know how the Planning and Zoning Board could expect to see a "park"
in a shopping center. He does not feel the Planning and Zoning Board needs
to see the design of each one of the buildings.
Member Georg stated he did not feel the examples of architecture given by the
applicant were attractive.
Member Brown does not agree with the motion, specifically that the home
furnishing center be considered a department store under the Land Development
Planning & Zoning Od Minutes •
January 31, 1985
Page 11
Guidance System. She does not think the grocery store is an appropriate use
because of its location. She was paying attention about the trees and
believed there should be some practical point where there could be a
compromise situation on the creek. She stated that on the eastern side of
the project there needs to be a well integrated design and re-emphasized that
the developer should supply elevations for each of the buildings. She shares
Member Georg's concern about the setbacks. She feels this is a strip
development because of the design of the areas adjacent to South College
Avenue.
Member Crews stated he found it interesting that the arborist's report was
dated after the submission of information to the staff. The Planning and
Zoning Board had worked diligently to get additional trees on the Superior
Datsun site immediately north of this project, but was taking a different
stand on this project. A furnishing store does not substitute for a
department store within the definition of a community size shopping center
under the Land Development Guidance System. Grocery stores are inappropriate
on South College Avenue.
Member Simpson stated she agreed with Members Crews and Brown. This'
location is a gateway to the City of Fort Collins and must be attractive.
The project does not need to cover the creek and emphasized that the plan
originally approved for this site had more square feet of office and
commercial space, yet had maintained the integrity of the creek. She would
like to see some type of compromise situation, but the plan before the Board
was not that type of compromise.
Chairman Dow stated it was his tendency to support the motion. He does want
all the items mentioned by staff and Member Georg addressed at the final
review. He is concerned the City should work with the applicant to save Mail
Creek. He stated criterion #13 has been met. Criterion #14 within the Land
Development Guidance System has been met.
Member Gilfillan asked where a home furnishing store should go.
Member Brown stated it could be part of a commercial center, but it should
not be the anchor to the commercial center. The definition of a community
size shopping center clearly stated it should have a full line department
store as an anchor.
Member Crews agreed with Member Brown that a community size shopping center
should have a full line department store as an anchor.
Member Gilfillan stated the Board should give new direction to staff
concerning the definition of a community size shopping center. This lead to
a short discussion between Member Gilfillan and Member Brown and Mutch
concerning the definition of a community size shopping center.
The motion carried 4-3 with Members Brown, Crews and Simpson voting no;
Members Gilfillan, Georg, Larsen, and Chairman Dow voting yes.
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 12
#72-84 NORTH COLLEGE PLAZA - Preliminary
Joe Frank gave a summary of the project.
Bill McCaffrey, representing the applicant, gave a summary. He stated there
would be an internal frontage road exiting off Bristlecone and Willox. This
was coordinated with Transfort. The problem of the parking for the theatre
has been addressed.
Pat Delaney, architect, stated they will use standard materials. The
buildings will be cementitious concrete block, the roof will shield
mechanical equipment; awnings replaced flags; brick will be used where water
staining would most likely occur. All colors and design features are subject
to staff approval. They tried to design the back to be like the front.
Member Crews asked about handicap spaces. McCaffrey stated they are to
de-emphasize access to major people places.
Member Gilfillan asked the phasing plan for the project. McCaffrey respondcd
Phase 1 is the theatre, retail fast food and parking to major arterial.
Several mainline department stores have inquired into the area. The grocery
store has been committed.
Member Gilfillan stated he is cautious if the supermarket is not coming.
McCaffrey replied the grocery store has set a date to sign the lease and
plans to build in 1986.
Member Simpson asked the total build out time. McCaffrey stated it would be
6 months per phase, or a total of 18 months.
Frank stated staff found the plan acceptable, it meets the land use. It was
the first neighborhood meeting he attended where people clapped at the end.
He hopes construction will add to north College. Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Dow asked how traffic would be handled. McCaffrey stated it would
be a full service intersection with no traffic signal. In the beginning
Bristlecone will be the majority of the traffic; Willox will be taking most
of the traffic in several years. There will not be a major entrance to the
shopping center off College.
Chairman Dow asked about acceleration and deceleration lanes on College.
McCaffrey stated there would be these lanes.
Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, stated the left turns are separated. There
is a potential for conflict. By providing alternatives he does not feel
there will be significant problems.
Craig Morton, representative of North College Mobile Plaza, said there is a
definite need for a shopping center on North College.
Chairman Dow asked about a pedestrian facility. Frank responded there would
be a 7 foot meandering walk along College and through the parking areas.
Planning & Zoning BOd Minutes .
January 31, 1985
Page 13
Member Georg agrees with the City's goals of development in the north. He
does not feel the parking is adequately addressed; and the landscaping does
not shield the parking adequately. He moves to approve the project with
staff conditions. Member Simpson seconded.
Chairman Dow asked about the platted lots to the east. Frank stated they are
zoned I-L and would require administrative site plan review. The applicant
has also included a 12 foot buffer.
Member Brown agrees with Georg. She sees the need for development to the
north, but is concerned about the setbacks. She also feels the loading zone
is too skimpy and tight.
Member Larsen questioned if the buildings were too festive.
Member Gilfillan stated the elevations were too small. Delaney stated the
designs will be larger at final. The design will be in good taste; they want
a class design.
Member Georg stated he hopes the blue is less blue.
Chairman Dow shares concern for the setbacks.
The motion carried 7-0.
#25-81E BELAIR PUD - Preliminary
Joe Frank gave a summary of the project.
Ric Hatmann, representing the applicant, stated the applicant will work with
staff concerning staff recommendations.
Member Georg requested setbacks for (1) lot 10, building 2 from Harmony; (2)
lot 2, building 3 to property line; and (3) lot 1, building 2. Hatmann
responded (1) 40 feet; (2) 20 feet; and (3) 15 feet.
Member Georg asked about street improvements in relation to building permits.
Frank stated the off -site improvements will include building Harmony from the
railroad tracks to four lane.
Don Parson, engineer for the applicant, stated the Pineview development
agreement would expire in July, 1985, and the new development agreement would
tie to a specific date.
Member Georg stated he would like to make the improvements to be completed on
a specific date. Sam Mutch, Planning Director, replied the Board could do
that in the motion.
Frank stated it was a unique project. They are estate buildings with large
lots. The project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff
recommends approval with conditions. Hatmann stated the applicant is in
agreement with the conditions.
Planning & Zoning Board nutes
January 31, 1985
Page 14
Member Larsen requested
in the middle of an open
20-30% larger trees.
the trees be larger than normal since the project is
field. Member Brown agrees. She would like to see
Randy Bailey, resident of the Ridge, does not feel this project is consistent
with the surrounding neighborhood. The project has five times the density of
the Ridge and there is no reason for multi -family units.
Bob Shimo, the applicant, stated they were upgrading the project to make it
compatible with the Ridge. If this project is compared to the previously
approved project, this one is much better. They are trying to get away from
the apartment look.
Member Larsen moved for approval of the project with staff conditions; larger
trees; and larger street trees.
Member Brown seconded and stated she would like to comment the applicant on
the project.
Member Georg stated he liked the concept, but felt it was too tight. The
Board will need to look at the height and setbacks at final.
The motion carried 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Dow stated the Board had received a request from C.S.U. to
reconsider the denial and to table the project to a later date. Randy Larsen
and Don Crews excused themselves because of a conflict of interest. :Dow
asked the remainder of the Board if this request should be considered at all.
Ken Frazier stated the Board is "blazing" new fields. The Board is at an
adjourned meeting, the agenda from the January 28th meeting is still being
considered. He would have felt better if the request had been made at the
meeting on January 28, 1985.
Article 1/Section 1 states, it is the intent of the Board to have fair and
reasonable meetings.
Article 3/Section 1 states the chair has the ability to make the decision.
Are you going to set a precedent? Does this create any type of bias for or
against the applicant or neighborhood? Do you wish another neighborhood
meeting if you take positive action on the request? You need to do this by
motion.
Chairman Dow states the record should reflect that Bob Mooney, representing
the applicant, is present. What is the pleasure of the Board?
Member Gilfillan states he does not feel we should do this. The applicant
can appeal.
Planning & Zoning B*d Minutes
January 31, 1985
Page 15
Member Georg states he agrees with Gilfillan. We said tonight's meeting would
deal only with the three issues just concluded.
Member Brown agrees that tabling only takes place when no specific action
has been taken. We voted to deny the project, that should stand.
Member Simpson agrees the issue should be presented to the public.
Chairman Dow stated the consensus of the Board is clear, the request should
be denied, and ruled the request is denied.
The meeting stands adjourned (11:10p.m.)
0