HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/07/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
• May 7, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern,
Jim Klataskc, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd
Walker, and Alternate Joe Carroll.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman,
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Georgiana
Taylor.
Board Members present at the May 4, 1990 workscssion included: Chairman
Sanford Kern, Jim Klataskc, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Alternate
Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda.
The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the March 26, 1990 meeting;
Item 2 - Oakridge Master Plan Amendment, #13-82AV; Item 3 - Convenience
Center at Oakridge PUD - Preliminary, #13-82AW; Item 4 - Oakridge West
Master Plan Amendment, #23-87C; Item 5 - Supertots at Oakridge West, 2nd
Filing - Preliminary, #23-87D; Item 6 - Office Park at Oakridge 131h -
Preliminary, #13-82AX; Item 7 - Four Seasons 6th Filing PUD - Preliminary
and Final, #112-79L; Item 8 - Checker Auto at the Market Place PUD -
• Preliminary and Final, #21-89D; Item 10 - Raintree Village Shopping Center -
Administrative Change, #146-791; Item 11 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic
PUD - Final, #44-89B; Item 12 - Springbrook PUD - Preliminary and Final,
#7-90,A; Item 14 - Giant Video at Cimarron Plaza Administrative Change,
#78-81 F.
Member Carroll pulled Item #8, Checker Auto at the Market Place PUD from
the consent agenda.
Member Strom pulled Item #3, Convenience Center at Oakridge PUD and
Item #5, Supertots at Oakridge West, 2nd Filing from the consent agenda.
Jeff King, 4430 Moss Creek Drive pulled Item #7, Four Seasons 6th Filing
from the consent agenda.
Member Shepard moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, and 6.
Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
CONVENIENCE CENTER AT OAKRIDGE PUD - PRELIMINARY. #13-82AW
Mark
Smith,
5007 Saffron Court stated
his concern was the gradual transition
of McMurray
and Keenland into major
streets
as people use the convenience
center
and want
to cut over to Lemay
Avenue.
He stated he would like to
avoid
seeing
a light on Harmony Road
and that Keenland was a nice wide
street
and on
McMurray, that it was a
natural
way for people to'stop at the
convenience store,
hang a left and keep
going
through the residential area to
get to
Lcmay.
0
Mr. Shepard replied that McMurray Drive, Kcenland Drive, Oakridge Drive and
Rule Drive were all collector streets within the Oakridge Master Plan. He
stated the purpose of the collector streets was to get the neighborhood traffic
to the arterial street (Harmony and Lemay), so the collector streets will have
heavier traffic than the local streets and those streets were designed to carry
traffic throughout the whole 300 acre Master Plan.
Mr. Smith stated his concern was that people coming down Harmony Road
stopping at the convenience center and continuing down McMurray, crossing
Kcenland to get on Lemay to go to Loveland or where ever and that should
not be the purpose of those streets.
Mr. Shepard replied that was not the intention of the
streets.
Mr. Smith stated that he believed that that was what was going
to happen
within time because of the nice wide streets and very
few
stop signs.
Mr. Shepard asked if Mr. Smith was aware that
the
McMurray/Harmony
intersection was going to be signalized in the future.
Mr. Smith replied that he was not.
Mr. Smith asked if there was any way to avoid that.
Mr. Shepard replied no, it had been approved
by
the State
Highway
Department and the City of Fort Collins on
the
Harmony
Corridor
Transportation Plan.
Mr. Smith asked what purpose would the light serve.
Mr. Shepard replied it was an intersection of an arterial street and collector
street that carries sufficient volumes of traffic, not now but in the future, in
which case the traffic warrants will be met and the volume of traffic is such
that without a signal it would be an unsafe situation particularly for left turn
movements.
Mr. Smith asked if the left turn could be 1/4 mile at Lemay.
Mr. Shepard replied not with the anticipated traffic coming out of the
industrial park, and the employment uses based in the Oakridge Master Plan.
Mr. Smith commented on the amount of signals and that he hated to see
Harmony Road become a series of stop lights.
Mr. Shepard replied he understood his frustration and to brace himself for the
future. Harmony Road will have a series of lights because Harmony Road will
not be a high speed thoroughfare and the City is working with the State
Highway Department to make Harmony Road more of an arterial street rather
than a state highway.
Chairman Kern suggested that Mr. Smith get involved with the Harmony Road
Access Plan to voice his concerns.
-2-
• Mr. Shepard stated that it was the Harmony Road Corridor Plan that was
under debate right now in the Planning Department and it was in front of the
citizens right now for review. He encouraged him to come to the Planning
Department or call Linda Riplcy or himself and they could get him involved
in the process now that was a review procedure that has not yet gone for any
formal review.
Member Strom stated that in looking at the plan and the architectural design,
he thought he was very pleased with it. It was a little unusual, but unusually
interesting and generally very nice. He had one concern with it which was
something he had evolved to in convenience centers and gas stations. The plan
showed a bronze metal fascia on the canopy which did not seem to him
appropriate in relation to the rest of the materials used in the center. He
stated that the canopies over the gas station areas are generally the least
attractive and sometimes the most obtrusive features of some of these smaller
centers. He stated he would like to see them blended as much as possible with
the architecture of the center.
Membcr Strom stated he would like to add a condition we approve this with
the canopy materials to match the rest of the shopping center.
Mr. Shepard stated staff had no concern with the condition.
Mr. Frank Vaught, representative of Everitt Companies, stated they did not
have a problem with the condition. At this point the specific tenant for the
convenience store has not been identified and they would hold off on making
any final color considerations on the canopy fascia until final plans.
• Member Strom moved for approval of the convenience center with 2 conditions
shown in the staff report plus the 3rd condition that the canopy materials
match the color and materials of the rest of the center.
Member Burns seconded the motion.
Member Walker stated he could appreciate Mr. Smiths concerns with the traffic
situation and that it had to be recognized, as mentioned, that streets like
Keenland and McMurray arc collectors. Keenland is not functioning as a
collector so there was a certain level of expectation about the traffic flow on
that and that it was way below what it was designed for. The reality was
that as the whole area develops the streets will get a little more traffic and
that he encouraged Mr. Smith to follow up on the traffic study.
Motion was approved 7-0.
SUPERTOTS AT OAKRIDGE WEST, 2nd Filine. #23-871)
Member Strom stated his concern was circulation and how this particular use
would relate to other uses on the parcel.
Frank Vaught,
Vaught -Frye Architects
stated the
specific plan
for Supertots
addresses some
future
circulation that could extend
on to the south. Their idea
at this point
is that
Rule Drive as it
currently
exists on the
west side of
Lemay would
have a
curb cut on its
northern boundary that
would line up
• with the one into
the
health care area
that would
then connect
back through
-3-
as a parking circulation area into the parking lot. He stated there would be
access from Rule back into the daycare area and visa versa. He stated they
were combining the curb cut with the existing church.
Member Strom stated his concern was what other kind of uses would be there
and with the access point on Lemay Avenue, it might be pulling alot of traffic
right by a daycare. He was concerned with the relationship of traffic and
children.
Mr. Vaught replied that what they had looked at on a very conceptual basis,
was office type uses and would not anticipate that because of the type ul'
entrance into the church and the daycare. It would be attractive to circulate
through that parking lot back into the office area but at this point they had
reserved the potential for the two to connect and if the use would change and
would be more intense than an office, or a more compatible use was
found, there may not be a desire to connect them at that point.
Member O'Dell stated she had the same concern and would hope that at the
time the southern piece was developed and also the piece to the west and the
southwest, that it was really taken into consideration.
Member Strom moved for approval of Supertots at Oakridge West, 2nd Filing.
Member Klataske seconded the motion.
Member Strom commented that Staff and the Board keep an eye on the rest of
the property as it is developed to remember to take a look at the circulation
and the safety of the children in a daycare center and the process of any
approval after this.
Motion was approved 7-0.
F'Ol1R SEASONS 6TH FILING P 1D #112 79C
Mr. Jeff King, property owner, stated he had purchased property on Moss
Creek Drive and it was sold with the thought in mind that there would be a
storm drainage ditch located behind the property, basically a 50 ft. open space.
He stated they had met with Mr. Jones who represents the developer and staff
to discuss the plans of the drainage ditch and had no problems with that. He
stated since that meeting some things changed and the plat that is on file right
now indicates the ditch had been moved. His concerns were number one, he
felt as a property owner that the property was sold to him with the open
space in mind and he may have paid for it in the purchase of the property.
Number two was the concern that moving the ditch, there would still be some
water problems given the slope and the conditions on Moss Creek Drive. He
stated the action he was asking the Board to take was not to pass this item
but to allow time for discussion and negotiation with the developer and the
City to come to some resolution as to why this had changed all of a sudden
and to see if they could negotiate something contrary to what had been
proposed.
Sherry Albertson -Clark stated that she had conversed with Susan Doha Hayes,
the City's Storm Drainage Engineer who handled the project and has been
assigned to review all the Four Seasons area so she was very familiar with the
drainage basins. She stated Ms. Hayes' comments specifically regarding the
-4-
location drainage easement were that it was something essentially initiated by
• the developer, however, from the City's standpoint it does provide an improved
hydraulic situation over the originally approved easement.
Ms. Clark went over the proposed drainage easement and the previous plan
casement.
Ms. Clark stated in terms of the relocation of the drainage easement, it was
not something that the City asked to be relocated; however, in the review of
it, from a drainage standpoint they felt it does provide an improved situation.
She stated as for drainage for the entire area there had been a number of
concerns and problems experienced in the Four Seasons area. Again, Mrs.
Hayes' comment was this particular area was in a separate basin distinct from
the previous areas where they have had some drainage problems in the past
and because they are in a separate basin they require different types of
drainage calculations and volumes.
Mr. Mike Jones, representing Northern Engineering, stated that in 1985 the
original project was approved by the City as part of the Four Seasons, 5th
filing. At that time the drainage channel ran all the way to the east property
boundary and south along the backs of the now developed lots in the 5th
filing. The channel itself was mandated by the City as part of the Master
Drainage Plan. It's 50 foot wide and designed to carry 481 cubic feet per
second which was a substantial flow and passes most of it through the
subdivision on to other drainage improvements.
Mr. Jones stated that in the fall of 1989, Northern Engineering was retained to
bring the existing plans up to current City standards so they could be
• approved and construction could start this year. He stated when they started
work on this they had some telephone conversations with Bill Hansen and they
had a meeting with several of the neighbors that were backed up to the
channel, as to what it would be like, how it would impact them and how the
hydraulics would be handled. He stated once they got started they ran into
some problems in the drainage channel that needed to be addressed. The first
problem was the alignment. It had several sharp bends with small radius and
it was hydraulically inefficient and felt it was not as good a channel as could
be designed. The previous design also had a crossing right at the property at
Benthaven Court which had a box culvert to carry the flows through there.
Looking at the design of that box culvert, it was designed to let the water
from the 100 year storm pass over the top of the structure and flow into the
street where it would pond and then flow on over. He stated that the ponded
water with that design would back up into the intersection of Moss Creek and
Benthaven to a depth of 1/2 foot, possibly deeper and there would be a
possibility it would back up further to the east near the school site and flood
on over in an uncontrolled manner into the next basin.
•
Mr. Jones stated that they also discovered there was a grading problem as far
as the design of the original channel. The channel was designed with certain
elevations. The grading at the backs of the developed lots, which was the fifth
filing, were left higher than had been planned. He stated that in order to get
the depth down to the channel at the backs of the lots they would have to put
some kind of structural matter, possibly a retaining wall 2 to 4 feet high along
the backs of the lots. They felt that the retaining wall would be unattractive
and a possible safety concern for the people that live there.
-5-
Mr. JoueS Stated that they had discussed the problems with the City Staff and
the client and decided the best solution would be to realign the channel where
they could control the grades on either side of it and make it work. The
alignment uses the same design for the culvert crossing and it does overtop in
major flood events, but keeps the flows within the sixth filing. They do not
spread out into the intersection and the school was protected. He stated at the
time they made the change, they contacted Mr. Hansen and told him the
changes and the reasons and asked him to contact the neighbors and let them
know what they were doing.
Mr. Jones stated that since the plat needed to be revised for the new
alignment, the developer elected to add two new lots in there and the
alignment was not done to allow them to put two more lots in, but since they
were changing the alignment they decided to add the two lots.
Mr. Jones stated that the developer was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns
and does want to promote good relations if possible, but does not feel that
single family housing next to single family housing is an inappropriate use of
the land.
Mr. Jones stated as far as the ground water problems, he understood that in
the next basin to the east there have been some with a different pond, and
this flow did not reach that basin and was not part of the issue. He stated
there was a ditch flow that the City uses and would be a concrete channel in
the bottom of it that will carry the irrigation flow so it will have less
infiltration going into the ground, less water going into the ground water.
Mr. Bill Hansen, 4013 Moss Creek Drive stated he was the Mr. Hansen Mr.
Jones was referring to. He stated he was a professional hydrologist by trade
and the reason this originally came up was because of some of his professional
background. He stated he was observing behind his house and it was his
opinion that the present drainage channel had some problems so he contacted
Mr. Jones and was trying to work with them so some of the problems could be
resolved. He stated basically he thought Mr. Jones was correct in stating that
the alignment in the original sixth filing probably had some problems partly
because of the grade left by the contractors. He thought the major difference
between what they were proposing now and what the • original sixth filing
would have constituted was a cost figure. He stated that you have the
difference between a box culvert and a pipe culvert and would be significantly
different in cost. It was his feeling that if the drainage channel would be
moved, it would be essentially a taking of a property value that they
invested as property owners along that abutment to the sixth filing. He stated
that Jeff King and himself checked the sixth filing to make sure that the
storm drainage easement was planned when they purchased their properties. He
suggested that the board not pass the issue and allow them to deal with
Northern Engineering and Wheeler Development to negotiate a resolution. They
had several ideas in mind and would like to discuss them with the developer.
Mr. Gary Keegan, 4037 Moss Creek Drive, stated he purchased his lot as a
small lot and has the drainage to the south and the easement was proposed to
the west. He stated that in his decision to buy the lot they had taken this into
account. Because of the small lot they felt the openness with the drainage
ditch would add to the value of their house. He stated that a single family
home would not cause that much problem behind them but probably along with
that someone would put up a fence and it would make their lot that much
Ell
E
smaller v.s. the 50 ft. ditch.
• Mr. Keegan asked that if they went ahead with the proposal, would they go in
sections, or will they put all the streets in at once? Will they be required to
do all the ditch work, and the final drainage work from the start or will they
just be able to do parts of it? They have been fighting drainage since 1985
and also have been fighting alot of weeds and weed control because nothing
had been done as far as finished grade.
Chairman Kern asked Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman to address the issue
of taking of property values in cases like this.
Mr. Eckman stated there was not a legal concern with it. From his perspective,
the property was unplatted presently, or the original plat has expired and the
applicant is at liberty to apply for a new plat. The City is at liberty to
approve it or reject it based upon the Land Development Guidance System. He
stated that as long as there was no rendering of value of adjacent property he
did not think the board needed to concern itself with regard to reduction in
value of property and they should be guided by the criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System as to whether this proposal would fit with the
criteria and compatibility and all the other criteria of the Guidance System.
Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark to speak on the phases of development
according to streets and drainage.
Ms. Clark stated that typically before building permits are issued the street
system would need to be in to the extent of being able to support fire and
•
other emergency service vehicles. In all cases the developers go ahead and
build a full street system in order to accommodate access for any emergency
service vehicles during construction. She referred to City Engineer Mike
Herzig for anything about timing in the development agreement on the relation
of the drainage improvements, since it was a concern that Mr. Kcgan expressed.
Mike Herzig, City Engineer, stated that the drainage improvements would be
constructed at one time and that the City was having the Developer construct
those improvements since they were regional improvements so it would not be
piece mcaled like the streets could be.
Member Carroll asked about the change in the culvert from a box culvert
originally to a different configuration of culvert in the present location. It
seemed to be a little bit more of a change than originally saw as opposed to
moving the easement all together.
Mike Jones, consulting engineer replied that it was the developer's option to
use what ever kind of structure that they see fit in there. Hydraulically, this
would function exactly the same as the box culvert would have worked.
Member Klataske asked if there was a neighborhood meeting on this project.
Ms. Clark replied no there was not, on the basis that one, this previously had a
plan approved, and two that it was single family lots that are consistent and
compatible in size with what was in the area and what is presently existing.
Member Burns moved for approval of Item 07, Four Seasons, Sixth Filing, both
.
for preliminary and final.
-7-
Member Walker seconded the Motion.
Member Walker commented that as the attorney had pointed out that we were
dealing with something that was not in the range of what we needed to be
concerned about. It sounded to him as though it was a civil matter and if the
property owners feel as though they were misrepresented purchasing their
property, then that would seem to be a civil court case between them and the
developer. He stated as far as our criteria, the Land Development Guidance
System, what they had before them seemed to work so he would suggest that if
they had an issue here it was beyond the nature of the type of things the
Board reviews.
Member O'Dcll cited All Development Criteria number 28 in the Land
Development Guidance System concerning the arrangement of the site plan in
favorable relationship to the existing natural topography, in specifically, the
height of the sites that were on the west side of the proposed development.
She stated that it sounded as though the new alignment of the new drainage
way would be more advantageous to making a smooth transition between the
two developments and therefore she thought it was reasonable and passed all
the criteria in the Land Development Guidance System.
Member Burns stated the developer's engineer gave some good reasons and
supported the plan as proposed.
The Motion was approved 7-0.
CHECKER AUTO AT THE MARKET PLACE PUD - #21-89D.
Member Carroll stated that this was presented with the sign as only a
conceptual rendition of what the final could or may be.
Member Carroll moved that the final design of the sign as a condition of
approval be presented to staff for administrative approval.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Mr. Shepard stated that staff had no objection to the condition.
Motion was approved 7-0.
RAINTREE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER - ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE,
#146-791
Sherry Albertson -Clark stated this was a request for recommendation regarding
the administrative change for site lighting at the Raintree Village Shopping
Center, which was located at the northwest corner of Shields Street and Drake
Road. She stated that there had been an administrative change that was
previously submitted and denied by staff several months ago. This was a new
request submitted by the applicant, the changes essentially consisted of deletion
of lighting on the reader board at the site identification sign located close to
the intersection of Drake and Shields, installation of glare screens and glare
shields as well as some landscaping to further screen the ground mounted light
fixtures and repositioning of at least one of the fixtures.
-8-
Ms. Clark stated ,all was recommending approval of the administrative
• change, on the basis that the concerns about glare and light spillage had been
addressed by the applicant; however, staff was asking for a recommendation
from the board prior to staff taking any action on the request.
Mr. Todd Lund, Foxfire Property Management representing Raintrce Shopping
Center, presented to the board a 679 signature petition stating that they
support the tree lighting at raintree shopping and urge the Planning and
Zoning Board to allow the amendment to the PUD. Also, presented a letter
from the employees of Western Sizzlin' stating that turning off the lights
presented a hazardous condition that was a threat to their safety and that of
their customers. Also presented was a letter addressed to Mr. Lund from the
manager of Western Sizzlin' stating that in addition to the safety hazard were
comments from the public that appears that they were closed and this
adversely affected their business.
Mr. Lund stated that they were pleading with the board to look at the proposal
objectively, not one person to his knowledge had complained to the board or
the City in regards to the lighting which does not affect anything in an
adverse way. He stated that they had pulled the necessary permits and the
lighting specialist designed the lighting, installed the lights with tremendous
care, not to effect traffic, addressed the concerns of the parking lot. They did
a sample light test to determine what kind of light would work and what
amount of wattage could be used beforehand and since after. They had asked
the board specifically why they had been denied, with no written response.
There was some comment about it, but it had not been pinned down to one
specific thing. They had cooperated with the board and tried to work on a
modification that could be worked out to the system that was acceptable. He
• stated all of this only to be denied and the plug pulled on the trees. In
looking at the lights from all directions, they could prove that there was not
a glare problem. They had made the necessary changes and they felt that glare
was not in existence. Shields and Drake was the eighth busiest intersection in
Fort Collins for traffic counts and he hardly believed that it was a residential
neighborhood. The lighting was aesthically pleasing and did solve a lack of
light problem within the lot. It is not an eyesore like Rolland Moore Park and
the new Veteran's Memorial.
Mr. Lund urged the board to be unbiased and to look at this project
objectively. Hundreds of people that he had talked to, that had called, that
had addressed the City and have sent letters, and not one of them has been
negative. They would like to work with the board and the City and have
given them every opportunity to give them suggestions or alternatives. They
have designed the lighting the best way possible. tic and countless others see
that it is being made more of than it really was. They were urging them to
pass the amendment or give some kind of recommendation to change it so it
would be acceptable.
Mr. Tim Stein of Accurate Sign Maintenance showed slides of areas around the
location. Some other places within the City that they found glare that was
equal to or greater than Raintree (Vetern's Memorial, Rolland Moore Park,
Cimarron Plaza), and also slides of the lighted trees.
Mr. Stein stated that since they installed the lighting they had done a lot of
research on it and had really worked to try to eliminate glare, and reduce or
• eliminate light spillage.
0
Mr. Stein stated that on the lighting study he did, it was done over a period
of two nights so it would be accurate and not painted in any way. He stated
he would turn on the lights and walk the sidewalks taking the levels and the
next night would come back and took the same levels with the lights off.
Mr. Stein stated he had been out on I-25 approximately three or four miles
north of the A-B Brewery. At night the most visible things on the Fort Collins
skyline were Rolland Moore Sports Lighting, Martinez Park Sports Lighting,
Home Federal and First Interstate Bank Building. They had talked about the
fact that maybe they were trying to use the trees as a sign. The original
concept of the lighting to light the trees was to use a certain amount of
reflectivity off the leaves of the trees and the snow to give a soft illumination
in the parking lot. That was the only thing they had in mind, they were not
trying to turn it into a sign. If they were, they would have put a flag pole
up and put a couple of lights on it. Case in point, First Interstate Tower has
four 1,000 watt fixtures directed up at the Tower at night.
Mr. Stein stated they addressed energy efficiency. The most energy efficient
lamp they could use right now is a high pressure sodium lamp. Because of its
characteristic gold color it was not suited for this type of lighting and they
would have loved to use it for its energy efficiency. Green trees and gold
light do not go together and that is why the City has used metal halide
lighting at Rolland Moore Park.
Mr. Stein stated they had done a energy study. If they looked at this location
the same as Rolland Moore Park and figure the locations operate 4 hours a
night seven days a week, and consider an energy cost of 8 cents a kilowatt
hour, and the energy usage, calculated with adding in the total of the lamp
wattage and ballast wattage to come up with a proper energy usage. Per day
at Raintree Village they use 30.24 kilowatts of electricity, Rolland Moore Park
uses 933. In dollars and cents that is $2.40 to light Raintree lights per night
and 74.00 for Rolland Moore Park. He looked at the lighting at Rolland
Moore Park and decided it only operates 4 months out of the year and one
light bill for one summer is $8.958.00. That would power the lighting at
Raintree for 10 years.
Public safety, they have talked to Sherry about the glare problems and one of
the problems he had dealing with glare is they do not seem to have a firm set
of rules in Ft. Collins in which to deal with. They are looking at this
location because it is a PUD, and he felt it has been put under a microscope.
He could drive through Ft. Collins and find location after location with more
glare. Safety end of if as he sees it, if a location creates excessive glare,
excessive light spillage then it should be addressed regardless of whether its a
PUD or any other type of development. It had become very apparent to him
and others since they had started to go through this that the largest offender
in light spillage and glare is the City itself. If you consider that, and the
Board turns down the lighting at Raintree Village, the Board is going to send
a message to the people of the City of Fort Collins do as do as I say, not as I
do.
Chairman Kern asked Mr. Stein in the slides that he showed, there appeared to
be only lighting of the upper portion of the tree. He saw no lights on the
base of the tree and yet when he drove by a couple times, the base of the
trees near the street certainly were strongly lighted. How did that happen?
-10-
Mr. Stein replied it was his photography, and that it would only be right that
• he took the best shots he could.
Member Walker stated that one of the comments that he had made was that it
enhances Ft. Collins and he would like to know, since they were dealing with
subjectivity, if he would elaborate on that.
Mr. Stein replied it was comments that people have made that have seen it and
like it and they say it is one of the best things that has happened around
here.
Member Shepard asked what hours would they plan to have the lights on if
they were to be allowed.
Mr. Lund
replied they presently have the
lights on from 5:00 to
11:00 p.m.,
until most
of the businesses close. They
could modify that but
11:00 is a
reasonable
hour although they would accept
whatever the Board felt
necessary.
Member O'Dell asked if that would be changed as it stays light later in the
day.
Mr. Lund stated that Tim was hired on as a maintenance person that would
review the lighting on the entire lot on a weekly basis and the light would
change from season to season to reflect daylight savings time, winter hours and
summer hours.
Member Burns asked if they would be willing to change some of the lighting
• like only lighting one clump of trees instead of two clumps of trees and they
had stated they would be willing to change the hours of the lighting if the
board requested.
•
Mr. Lund stated they would, the way they went about designing the whole
project was there are two trees located just cast of Western Sizzlin' that they
did want to go ahead and light. Presently they had taken that fixture and
moved it to the north as to not create any light spillage or looking at the light
going cast on Drake Road. Basically they had eliminated the two trees to the
east of Western Sizzlin', only lighting the large clump of trees.
Mrs. Jane Davis, 2500 S. Shields stated she lives directly across the street from
Raintrec Village and that she had no objection to the light except she would
like to ask for a shield around the base. It had destroyed her southwest
bedroom. The light shines directly into that part of her house and also her
living room. She had no choice in the evening except to keep her draperies
drawn. She thinks the trees are beautiful and she is not saying that it should
be put out, but she would like the consideration that the base is covered or
shielded so she does no have to look at the spotlight. She said there was
plenty of light and did not agree with the parking lot being unsafe. She had
lived out there for 35 years and she feels perfectly safe out there. She can
walk to the convenience store at 2:00 am if she feels like it and there is more
than enough light. She was just complaining about the spot light that was
directed into her bedroom window and her living room window.
-11-
Member Shepard asked Mrs. Davis if it was the ground mounted lights or the
lights on the pole that shine into her window.
Mrs. Davis replied it was the ground mounted.
Mrs. Margaret Fillmore, 2337 S. Shields, stated that the trees were beautiful but
what she was concerned with was the overall lighting. That particular block
was getting alot of lights in it with the signage from the Burger King, with
the anticipated AMOCO situation going in and was really concerned about the
overall amount of light and signage that is going in that block. she wonders
with all the lights that are coming if people will even notice the trees and
that her concern was the lighting on the block now and in the future. She
agreed with Mr. Kern also that the pictures did not show the base of the trees.
If you drive down Shields it is much brighter than the picture show.
Mrs. June Beers, 1036 Montview, stated she did write a letter to the Editor
about the lights that were shining on the trees because they were so beautiful
and it was the history of the trees that were planted the year she went to the
Pleasant View School, 1939-40. There were eight trees planted and they saved
the eight trees. Coming home west on Drake, she saw the trees and they were
so beautiful and she needed to thank the people that lit the trees. She had no
problem with the lighting down further on because at that time you should be
watching where you are driving to the stop light and should not be looking at
things at the side. She hopes this can be resolved and it is true that there are
much more important things to be discussing and talking about. She thought
there are so many ugly things in the world and that when we could find
something that was beautiful or pretty we should dwell on that a little more
and the trees are nice.
Member Walker asked Ms. Clark about the issue of the City's way of lighting
things and the example it sets. Could she comment on what the City's plan
for glare reduction at a place like Rolland Moore was? Also, the issue of light
spillage on the areas that are not PUD's and did the City have any
jurisdiction.
Ms. Clark replied that she was not aware of any plan for the City to reduce
the amount of glare and light spillage at softball fields. In the newer parks
such as Rolland Moore the planning has had an opportunity to review
somewhat the site design layout of the parks, however, typically we do not
evaluate or had not been asked to evaluate the amount of light that was
proposed in those areas. In the case of softball fields, the standards that arc
used arc standards that are used nationally to light softball diamonds for that
use. In terms of dealing with other uses and existing light and glare problems,
if a use is existing as a "use by right" in other words supported and permitted
by existing zoning, the City does not have any ability to require any changes
to the lighting or any ability to review any of the lighting prior to
installation. Only in the case of a PUD do we have the ability to look at
things such as lighting and signage. Otherwise in terms of lighting, there are
no specific requirements according to City Code in terms of the amount of
lights that need to be provided or maximum that could be used.
Member Shepard asked Mr. Stein about what could be done about the light that
bothers Mrs. Davis.
-12-
Mr. Stein replied he would be glad to go to Mrs. Davis' house and find out
• what fixture it is and he would take care of it for her.
Member Strom asked if he was correct in his interpretation that it reduced the
total light output by approximately 15% with screens and did that mean they
were using the same amount of energy or were they just blocking the light
that comes out of the fixture.
Mr. Stein replied that they were blocking the light before it gets out of the
fixture, and it was the same amount of energy.
Member Shepard asked that their staff memo stated that this was a request for
a recommendation. Was the board recommending something about the lights or
were they making a decision.
Ms. Clark stated that they were initially asking for a recommendation from the
board to staff for them to make a final decision on the administrative change;
however, given the amount of time the board has spent on the project it would
be appropriate for the board to make the decision tonight regarding the
request.
Member Klataske thought they were pretty trees and they had been around a
long time and had the City Forester looked at them and had he commented on
them as far as the effect the light might have on the trees and the growing
cycle if any.
Mr. Clark replied no they had not requested any information from the City
Forester. He had evaluated the trees several years ago when the Raintree
• Center was first proposed and with the Shields widening which took out a
number of mature trees in that area. He specifically said we needed to retain
those trees. There was some discussion with a landscape architect in Ft.
Collins who raised that as a potential issue. The fact that the amount of light
might have the potential to confuse the trees as to when to transform and
produce foliage.
Member Carroll stated he took the time to view the light on the trees and
noticed no appreciable difference between the two times and did not notice
any change. He stated the reader board had been turned off and his approach
was in the parking lot. The criticism was leveled perhaps at the board and
taken in a cavalier manner and thought that most people had gone out there
and walked around in the parking lot and did not see any difference from the
first time. This seemed to be an application for reconsideration to the board.
It seemed to him as far as the lights in the parking lot at Western Sizzlin',
that these were not the normal lights that we see throughout the City lighting
parking lots. In his opinion it had not been approached that if regular
security parking lights were brought in, that the board would look kindly at
them. He cited criteria number 10, "security lighting". He added it certainly
lights the parking lot and the trees, but thinks there was other lighting that
would light the parking lot and would answer the concerns of the employees at
Western Sizzlin'.
Member Carroll continued, say that approaching the intersection from the north
and from the east, it appears to be very well lighted with street lights, with
• the lights from Cimarron and it was a well lighted intersection. The
-13-
intersection itself appears to be very well lighted. He came across the parking
lot from the north from the area of Burger King and did pick up the pole
mounted lights in his eyes. Admittedly he did not wreck his car but it was
pretty clear in lighting the interior trees there was going to be light spillage in
the parking lot. That was something they needed to consider in criteria 22,
and also did cause some shadows in the parking lot, criteria 30. He did not
believe that as far as Rolland Moore goes that the Board had the opportunity
to review Parks and Recreation lighting like at the Veterans Memorial or
Rolland Moore. He suspects Rolland Moore serves a purpose of softball and
hardball standards that they adopt throughout the country and he did not
think they should go to something else that was worse throughout the City,
whether it had been approved in the past or not. He cited criteria number 2,
under neighborhood character, again they still have one side of the street, and
maybe the lights could be structured so they did not impede upon the area.
Under criteria 24, exterior lighting, if board members had been out there they
would notice that the area is extremely well lit from street lights and the
s h o p p i n g c e n t e r l i g h t s.
Member O'Dell stated she agreed with Mr. Carroll on the account of the
discussion of Rolland Moore was irrelevant. She did not notice the glare on
the outlying streets, on Shields or Drake and thought the lights had been well
shielded. She stated the parking lot looks good and did not notice any shadows
and a matter of fact it was a nice feeling, an even feeling of light reflecting
from the trees that was good. She stated she came to a different conclusion
than Mr. Carroll because she voted against it the last time. Mostly she thought
it was important to preserve the integrity of our system and to be cautious
about allowing this in this type of situation and then maybe not having an
opportunity to not allow it some where else.
Member O'Dell moved for approval with the condition on the site plan that if
any of the trees were to die then the lights would be turned off.
Member O'Dell stated that the trees did look good and it was acceptable to her
and was concerned about the overall lighting in the area, but more concerned
with the signage than the trees.
Member Burns seconded the motion.
Member Shepard stated that she would like to add a condition that they work
to reduce the glare for Mrs. Davis' particular situation.
Member O'Dell and Burns stated that was fine.
Ms. Clark asked the board if they would like any specifics in terms of hours
of operation of the lighting.
Member O'Dell stated she was satisfied that if they were turned on at an
appropriate time and turned off by I1:00 p.m. that would be acceptable.
Member Walker stated that Rolland Moore was there for a specific purpose and
thought the argument was not a valid one. To try and solve a parking lot
problem, which is the only legitimate problem that he had heard, spotlighting
trees was a roundabout way to justify the lights and felt that if there was a
security lighting problem in the parking lot there were more appropriate ways
to light the parking lot. In terms of the overall lighting on the corner, we
-14-
must recognize between the lighted trees and the Burger King there will be an
• AMOCO station that will add light and there was a pad across the way at
Cimarron that has not been built that will add lights. The Master Plan for
the northeast corner which is part of the Center for Advanced Technology
dictates some sort of commercial/retail type operation, more lights, so he
thought they were well lit and will be well lit. He believed LDGS criteria
#24 relating to exterior lighting, had not been satisfied to my consideration
and therefore felt the lights are inappropriate. If there was as much public
sentiment as the petitions indicated then maybe the whole City policy on
lighting should be changed.
Member Strom stated he still felt there a conflict with the standards of the
LDGS including criteria 22 and 24 dealing with glare and light and item 28
dealing with site plan relationships and also item 29, energy usage. He also
had concerns about the statement this made for future requests for lighting of
various things including trees and who knows what else. In addition, it was
his impression that this was effectively a large sign in the sense that it
attracts attention from a great distance to a commercial facility. He agreed
that the ball parks in the City put off an extremely high amount of light and
glare and, would hope some day they will figure out a way to do it better, but
it was not in the purview of the board and was not a valid comparison. In
going back to visit the site this month there did not seem to be subsequent
changes made and thought what ever effect there was, was very difficult to
discern and would not be able to support the motion.
Member Shepard stated she was supporting the motion, stating we could handle
future requests and not be inconsistent on case by case basis. What impact it
• was having on the area as was pointed out it was the eighth busiest
intersection in the City and would guess it was the eighth most lit just judging
from what it looks like at night. She stated that the way they could address
it in the future was to maintain some perspective on interest in existing
natural features. That was different than a sign and someone who wanted to
direct a similar light to a building did not have a strong case. She thought
the lights were attractive and it was nice for a change highlighting a feature
and adding some interest to what was an otherwise over lit intersection. It
added some soft lighting and greatly improves the intersection.
Member Klataske stated it was a greatly over lit intersection and to serve no
purpose other than to add additional advertising, bring attention to a
commercial corner. The lighting was inappropriate. He stated if it was for
security there was a more appropriate way to do it, down directed lighting
next to Western Sizzlin'. He stated they used energy in an inappropriate way.
The glare was still a problem and the neighborhood characteristics, the
compatibility, citing criteria 2, 28, and 29.
Chairman Kern stated he would oppose the motion thinking oppositely to the
way some people have expressed, namely that there was a way of treating this
on a case by case basis. He thought that when there was an item that was
visible from one mile away we did have a sign and we have to be prepared if
they pass this to give similar consideration to other competitors who may want
signs, structures, flags whatever lighted. He did not think they could make a
special case for this one issue, otherwise there would be legal problems. As
for the idea of use by right, this was the reason they had PUD's so we can
• grant something to the Developer and get something back, and in this case
-15-
better planning, He agreed there would be better methods of handling the dark
conditions. It had been a very consistent policy of the City to have inward
and downward directed lighting to address the needs. Additionally, he found
in speaking with the neighbors in the area that as much as they tell him "I
hope you are going to keep the trees lighted and by the way I found the glare
pretty terrible whenever they ran by there". He objected to the slides that
were taken that just blocked out the very bright lights on the base of the tree
and thought that reflection from the tree to light an area was inappropriate.
Additionally, while the summer reflectivity off the leaves was going to be
small, relying on reflectivity off of snow was a straight way of getting glare.
He stated that the light levels were incompatible with the surrounding and
proposed development in the area and would be opposing.
Motion for approval was denied 4-3 with members Shepard, Burns and O'Dell
voting for the motion.
SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - Final. M44-11913
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff Report recommending approval.
Mr. Don Richmond, Richmond Associates Architects and Planners, stated the
final plans were in agreement with the Master Plan approval. The only
concern that did come up was neighbors to the west about potential noise.
Dr. Bill Musslcwhite, owner of Northshore • Animal Hospital, stated that the
clinic would be much larger than the one in Loveland. They tried to design it
to fit into a residential area, added extra insulation for sound proofing, made
the facility appear aesthicaliy pleasing as possible and were hoping the extra
efforts would be noticed by the board.
Michael Ricker, 1108 Hepplewhite Court, stated his concerns were the noise
conditions the facility would bring into the neighborhood and concerns about
the sanitation. He would like to know the number of animals the doctor
planned on boarding on the premises. He stated the terrain of the property sits
upon a hill and slopes down and they sit at the base of it, there were a
number of cottonwood trees behind them and would this project be taking the
trees out and whether this was compatible to the type of homes in the
neighborhood.
Mark Sholtize, lives in the Applewood Estates area stated he drives Shields
everyday and was concerned about the safety issue. The clinic would be
approached from the south of a steep hill along what was now a fast road at
45 miles per hour. He did not think that people approaching from the south
would have adequate time to react to people at the crest of the hill turning
into the clinic. He was concerned about it being an accident waiting to
happen if there was any significant amount of traffic there. He stated it was
currently zoned for a low density residential which would not mean as much
traffic turning into a residential area and this was a high density commercial
use for that kind of zoning.
Chuck Seastone, Loveland, stated he came on behalf of the clinic and that it
was an instant replay only 10 years later. Being a neighbor of the clinic in
Loveland he admittedly opposed the clinic and feels foolish about it now. As
things turned out he could certainly understand the concerns of noise and
sanitation as well as how it would blend into the neighborhood. He did not
16-
know about how the clinic would aesthically fit into the neighborhood but the
• noise problems and sanitation issues are totally non existent. His house was
situated within 200 feet easily of the Loveland Clinic and there had never
been a problem with noise or odor pollution.
Jcrry Steib, direct neighbor of Dr. Musslewhite in Loveland, was concerned
when the proposal came into the Loveland area but as time went on the clinic
did not add to any pollution at all of noise or odor. It was well kept, and as
a neighbor they consider them to be one of the best in an area like it. They
appreciate what he had done for them and had always enjoyed working with
him.
Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark to address some of the issues raised relating to
the number of animals, the number of cars anticipated at the site and the
cottonwoods located on the property.
Ms. Clark replied in terms of the animals, the city staff's review primarily
focused on the external aspects of the site design and, land use. They did not
look closely, or are not charged with looking at interior space. The big
concern with an animal hospital was to make sure there would be no outside
associated activities, in other words, no outside animal runs or shelters located
outside of the structure. It was the experience when you get into that
situation you do have the potential to experience as an adjacent property
owner, problems with barking dogs. When the activity is confined to the
inside of the building they were not concerned with numbers of animals. At
the time of the preliminary plan review, they did have a traffic impact study
that was prepared and did have an expected number of employees of 4
• maximum and in terms of the amount of business, a total of 8 parking spaces
for customers bringing pets. From a planning and transportation perspective,
this kind of land use was not a high intensity traffic generator. The trees on
the site would remain and if there were any future development of the area,
staff would be looking at existing vegetation being retained. The western
portion of the site has been identified as an area that was environmentally
sensitive so the City does have concerns on how the area develops.
Member O'Dell asked what was planned across the street in the Clarendon Hills
area and will it continue to be single family residences and will any of the
streets ever connect out to Shields.
Ms. Clark replied the area
to the cast in Clarendon Hills is
planned for a
church location and the street pattern
shows the streets that
would connect
with Shields, Hilldale and
Clarendon
Hills Drive. To her knowledge those
would be the only access
to Shields
Street. Everything else,
including the
church would have to access
off of the
internal streets.
Member Shepard asked what was proposed for the western portion of the
Master Plan.
Ms. Clark replied that when the board reviewed and approved the Master Plan
last fall, it had 9 single family homes and they were planned for lots that
were somewhat smaller that, the existing lots. They have been talking with the
applicant and had already had a neighborhood meeting several months ago to
discuss a proposal to develop portions of the western property. At that time
• the lot sizes had been increased somewhat and any plans in the future will go
17-
back to the neighborhood for their input. The proposal would have single
family lots consistent in size with what the Ridge has.
Member Shepard moved for approval of the South Shields Vet Clinic PUD
Final.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Carroll stated one of the items they had to take into consideration in
the All Development Criteria was social compatibility and would assure the
neighborhood that the development in The Ridge was one of the things that
staff and the Board considered. He pointed out that this particular final was
only for the clinic in the very northeast tract and did not touch any of the
lots in The Ridge. Therefore he did not see the contact between the vet clinic
and the lots in The Ridge. Secondly, would like to assure the neighbors that
when the plat comes in for the western section of the lot, criteria I would be
looked at a great deal and thinks the other thing the board considered was
noise. This was not a kennel but a clinic and the animals would be enclosed
within walls. The doctor had asked for outside kennels or caging, staff would
have taken a much different look at it.
Member Strom stated if he felt the neighbors would have a noise problem he
would not support it and thinks the location and the construction and the fact
that this is an interior only facility should be more than enough protection.
Chairman Kern stated that he agreed with the statements made by the Board
and he thinks that Shields Street is a relatively high traffic area. This serves
as an adequate buffer to the proposed future development.
Motion for approval passed 7-0.
SPRINGBROOK PUD - Preliminary and Final #7 40A
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending approval with the
condition that all drainage issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the Storm
Drainage Department prior to staff filing final plans.
Dick Rutherford from Stewart
and
Associates stated they had answered their
major concerns from last month
by
eliminating three single
family residences
and increasing the depths of the
lots
that were backing up to
Drake Road.
Member Walker commended the applicant for the change and appreciated the
fact that they heard what the Board had to say and modified the plan
appropriately.
Member Burns moved for approval of Preliminary and Final of Springbrook
PUD with the Staff condition.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell stated that it was a much improved plan and it worked well.
Motion was approved 7-0.
18-
GIANT VIDEO AT CIMARRON PLAZA ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE
• #7 -81F
Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval.
Mr. Donald Slack, architect and planner for Cimarron Plaza and Arrowstone
Development stated they appreciated the opportunity to come back, obviously
the pending approval of the drive-thru facility was of importance to them and
the magnitude of importance that they felt it appropriate to take a look at the
comments that were made in the previous hearings and to try to bring about a
change in revision to the proposal that would allow the Board to approve the
submittal tonight.
Mr. Slack stated that Arrowstone asked them to get involved in order to make
the most positive statement they could about their sincerity in trying to address
these concerns. He stated they had met with staff and gone to the site with
the staff letter in hand based on the previous comments to see if they could
address them and come up with a plan that would meet the Board's
satisfaction.
Mr. Slack stressed that the applicant believed with this plan, that they had met
the concerns and they are open to hear any other concerns the Board had to
improve the plan in order to move forward with an approval.
Mr. Slack went over the plan and the specifics that had been done to address
the concerns of the past.
• Mr. Slack stated the major concern, as they understood was two -fold, first
concern was the order board, and that they had been eliminated all together.
He stated the drive-thru was the critical aspect of the operation, providing
additional service to their customers, so it was that they were bringing before
the board tonight.
•
Mr. Slack stated that they had created berating on the south and southeast
corner of the drive-thru as well as additional berming on the eastern side at
Shields. They had created the berm on the eastern side by way of a 2 ft..
high curb adjacent to the east edge of the drive-thru to create a hill side
effect so that from all views, both south and north bound on Shields, the drive
thru is hidden. There was no asphalt to be seen. He stated that one of the
comments by the Board was enhancement of the streetscape and loss of
landscaped area. They had taken the philosophy to a certain extent along
Shields that out of sight, out of mind, so they had hidden the drive thru so
you could not see it and had done so with the use of berms and shrubs. They
had also eliminated two parking spaces at the very northeastern corner of the
facility and in that location had added 150 s.f. of sodded, landscaped area and
three additional pine trees to shield the headlights from anyone sitting in the
drive thru facing north at night from shining in the eyes of the oncoming
traffic to the south. They had added five additional dogwood shrubs along
the eastern edge to close the gap of the existing landscaping that was there
now and added three additional dogwoods at the corner to try to carry the
theme of the dogwoods existing to the south throughout the street edge along
Shields and bring the color all the way along. He stated they had replaced the
existing evergreen plant materials and put it on the eastern edge of the drive
thru on top of the berm.
-19-
He stated from a pedestrian view point, clearly the drive-thru crosses the
pedestrian access points in a couple of places: one in the exit and one in the
entrance of the drive-thru. In both cases they had created a patterned
concrete crosswalk to give visual definition to both the pedestrian and the
motorist and a texture for the motorist to be aware that it was in fact a
pedestrian crossing. He stated the cars do not project into the crossing when
sitting at the drive up window and they had allowed the pedestrian easy and
safe access to the center and still provided the drive-thru facility. He stated
what they had achieved with all of this was that they had a drive-thru
facility that had no visual impact and that the amount of landscaping that
would be seen from the street and what the public would perceive by driving
by the project was no longer less than it was, but in fact greater than it was.
They had brought the landscaping into their view and added additional
material so the view is enhanced. They had created what they think was a
facility that meets or exceeds the standards of other drive-thru's in the area.
Clearly an advantage that this one has was it was not attached to a restaurant,
(fewer cars idling than a restaurant) so from a comparative point of view, they
believed this was compatible with some other facilities of the city. Set backs
exceed the Burger King down the street, both for the drive-thru and the
building.
Member Walker asked if there would be any modification to lights on the
building to some how light up the roadway.
Mr. Slack replied no, the drive thru was sufficient in and of itself and what
lighting there was on the street edge and in the parking lot and the head
lamps of the cars would not necessitate any more lighting.
Mcmbcr Walker asked if there would be any lights on the building illuminating
the point where the window is where the people would be getting their tapes
from.
Mr. Slack replied no, they did not anticipate that at all.
Member Walker stated that it appeared when entering the drive thru you would
be going through what was one parking space.
Mr. Slack replied that was correct.
Member Carroll stated that Mr. Slack had mentioned the 24" berm on the
roadway and were they actually going to drop the roadway 2 ft.. or will they
be building up the berm 2 ft.., or would there be just a wall of railroad ties
that were 2 ft..
Mr. Slack replied that the curb that would form the eastern edge of the drive
thru would be a 2ft. high curb instead of a 6" curb, and the curb would
receive built up earth between it and the existing hillside such that in essence
would raise the hill that distance in order to bring the vicwplain up and
toward the street, this had the second effect of visually appearing to lower the
drive-thru although that was not physically lowered in order to meet grades on
either end.
Member Carroll asked if the purpose of the drive-thru was to drop movies off
and would it have a box to drop movies off after hours?
20-
•
Mr. Slack replied that the window function was the same during and after
• hours for movie drop off.
Member Carroll asked about pick up of movies.
Mr. Slack replied it was also possible to pick up a movie from the drive thru
window and what was anticipated there was that an order in advance would
be stacked at the window and when you came to the window it would be
ready for pickup.
Member Klataske asked what was the anticipated time it would take to pick up
I movie.
Mr. Scott Pearson, manager of Giant Video, replied the anticipated time for the
transaction would be approximately the same if you would go inside and pick
up because it is a reservation and that would be about 20 to 30 seconds that
you would be transacting. He stated it was really designed for reservation
pickup and drop off and that was the way they felt they could have a service
impact.
Chairman Kern asked if the window was at the southern most part of the
building, and, did that mean there would be no cars stacked along the eastern
part of the building
Mr. Slack replied no that it was at the southern edge of the glass area of the
building, 20 to 25 feet south of the north end of the building.
• Member Carroll asked if the other Giant Videos in Fort Collins would be
requesting a drive thru.
Mr. Pearson replied that no they would not and this was the only location that
would work. It really stems from the original PUD that had a drive thru and
that is what gave them the idea.
Member Klataske asked whether the giant tree would stay or be relocated?
Mr. Shepard replied that it would remain but would likely be trimmed at the
lower branches.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification on the distance from the edge of the
drive thru lane from the building and from the existing sidewalk on Shields.
Mr.
Slack replied that
the western edge of
the drive thru is only about a foot
and
a half off of the
building wall itself,
which was where they planted the
Oregon Grape to give
them a visual buffer
and soften the foundation planning.
The
drive thru itself
is 10 feet wide and
some 32 feet to the right of way
line,
and the sidewalk
is within that area.
Member Kern stated he recalled that the sidewalk was some 30 feet from the
edge of the building, meaning it was now 20 feet from the edge of the drive
thru.
Member O'Dell added that
then you
had to take
out another foot and a half
or three feet as it states
in the site
plan at the
southeast corner, so actually
•
they were getting under 20
feet away
from the 20
foot setback.
-21-
Member O'Dell asked how much grass would be between the drive thru lane
and the sidewalk.
Mr. Shepard replied 27 feet, and the sidewalk is 7 feet so 20 feet but typically
the sidewalk is included in the set back calculation, so it would be 20 feet
from edge of drive thru the back of the sidewalk.
Member O'Dell added that with the 3 feet at the southern end of the building
it would be 17 feet at one point.
Member Walker asked if at both the entrance and the exit the total loss of
parking would be three spaces, one at the entrance and two at the exit.
Mr. Slack replied yes.
Member Strom asked about the location of the additional dogwood trees.
Mr. Slack explained where the dogwoods would be located, and that the
evergreen pfitzers located along the building now would be moved to the
eastern edge of the drive thru at the top of the two foot berm that was being
created. Within those would be interspersed dogwood to create a pattern of the
trees that are there. The pfitzers would be a low continuous ground cover and
the dogwood would add color and additional screening and soften the edge of
the building as you view it from Shields. It was a combination of those three
landscape elements set on a 2ft high berm that hides and buries the drive thru
lane.
Member Strom asked how big the pfitzers were.
Mr. Slack replied that they were 5 gallon and being transplanted from the
existing location. They would be 18 to 20 inches high planted on top of the 2
foot high berm.
Member Walker stated that it would appear that there would be 1500 to 1600
feet of additional paving added to the site and in addition the loss of three
parking spaces. What was compensating for that was the 150 feet of additional
landscaped area and some buffering and he felt there was not enough balance
in the plan to suggest that kind of a loss of green space, which was a balance
that was established when the initial PUD was approved. The relationship of
buildings, greenspace and roadway were in some aesthetic configuration that
worked and now they were being asked to actually pave over 1400 s.f. of the
site and he did not see it as a very favorable trade off.
Member Carroll stated he went to the location and what concerned him was
criteria #27, site organization. He thought that there had been some discussion
about a drive-thru that was initially mentioned or discussed in an earlier
P.U.D. Plan and was somehow left off the final P.U.D. Had this been brought
to the board without a building there it would be relatively simple to suggest
that the giant video building be moved some 6 to 10 feet to the west and that
the road be at a level of the sidewalk. He stated at the Burger King, and did
not want to get into a comparison, the area was planned and the drive way is
at the level the same grade as the sidewalk with an even berm in between.
He was concerned with the loss of green area and there was a significant grade
from the sidewalk to the building. When it is built up another 2 feet, again
-22-
•
that would come into site organization and we already had a street coming in
• that they were looking at. He wished it would have been included in the
Mastcr Plan of the area instead of coming back and trying to squeeze it in
where it is not a good elevation and does not leave a lot of green area
between the sidewalk, the street and the building itself.
Member O'Dell cited in addition to Member Carroll's comments about criteria
#27, criteria 33 and 36 concerning the arrangement of buildings and open
space and whether it contributes to the overall aesthetic quality of the site
configuration and street and parking system designed to contribute to the
overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration. She did not believe she
could answer yes to those. She believed that the addition of more pavement
and taking out landscaping in a center she believed had landscaping on its
backside, did not benefit the people on Shields being able to see and she
thought that was negative. She added she could not answer yes to that criteria.
Member O'Dell moved for denial of the administrative change to Cimarron
Plaza PUD.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
'rhe Motion was approved 7-0.
•
•
-23-
11
— 1w"I Jrnuuz rA la rUU �—
........ .
FORT
: COL:LtNS ............
WATER TANK ANNEXATION ' ' ' .osk,ti ^ -r" . n�tiw : ONE PROSPECT PUD
BURNS ANNEXATION:::::: :::::L ::.:::::::::::::::::::::' •.
f '
_ �•0 HORSETOOTH COMMONS::::'