Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/26/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES . March 26, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, 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 March 23, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns and Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included 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 February 26, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow, 4th Filing - Final Subdivision, #46-89B; Item 3 - Orchard at Clarendon Hills - Final Subdivision, #47-89C; Item 4 - Collinshaus PUD - Preliminary & Final, #6-90; Item 5 - Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 3rd Filing - Amended Preliminary, #1-88E; Item 6 - PZ90-4 Access Easement Vacation, #14-90; Item 7 - Silverplume Estates, 3rd Filing, PUD - Final, #62-89B; Item#8 - PZ90-5 Access Easement Vacation, #15-90; Item 9 - Front . Range Baptist Church Annexation and Zoning, #11-90A; Item 10 - Silverplume Estates Rezoning, #62-89C. Staff asked to place item #3, Orchard at Clarendon Hills on the discussion agenda. Member Burns stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item #2, and would not be voting on it. Chairman Kern pulled item #4, Collinshaus PUD from the consent agenda. Member Klataske moved to approve consent agenda, items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve consent agenda item 2. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0, with Alternate Joe Carroll voting. ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS - Final Subdivision, #47-89C Ted Shepard stated that the staff recommended approval of this project with a condition that was not originally included in the board's packet. Mr. Shepard read the condition as follows: "The final utility plans shall demonstrate sufficient easement widths for the conveyance of storm drainage . flows so that there is no detrimental alteration to, or encroachment upon the existing bridlepath easements that are on record and platted along the Applewood Estates subdivision. Member Strom moved to approve with the condition stated. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. COLLINSHAUS PUD - Preliminary & Final. #6-90 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report which recommended approval of the proposal. Steven Schreiner representing Collinshaus gave a presentation of the history of Collinshaus. He stated that he had purchased the group home and that the former owners not only ran the group home but lived there as well. He stated that they now have extra bedrooms and would like two more patients to reside there since the owners would not .be living there themselves. He stated this would enable them to keep the existing rates as they are now and not raise them. He stated there would not be any changes to the structure, nor would there be any additional parking needed, so there would not be any outside changes. Chairman Kern stated his concerns :stemmed from a couple of issues, the first being that the Group Home Ordinance would allow only 8 residents. He stated this proposed increase represented a 50% increase over the allowable regulations. He stated he felt frustrated because the LDGS allowed them a great deal of flexibility and yet we have a special category called group homes, and which one legally applies in this particular case. He asked if we granted a variance, would we disobey regulations? He was not sure where the law would reside. He stated that he has had discussion with others on the staff that it was not 100%u clear for example, that the 1500 foot rule would apply, since this is now a PUD, a Group Home PUD, but nontheless a PUD. He stated he was assured by staff that they would not allow this to happen, but wondered whether or not there would be legal grounds. He stated the second major concern is that he wished to have group homes accepted in neighborhoods, and that they have had difficulty in the past, in part, because the neighbors have found it quite distressful. He stated a couple of years ago the Board had gone through a process with a great deal of public input where they indicated that the group home regulations as stipulated would be adhered to, so that when group homes were requested, there could be certain guarantees as to their impact and density. If you examined the LDGS, under purpose, the criteria was for social compatibility. He stated if you looked under number 5 in the LDGS All Development Criteria, is a group home part of the comprehensive plan? Would it have social compatibility, if part of it was the density and the creditability that we have had for any programs we initiate. He stated that he thought the proposed density was one that violated our own guidelines, ones that we have adopted, both by the board and by the City. He stated that we have granted a variance to this in the past. He now regretted voting for that particular item, even though at the time it took a great deal of internal conflict to come to that decision. He stated that he thought they should not create a precedence on this particular item, otherwise we could not offer any guarantees to the public. He stated they were there requesting a 50% increase in density and, he believed was too much. -2- Member Walker stated one of the items was that this was an example of when • something does not quite fit, we can slide into a PUD process here to address something and agreed that where the legal ground was and if this was now a PUD, how do they treat it as a group home. He also questioned the implication that there were twelve people living there before. He stated now we would move them out and put in two senior residents and say there was no change. He stated that it significantly alters the nature of the structure so he questioned that supposition, that in sheer numbers, we were not making any difference. He stated that he echoed the chairman's comments, and that it was a sensitive issue and when we were looking at something like this that might be considered a variance, you often times have to find good cause for doing this. There did not seem to be a good cause other than we have a spare bedroom. Let's put two more people in there. He did not feel that it addressed the intent. He stated that if the intent of the group home ordinance were being met by this increase and yet the letter of the law was not being met, this perhaps would be a reason, but he did not see anything coming out along those lines. Member Shepard stated that contrary to other comments, she was moving for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. She stated that she did not think that the intent of the group home legislation has been violated by this and she thought that this was a worthwhile service to elderly people. The primary concern of the group home ordinance was to protect neighborhoods, and in this case, there was no difference in the impact in the neighborhood and as far as she knew there was no neighborhood opposition to this project. She stated that the intent of the group home ordinance to protect had not been violated in this case, in her opinion. • Member Shepard moved for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. Member Burns seconded the motion. Chairman Kern pointed out that there had not been a neighborhood meeting on this issue. The motion for approval was denied 5-2. Mr. Peterson stated that when the board adopted the consent agenda, Resolution 90-5, the fourth paragraph, it stated sixteen feet instead of fourteen and wanted to clarify the note for the public record. Chairman Kern stated that it was understood by the Board. ROHRBACKER PUD - Preliminary & Final. #41-89B Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report which recommended approval with six conditions: 1. An 8' solid wooden screen fence be provided along the site's western perimeter, to screen storage from the view of the Lemay Avenue right-of-way. 2. Gates in the fencing along the East Magnolia Court right-of-way be constructed of the same solid wood materials as the fence. • 3. Stacking of automobiles shall not exceed 8', or be visible from the public right-of-way. 3- 4. All outdoor storage shall be screened so that it is not visible from the street right-of-way, nor shall vehicles be stored on the public right-of-way. 5. All fluid drainage from vehicles on site shall occur within the confines of the buildings on site and such fluids shall be recycled. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all landscape improvements, parking areas, fencing and all other site amenities as specified on the site plan. Wayne Specht, applicant, gave a presentation of his proposed project. He stated he and his wife, Mary, operate a business called Auto Salvage. They were presently located at 1405 East Olive Court. He stated that they had planned to relocate to 1400 East Magnolia. He stated Auto Salvage had been in business since 1954, located at the corner of Riverside and Lemay until it made way for a shopping center. He stated Auto Salvage was not a junk yard, they did not buy junk iron or metals and they are automobile recyclers. He explained that it meant that they bought late model wrecked or damaged vehicles and sell the usable parts off of them, that they did not drain oils, gasoline or anti -freeze on the ground, and they did not release freon into the atmosphere. He stated all of the products were recyclable. He stated that they were very concerned about pollution and intend to do their part in keeping the environment clean. Mr. Specht stated that they talked to County Zoning Staff about 18 months ago, and that they had told him it was a good spot to relocate. He stated five reasons why they moved, it was for sale, they had occupied the storage area for four years, there were no immediate plans for development in that area, there are automobiles stored to the south and to the north of the property, it is an industrial area. He stated the reason they annexed the property into the City, was because the property to the west was annexed several years before. Mr. Specht stated that because there are some attractive businesses in the area, they felt that the screening and improvements to the property will upgrade the area. Sherry Clark gave a presentation of the surrounding land uses by showing slides taken in the area; and of the subject property. Mr. Harold Fisher, property owner of land to the west, stated there were already two salvage yards in the area and did not think a third was necessary. He stated his property was zoned for business purposes and was hopeful that a shopping center would locate there. He stated that there were enough junk yards next to his property. He stated he was also concerned about toxic waste getting into the soil. He stated that he was against the project and he would fight it all the way through. Mr. Roger Prenzlow; property owner of land 1-1/2 blocks north, felt that it was an unfortunate situation, because there were already about six illegal junk yards existing, and one of them borders this property to the south. He was amazed that the City was not requiring fencing on the south because of the existing junk yard there. He stated the junk yards were illegal and in violation of the rules. Mr. Prenzlow stated several bothersome items were the supposed authorized salvage yard north and to the east across Link Lane. He -4- stated there was no authority for auto salvage. He stated they did go in for a special review to store cars on that property and were supposed to put the • fence up before they stored the cars; unfortunately the fence is still not up. He stated that Mr. Specht was in violation existing on East Olive Court property, and there would be no welcome for this project from the property owners in the area. Member Walker questioned the existing salvage yards in violation and what was he referring to. Me Prenzlow pointed out the salvage yards storing cars illegally that have no authorization to do so, and that it is an unauthorized use. Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark if it was in the County or the City. Ms. Clark replied, that it was in the County and the only property with exception to the subject property that has been annexed was Mr. Fisher's property. Mr. Prenzlow stated that the property immediately north was authorized by the County, and the special review took a circuitous route and many of the property owners did not know it was being approved. He stated that the City was in a tough spot and had an annexed piece of ground coming in and has many unauthorized uses around it. Mr. Prenzlow stated it was a County problem and resents giving them legal status. Member Walker questioned Mr. Prenzlow as to the reference that Mr. Specht . currently was in violation of a regulation, and could he be specific as to what that was. Mr. Prenzlow pointed out Mr. Specht's property and where he has junk cars stacked three and four high that was adjacent to Allen P►umbing that was in violation of County regulations and has been for a long period of time. Mr. Dick DeCook spoke representing Magnolia Investment Partnership, which owns the building at 1418 East Magnolia Court and has three tenants: Plastec, Tooltcc, and Pcrio-Dental who employ about 50 people at the location. Mr. DeCook stated that with the high level of opposition, it was inappropriate for the hearing to be Preliminary and Final. He stated the opposing property owners desired first that the application be turned down and if it was not, then they must be given the right to respond to the Board's findings. Mr. DeCook stated that his intent was to strongly protest and to call for the P & Z Board to deny the City of Fort Collins' recommendation to place a third junk yard within two blocks of their building in the last year. He stated he was calling for plain common sense judgement in a situation that did not seem to make sense to him or most of the land owners in the area. He stated that the site for the proposed junk yard is within several hundred feet of Plastcc's front door. He stated it was also visible looking north from Mulberry. He stated that people driving west or east on Mulberry can look between the buildings and see the site. 511 Mr. DeCook stated that Fort Collins has four what may be called eastern gateway entrances to Fort Collins and without a doubt, Mulberry had the most y traffic. He stated that over the last 12 to 18 months there had been a very disturbing trend in types of businesses allowed along the busy gateway corridor: Debbie Duz Donuts, The Hunt Club, and two junk yards, Slatten's Automotive, and Schuellin Auto Salvage. Mr. DeCook asked the question, with these types of businesses coming into the area, has this made it easier for Ed Stoner and Ft. Collins, Inc., and Mike Hauser of the Chamber of Commerce to bring in the clean industries and associated jobs to the City of Fort Collins? Fie asked what does this say about our Choice City to visiting companies? He stated that the P & Z Board had the opportunity to make the right choice, and it was not to add this proposed junk yard. He stated that Magnolia Investments opposed the junk yard for the following reasons: I. Aesthetics. He stated that they were told that the applicant had even stated "it ain't pretty" when he talked with the Chief Planner for the City, he agreed 100%. 2. Luke warm recommendation. He stated the City's recommendation for approval was barely lukewarm. He stated when he talked to Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, on Thursday, March 22, she had stated "I could have gone either way on this project' and yet for some unknown reason she recommended approval when there were already two junk yards in the area. He stated that she had told the applicant, "You have an uphill battle" when she talked to him about the request and why did she say that if she had thought it was a good thing for the City of Fort Collins. 3. Illegal. He stated the site and the consideration was known to the surrounding property owners, including himself, was illegally storing 40-50 salvaged vehicles for the last few years. He stated that even after annexation, they still were being stored illegally. He called for their immediate removal. He stated the City's recommendation is an attempt to legitimatize an ongoing illegal activity. 4. Environment. He quoted from the point chart which was used when evaluating junk yards that "junk, scrap or salvage yards and all extraction uses, are uses that create major disruptions to the areas environment, even when carefully regulated. He stated dust, dirt, noise and unsightly conditions could be anticipated." He stated that this was already proving true at the two existing junk yards in the area. 5. Contamination. He stated that soil and ground water were already being contaminated from the spillage of oil and gasoline fluids dripping off the motors and transmissions of the vehicles already being stored there, illegally. He stated that irrigation that flowed in the field just west of the site was being contaminated and contaminated rain and snow melt would run down and has been running down Magnolia toward Link Lane for some time now. He stated the proposed 6" dirt berm was totally inadequate as it was not permanent and would not keep the site from contamination. 6. Appearance. He stated when vehicles are stacked three, four, five, or six high to save space, or a high profile vehicle was stored, such as a bus or van, the proposed 8' wooden fence will not come close to concealing them from IN Mulberry, Lemay, or Link Lane or Magnolia Court. He stated that in addition, • there had been no means of enforcing or maintaining a fence requirement. 7. Traffic. He stated neither the City or the County have accepted responsibility for maintenance of East Magnolia Court, that it was up to the land owners. He stated neighbors had spent thousands of dollars on top of their normal property taxes to repair Magnolia Court. He stated the City or the applicant must agree to bring the current street up to standards and maintain it. 8. Hi -Tech image. He stated that his three tenants had a hi -tech image, that they had customers ranging from Japan to West Germany. He stated Hewlett Packard, IBM, Digital Equipment, AT & T were all blue chip customers of theirs that visited the premises weekly. He stated that their hi -tech image would be seriously damaged by a junk yard within several hundred feet of their front door. 9. Change of fundamental use of the area. He stated a junk yard would change the historical and fundamental usage of the area causing property values to go down. He stated their property was valued at around $400,000 and was in excellent condition. He stated Sherry Clark said it was the best looking on the block, however to take note no picture of their building was shown on her slide presentation and that all the buildings around them were shown but they were left out. He asked what would a near by junk yard do to that value. 10. Areas becoming no longer attractive. He stated that the changes he had • mentioned over the last 12 to 18 months were causing the area to become unattractive to clean small business, and he predicted another junk yard would produce two things (1) a net loss in employment in that area and (2) net increase in building vacancy in a short time. II. Trust. He stated people make choices in community, neighborhood and affiliations based upon their perceptions of existing services as well as their expectations of future benefits. He stated when expectations were violated, disappointment, distrust and suspicion are the result and that people were no longer willing to make an investment of time, money or effort in improvement and betterment to their community. He stated they had made significant investment in the last thirteen in the area and believed that they were investing in commercial and industrial area and that future development would be compatible. 12. Mixed Messages. He stated that they were lead to understand that Fort Collins was truly interested in attracting clean light industry that offered attractive employment in our community and the message that they got was if they were to approve this deviation, was that they really didn't want their kind of business, but would rather have junk yards. He stated he did not know how many legitimate objections must be raised, that he had just brought up twelve, to overturn the application, and that the basic question still remained. What did this proposed third junk yard say about the Choice City? Would it make Ed Stoner and Mike Hauser's job of bringing new and clean industry to Fort Collins easier and that the only common sense conclusion one • could arrive at would be to disapprove this application. FA Member O'Dell stated that it was the Planning Staff's obligation to present a clear and unbiased proposal to them and that was the reason that they were there and they were there to make a decision. She stated that it was appropriate that Sherry recommended approval of the project and she thought stressed that the Board all go out and visit the site. The implication that it was a conspiracy on the part of the Planning Staff is inappropriate and did not want to let it continue. Chairman Kern seconded the remarks, and stated no matter what the Planning Staff recommends, it is up to the Planning and Zoning Board to make the decision. Mr. Alan Wilson, president of Plastec stated they had been operating in the area for about thirteen years and were a hi -tech company. He stated he had attended two other hearings on the Schuellin and the Slatten Automotive junk yard application and would like to address them because the are pertinent old He stated in the Schuellin case, he purchased the property tth a Y deviation permit to have salvage operation there. He appeared before the County Planning and Zoning Board to renew the application, that it had lapsed almost 10 years, he had been advised by both his real estate agent and an attorney that the statutes had lapsed and would have to be reconsidered. He stated he pleaded with the board to acknowledge his request because it had already been permitted in the application. He stated that significantly he had used the Rohrbacker PUD filing as justification for putting in that junk yard, and now we arc using that junk yard's existence as rationalization for putting in this one. Mr. Wilson stated that he attended the hearing for Slatten's Automotive as well and showed some slides and stated that he represented that it was strictly a repair operation and all he was requesting permission was to use some land for storage for vehicles he was working on and some antique and special interest automobiles. Mr. Wilson showed slides of the existing junk yards in the area and the existing problems with fencing, street maintenance, illegal storage of vehicles, and environmental issues. Mr. Ron Bauer, spoke as representative of Loos Electric Supply that has just due east of the proposed site for the junk yard. He addressed property the aesthetics of the proposal and the issue of the property lso stated the issue of running a junk yard on two sides of a street. He stated from that water has run through the street as high as 10-12 inches, not only issue that irrigation of Mr. Fisher's property, but from rain and snow runoff a 6" berm is not going to hold anything in the area. He stated that on the staff report under hazardous waste it stated not applicable, and lie felt that it was of high concern. He stated the detrimental storage of to gasoline, oil, and freon that is drained from the cars was very our environment and would like to have that issue addressed. Ms. Nancy Benson, representative of employees of Plastec, presented the Board with a petition signed by employees stating they did not want a junk yard next to their company, Mr. John Jervis, president of Perio-Dental, stated his major point would be a junk yard located 100 feet from his business. This would be highly detrimental to his image in the market and would make that location to him much less desirable. Member Walker asked Ms. Clark to clarify that the two salvage yards in the area are in conformance with County regulations. Ms. Clark replied that they were legal, but Slattens Automotive had not complied with the screening requirements to date. Member Walker asked that in addition to the two that have been legally established by the County is there some other illegal storage to the south. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and also pointed out that the autos presently stored on the subject site are stored illegal in Larimer County and with the City's annexation of the property, the storage of autos on this property is not a non -conforming use. Member Walker asked Ms. Clark about the not -applicable under the storage of Hazardous Waste. He felt that it was a good point and that there were storage of hazardous materials here and would like a clarification of her interpretation of that particular item. Ms. Clark replied that it was marked not -applicable because the criteria stated "will hazardous materials be stored in a safe manner". She stated that based on her discussions with the applicant, he indicated to her that they would not be any storage of any fluid on the site that the fluids are drained from the vehicles inside and the fluids are then recycled. That was the basis of staff recommending that condition as well. Member Walker questioned Mr. Specht as to when they receive a automobile into the site, whether the first thing is to drain the fluid out of the vehicle. Mr. Specht replied that was true and that they store the oil in 50 gallon drums and when a drum is full they have a company they give it to come and pick it up and there would not be more than 50 gallons. He stated as far as gasoline, they had very little gasoline stored in the building and that most of it was in the equipment that they use. He stated freon is stored in 30 gallon drums and the drums were just like what you would buy it in and that they are 100% safe, and they are tested at about 20,000 pounds of pressure. He stated the Freon is not stored because they sell it as soon as they get it and that there was a big demand for freon and they can sell it a lot cheaper than they could buy new freon for. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht if the fluids were stored inside a locked facility and if it was a concrete floor. Mr. Specht replied yes it was stored inside the building and yes it does have a concrete floor. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht if there were a leak of fluid, would it be . contained on an impervious surface. In Mr. Specht replied that it was set in a corner of the building and that they did not keep that much of the fluid. He offered to put a container around the bottom of the container but it was doubtful that there would be a spill. Member Walker asked Mr. Spccht about transmission and power steering fluids. Mr. Specht replied that it was considered oil to them and it all goes into the same container. Member Shepard asked that when the property was zoned C in the City there were there existing junk cars stored on the property, and why was the C zoning requested as opposed to I? Ms. Clark replied that there was a PUD condition attached to the zoning and so in terms of zoning, whether they ultimately ended up Commercial or Industrial, there was probably not a whole lot of difference. She stated that the property in Larimer County was previously zoned O-Open. The zoning in that surrounding area is known as heavy industrial I-1, to the south is C-Commercial zoning and that may be the rationale. To the east is industrial zoning and to the west is the Planned Business zoning in the City. Member Shepard asked if there would be a 8' fence on the total western side? Ms. Clark replied that it was the staff recommended condition. Member Shepard asked about the eastern side. Ms. Clark replied correct, that it was reflected on the site plan. Member Shepard asked about the north and south sides, and if the fence was 40' back from the right-of-way? Ms. Clark replied that no it was not, that the fencing was outside or beyond the right -of way and the applicants way of addressing the criteria on point chart G which states "is the outdoor display and storage of vehicles at least 40' from any street right-of-way" was to delineate an area inside the fencing on the site plan. She stated that this particular criteria does not specify whether fencing or any type of screening be used and did not clarify whether the intent was to have a 40' buffer strip and then some kind of screening, or whether the 40' actually occurs inside the screened area as the applicant is proposing at this time. Member Shepard asked whether the only way they would know if this was being complied with was to peek over the fence. Ms. Clark replied yes. Member Shepard asked how far back from the fence would be required to comply with the 40' set back. Ms. Clark replied about 40' and that the fence was located or proposed to be located fairly close to the right -of way. Member Shepard asked why they would not require the fence to be at the 40' line then? -10- • Ms. Clark replied that was an option they could require through a condition. Member Klataskc asked Ms. Clark on criteria #1 "was the outdoor display on storage of vehicles at least 40' from any street right-of-way". He asked whether it meant an entire vehicle or any part of a vehicle? Ms. Clark replied that she assumed that would be interpreted as any part of a vehicle and one of the staff recommendations included the prohibition of any storage of autos visible from the public right-of-way that is not screened, and that they might want to expand the terminology to also include parts of automobiles. Member Carroll asked Assistant City Attorney Eckman whether the City of Fort Collins had any authority to require the existing salvage yards outside the limits to comply with regulations that were placed upon them by the County. Mr. Eckman replied no. Member Carroll asked whether we placed requirements upon this piece of property and later find that they were not being complied with, what were the alternatives as far as the City of Fort Collins goes toward the property owner. Mr. Eckman replied that there were several alternatives available that were set forth in the code. He stated the method of enforcement of that section of the code arc through the building permit and certificate of occupancy requirements and we may also inspect and order removal of violations. We also may pursue criminal action in the Municipal Court for zoning violation or a code violation and also use the court procedure to obtain an injunction against an action that is in violation of the code, Member Carroll asked that we could shut this use down if the owner refused or would not comply with one of the conditions? Mr. Eckman replied that we could prosecute in Municipal Court or we could obtain an injunction into the extent the judge would allow a shut down of the business. Member Carroll questioned Mr. Specht as to his concern of the environmental hazards and what the procedures are for draining fluids from the vehicles. Mr. Specht replied that the first thing they did to a vehicle is pull the motor and that the motors are not left in the vehicles that are stored in the storage area. He stated the transmissions are removed at the same time. Mr. Specht invited an inspection by City officials at any time. Member Carroll asked what they did with the engines and transmissions? Mr. Spccht replied that they stacked the engines and transmissions in the building on racks. Member Carroll asked about the radiators. • Mr. Specht replied that they also were stacked in the building until they are sold. -11- Member Carroll asked what would be left in the car chassis that could drip onto the ground? Mr. Specht replied really nothing, unless they did not get all the grease drained out of the rear end and that would only be a couple of drips. Member Carroll asked about the brake lines. Mr. Spccht replied that all fluid is drained and is put in with the oils and it is recycled. Member Carroll asked Mr. Specht if he understood that with the dedication he could not leave vehicles on a public street. Mr. Specht replied that he understood that. Member Carroll questioned Ms. Clark about not requiring fencing on the south line of the property and that he did see a slide looking through the U-Store It where you could look right through. What is the justification on not requiring fencing along the southern and northern boundaries of the property or requesting a condition. Ms. Clark replied that from both of those areas as viewed from the site looking to the north and from the site looking to the south, the proposed auto storage are would not be visible from the public right-of-way. She stated she did not go to the mini storage area and view that particular area to the north and that her recommendations were based on standing on the subject property looking both directions and she felt there was not a lot of logic behind requiring fencing from screening one auto storage area from another auto storage area. She stated that they could not give any credence to the fact there are automobiles being stored to the south, and that is apparently not something that is permitted by Larimer County Zoning which is the storage of the autos by the auto body shop. Member Strom asked if it was a current public right of way. Ms. Clark replied that it was dedicated as a public right of way to the east property line of the subject property. Member Strom asked if they were asking for dedication for the 54 feet through the property. Ms. Clark replied that it was 54 feet from east property line to west property line. Member Strom asked at what point the City would take over maintenance of the street or should there be an annexation of the rest of Magnolia Court. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator for the City, replied that we would not take over maintenance of a street until it is fully improved and at this point we were just asking for the dedication. He said when the street is necessary for serving property to the west, then the street would be improved to city standards and then we would take over maintenance. -12- 1 Member Strom asked was [here an agreement being obtained a this time or . would the property owner be responsible for bringing the street to city standards. Mr. Herzig replied that no development agreement was being obtained and that is done at the time of public improvements. Member Strom asked whether there would be some kind of improvement district set up and what would be the surfacing of the roadway in the meantime. Mr. Herzig replied it would be as it is existing now, there was no public need for it in terms of serving the general public, only private land owners use it. Member Strom asked where the floodplain runs through Glen Schlueter, engineer with the Storm Drainage Department, replied that the floodplain on the property is at the end of the cul-de-sac on Magnolia Court, from there east. He stated the extension of Lemay has blocked off the floodplain of the Poudre River, so the Fisher property sets basically by itself, that it was not in the flood plain, and the subject property is in the 100 year floodplain backwater. Member Strom asked Mr. Specht if he was illegally storing vehicles Mr. Specht replied that was correct. He talked to the people at the County when they thought it would be through them and found out he had to annex • through the City. He stated the County was aware of the vehicles and the County told him to do nothing because he was trying to purchase the property. He stated they would go along with him as long as they were trying to purchase the property. Member Strom asked Mr. Specht what would happen when he becomes too large for this site, and what would keep him from parking in the right-of-way. Mr. Specht replied that would not happen and when he agreed to do something that is what he stood by. He stated he .never intended to park on the right-of- way and he had plenty of storage for his business and that his business would never be that large.. It was a small business and did not see a need for any room more than on the Rohrbacker property. Member O'Dell asked 'Mr. Specht how many cars arrive a day or week? Mr. Specht replied that they try to strip one or two cars per week on the average. Some months they go without buying any vehicles, at the most three or four vehicles and sometimes there are several weeks where they do not pick Lip any vehicles. Member O'Dell asked how the cars arrive? Mr. Specht replied he had a wrecker and he picks up the vehicles. • Member O'Dell asked how the cars were transported from one side of the street to the other? -13- Mr. Specht replied either by the wrecker or by a fork lift Member Walker asked staff whether. Magnolia would at some point service the property to the west of the site. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and the reason they had asked for the right of way dedication is that adjacent property, the Fisher property, obviously had frontage on both Highway 14 and Lemay Avenue. She stated both of those streets would provide some constraints in terms of accessing the property, because Highway 14 is the frontage of the State Department facility and Lemay Avenue was an arterial street and that they would have certain restrictions in terms of accessing the property. She stated it was logical and made sense to have an extension at least planned for East Magnolia Court although we would not see a need for it until we saw some site planning for the Fisher Property. Member Walker asked why we would want to put a fence on the either side of Magnolia which exists only in conceptual terms at this point and if the fence was put there now, when the street goes through are they going to require something else of the streetscape. He stated that at this point, the streetscape as it was proposed would be unacceptable, to have an 8' fence right up to the right of way going through there. He asked why the 8' fence now and what is the future provision for Mulberry if this were to go through. Ms. Clark replied that staff felt that it was important to get some level of screening established. She stated they had used the public right of way as the rationale for establishing where the fencing and screening should be provided. She stated that they needed to plan for the present use of the property and the long term, with the street going through. She said that it would be difficult for them to go in later and require additional improvements of right- of-way and dedications in terms of streetscape material, unless we had specific language in a development agreement to require that at some later point. . Member Walker asked if it was conceivable that the 8' fence as shown would meet City street standards some time in the future. Ms. Clark replied that on a local street they did have areas where there is solid fencing. They did not typically have 8' high fencing, but have looked at 8' because of the nature of the use and with stacking that might occur that there be adequate fence in terms of height to screen it. She stated they have worked with the applicant to get some landscaping to improve the appearance along the fencing. She said that if they would put the landscaping in now it would not benefit anyone but the applicant himself who was actually on that portion of the site. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht what he proposed to do with the 40' of right of way that is inside his fence? Mr. Specht replied that he would do nothing with it, he had enough room and it would be quite a few years before any cars would be stacked. Member Walker questioned Mr. Specht as to how merchandise moves through the facility. He asked after the engine and transmission are pulled out and then the car goes on the lot, at which point it is picked over for parts, and at some point did lie send it to a crusher to get it off of his lot. -14- Mr. Specht replied that when there is no value to the vehicle they immediately . take it to a crusher. He stated when the car had been around for six to eight months they crushed them also. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Specht when they crushed a car, did they do it on the site? Mr. Specht replied that sometimes, but normally he had a truck that he hauled them off two at a time. Member O'Dell asked what kind of noise did it put out? Mr. Specht replied that it was noisy on site, but normally they haul them off two at a time. Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark if it was a legal use in a C zone. Ms. Clark replied that it was zoned C-Commercial with a PUD condition. She stated that no use was "legal" until there is an approved PUD. In terms of an auto salvage yard in our C-Commercial zone she did not think it was permitted in the City as a use by right, I-G would be the only zoning district that would permit use -by -right of an auto salvage yard in the City. Chairman Kern asked for any differentiation between a junk yard and a auto recycling place and what other land uses can there be if this is approved. Ms. Clark stated in terms of the City differentiation, she did not believe there • was any between whether something was considered a junk yard or an auto salvage yard or a auto recycling type of use. She stated the PUD process was a use specific review and approval, and if approval is given on the project, is to that specific use and in this case auto salvage yard. Chairman Kern asked in what way would the traffic impede the operation of the yard or how would the operation of this yard impede traffic. Ms. Clark replied as stated before and in the condition, that the applicant would not be able to store any equipment or vehicles in the right-of-way. The gates that he proposed, one on the north and one on the south side in the fencing, would function as a drive way like on a local street. She stated that the applicant might experience some delays in moving from one portion of the storage area to the other based on traffic on the local street and the inverse of that was the applicant may somewhat impede traffic on the local street as well, with crossing the street with equipment or automobiles in -transit. Member O'Dell moved for denial of the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary and Final request based on all development criteria number 1, 2. She stated that even though there are other auto salvage yards in the area that we were seeing a change in the area and an improvement in the area. She stated that the companies that were there were trying to improve the area mostly visually and that those two criteria were not met. Member walker seconded the motion stating that first of all it was. a • commercial zone as was stated that in a commercial zone this is not a use -by - right as it would be in an I-G zone. He stated when looking at a PUD condition, it was looked at for an obligation to recognize compatibility of the -15- surrounding area. He cited the fencing setback and the fact of having an auto salvage yard on two sides of the street and that does not address the compatibility and sensitivity of the surrounding area. Member Shepard supported the motion for denial but commented that it was not an inappropriate use because auto salvage operations have to go somewhere. She stated that giving the surrounding environment, that it is an inappropriate use. She stated that she did not think it had been properly screened and mitigated and thought there were a lot of outstanding questions with respect to environmental issues. She said she would reconsider it as a preliminary at a future point and would not like to see the fence along Magnolia but would rather see a fence along the north and south property lines, so at such time if the neighborhood might change, future neighbors would be screened from the auto salvage operation. Chairman Kern stated questions he asked himself were was this an appropriate use for this area and following that, was this intensity of use appropriate for that area. He stated that there being other similar uses in the area made him lean toward it; however, he thought both the intensity of use and approval of the item might preclude other kinds of development appropriate to our current zoning and what City plans are, would that allow this kind of development to occur. He stated approval here might be inhibitory to that process. He said considering the use what guarantees do we have to guarantee the safety of the public, namely floodplain, environmental standards. Those have been partially met to his satisfaction but the preponderance of concern would lead him to support the motion for denial. The motion for denial was approved 5-2. SPRiNGBROOK PUD - Preliminary - #7-90 Sherry Alberston-Clark gave the staff report on the project recommended approval with several conditions. Dick Rutherford, Engineer with Stewart and Associates, gave a presentation on the project, agreeing to all the conditions staff had put on the project. Member Walker asked Mr. Rutherford if he was proposing to change the existing 100-year floodplain line on lots 21-24. Mr. R utheford replied no that was not correct and he pointed out the floodplain and floodway lines. Member Carroll asked Mr. Rutherford about the three lots that were in the floodplain and that plantings would be restricted in that area of any type of vegetation that would impede water flow. Would there be any notification of homeowners in the future of that restriction. Mr. Rutherford replied that one of the conditions placed upon them was the deed restriction or notes on a subdivision plat, but stated that this was no different than any other property restrictions put on by ordinance or conditions of approval. Member Carroll asked whether there would be a homeowners' association 16- • Mr. Rutherford replied yes there would be, and they would be responsible for maintaining some open space areas and the area in the public right-of-way. Member Shepard asked about the 4' fence that was allowed on lots 17-20 on the floodway. Mr. Rutherford replied that none of those lots were in the floodway, there is no difference in the house and that a fence was allowed in the floodplain on the property line to the north but not on the south. Member Shepard asked that if a fence was allowed on the floodway boundary, certainly that would impede the flow of water so why was there any restrictions as to planting a bush or a tree. Mr. Rutherford replied there needed to be a line drawn somewhere as to the floodway and the floodplain and by definition, floodplain allowed buildings and trees and structures in it. He pointed out the floodplain and the floodway and what was allowed in them. Member Burns asked where the northern boundary of the floodplain was and would the street be flooded. Mr. Rutherford explained the northern boundary and what homes were affected. • Member Burns asked at this stage of design if they knew how deep the flood would be at the entrance to the court. Would the access be unpassable at the cul-de-sac in the event of a flood. Mr. Rutherford replied he thought it would be low enough for emergency vehicles to pass. Member Burns asked about the three to four lots in the floodway, and how deep would the fill have to be so the first floor level would be 18" above water surface. Mr. Rutherford replied that the first floor was 3' above the 100-year flood elevation, which was 3' higher that the existing ground. He stated the elevation of the floodplain was very slight and because of the design of Springbrook Lane and grades getting off of Drake Road, raises the house higher than the floodplain or the floodway did. Member Walker asked about Springbrook Lane and that if it continued to the south, was there some future plan for it to cross Springcreek and access properties on the south side of Springcreek. Ms. Clark replied that was correct. Member Walker asked about the 4' fence that was proposed along the floodway line and was it a City required fence and what was the purpose. • Ms. Clark replied that it was not a requirement. -17- Member Walker asked what was the City's view on essentially providing a deeded lot that 1/2 of which nothing can be done with and why don't we just incorporate that whole area into Tract B. Chairman Kern stated that it was also a concern of his on lots 23 and 24 where the southern half of those lots are in the floodplain. Did the lots meet the essential minimum size required for this kind of development. Ms. Clark replied there was no specific minimum lot size required, She stated that staff had opted to delete lots 22-24 and incorporate them into the open space. She stated that from a technical stand point, the lots were developable as designed and shown on the site plan. Member Walker asked if they were to take the floodway parts of the properties, and incorporate them into tract B, would she be suggesting that the PUD could have the lots existing at just the part of the lot that is out of the floodway. Ms. Clark replied that was correct. Member Strom asked if there were no PUD, what would the minimum lot size be for a duplex. Ms. Clark replied that in most low density residential that it would still be 6,000 s.f. Chairman Kern asked about combining lots 22, 23, 24 into one or two lots, and how would it be handled. Ms. Clark replied by administrative change or a replat. Dr. Wil Aanes, owner of adjacent property, stated he ran livestock and at the neighborhood meeting he asked what would be done with the fence line between his property and the Burchfield property at the time the development occurs. He stated his concern of children and problems with Springcreek. He stated that he would like the board to add a provision of a suitable fence such as the one on the trail on the Poudre be placed on his property line to reduce the egress to the area of the creek. Member Carroll asked Mr. Aanes if there was already a fence located there. Mr. Aanes replied yes, but it is not a very good fence. He stated that they control their livestock by electric fence, which is a potential hazard. Mr. Walt Beckley, property owner to the south of the proposed project asked if the area south is developed across Springcreek, what would be the City's specifications to cross the creek. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator with the Engineering Department, stated that it had not been determined and it could be any kind of structure that works, one that would be a series of culverts or could be a large culvert. Member Walker stated his concern with the floodway line on properties 21-24 and that he thought it was creating an administrative problem with deeding the properties in the floodway. He stated too much was trying to be done on 18- • the development with the constraints of the floodway and would like to see • the number of lots reduced by at least one. Member Walker stated his concern with the fact that people would buy the lots and somewhere in the future when they change hands and the buyer would not know that there was a floodway there or detention or deed restriction or notes on the subdivision plat. Member Carrol stated the same concern and that people would not deliberately violate a deed restriction, but they may not know what they are or feel they had served their purpose. He stated the City is not in a position to police the floodway and that it would be up to the homeowner's association and was not convinced that the homeowner's association would police these particular deed restrictions. He stated that replatting the three lots would better utilize the space and give the owner a workable area to live in and plant their trees and bushes. Member Walker moved for approval of the preliminary plan with the conditions 1 and 3 as stated. by the staff and change condition 2 to lots 22-24 be replatted into two parcels where no deeded property would be in the floodway and lot 21 would be redefined in the deed so there would be no deeded property in the floodway. Member Burns seconded the motion. Member O'Dell stated additional concerns about the depth of the duplex lots backing on to Drake Road and what was the recommended depth of the lots . were. Ms. Clark replied that if this were a single family subdivision, there would be a requirement in the subdivision code that would stipulate that those lots have a minimum depth of 150 feet. 0 Member O'Dell stated lots 1-14 were much less than that and there needed to be some additional work done as in changing the alignment of the street to eliminate lots 22-24 and make the lots along Drake deeper. Member Strom stated that changing the plan needed to be done and that the use was appropriate and not at all adverse to the density if the design could be worked out, but had some concerns about how the design works on the land with the constraints they had. Member Klataske asked what the depth of the duplex lots were. Ms. Clark replied that starting at lot 1 it was a minimum of 95 feet and lot 14 had 155 feet in depth. She stated lot 9's western property line was 110 feet and that would be at the edge of right-of-way on Springbrook Court. Mr. Rutherford clarified that was the dimension of the lot lines but also had the green area tract between the back of those lots, another 15 feet added on to the dimensions. -19- Member Shepard agreed they should not redesign the plan at the meeting and offered to amend the motion to instead of saying split lots 22, 23, and 24 into two lots, just say that all of the floodway area should be incorporated into the open space area in tract B and none of it included in privately deeded lots. Member Walker stated he accepted the amendment and accepted it into the motion. Member Burns agreed with the amendment. Chairman Kern stated that he would like to see the whole floodway be delineated by a low fence and leave the design up to the developer. Member Walker asked if there should be a condition with a preliminary approval as to reflect the size of the duplex lots. Member Strom asked what were they accomplishing by approving a preliminary with a serious design problem and suggested tabling or what ever was most efficient to get the job done. He stated that they had to go back to the drawing board with the conditions already placed upon them. Member Walker asked for clarification of what would be an appropriate size for the duplex lots for the developer's information. Member Strom replied that depth and although they had a 15 foot landscaping strip, which accomplishes nothing for noise, a solid fence would help the noise. Member Walker withdrew the motion for approval. Member Burns moved to table until the next meeting. Member Strom seconded the motion. . The motion passed 7-0. Raintree Villaee Shoppine Center - Administrative Chanee - #146-79M Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the Staff report recommending denial of the request. Tim Stein, stated they were approached by Todd Lund of Foxfire Property Management to try to do something to the dark corner and their main identification sign that was not putting out a whole lot of light. He stated they wanted to increase the light levels on the corner and wanted to light the adjacent large group of trees. He stated the lighting is one of the highlights of the center. He contacted Mr. Jeff Hill of Consolidated Electric and he helped with the layout and the design of the lighting. He stated they had offered to and still are ready to address any problems with the lighting and anything it would take for an approval of the amendment. Member Walker asked if the reason for the lighting was that the owners felt they needed more visibility. Mr. Stein replied that it was not so much visibility but the highlighting of the Cottonwood trees. 20- Chairman Kern asked since this was a change to the plan why was it done first when there was nothing on the plan indicating that such lighting should be put there and there was over 7 kilowatts of light that was installed, more than there was in the whole plaza. Mr. Stein replied it was a request of the property owners to light the trees. Chairman Kern replied that it was not part of the plan, why was it done, 7 kilowatts of light was not a trivial installation. Mr. Stein replied that it was to light the trees and that he was unaware that the administrative change was needed to install this type of lighting. Chairman Kern noted that he recorded a reading of one and a half foot candles from the streetlight and he also said that he read nothing from the tree. What was the sensitivity of the meter he was using. Mr. Stein replied that it would go to one hundred fifty candles maximum. Chairman Kern asked for the minimum. Mr. Stein replied about one and a half Chairman Kern asked that if the tree were in fact to give 1.4 he would be able to detect it. In other words, the 1.5 was the very minimum detectable. Mr. Stein replied that the needle on the meter itself would drop below scale in total darkness and was reading in essence 0 on the meter. Chairman Kern asked if he could not tell the difference between a streetlight and the light coming from a tree. Mr. Stein replied no. Sherry Clark gave her staff report and recommendation to the Board and asked that they take action on the request so the applicant knows whether he could pursue making changes to the lighting, whether he needs to remove the lighting or what his next step should be. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney asked the board to support their decision by stating their criteria. Chairman Kern replied that some portion of this in a sense is illegal, but the point was well taken. Mr. Todd Lund spoke as representative of the owners of Raintree and presently acting as the property manger of the center. He stated the idea was to handle a couple of different things with the center: one, Western Sizzlin's dark parking lot and Raintree Shopping center as the name of the project, the signs, the logo, everything around a raintree and used the cottonwoods to simulate the Raintree, and beautify the intersection with the center. Mr. Lund stated • that since the lighting had been put in, he had polled alot of tenants and people around there and had heard nothing but positive comments. He stated several people that pass going to and from work did not even know that the _21_ trees were lit. He said the trees were beautiful and the project was constructed around the trees and they did not want to create any waves, they just wanted to light the trees. He felt they were aesthetically pleasing to all and if there was any problem with glare or with light spillage, they would address those and take immediate action upon them. Mr. Lund stated that other states and cities have them and alot of places had architectural lighting within the trees that enhance the foliage and the branches and give a visual appearance. He stated that there was no criteria in this City that address it. Mr. Lund stated they bid the job with two local sign companies that deal with the signage code and an electrician and Tim Stein who was somewhat of both. He said in all the discussions pertaining to it, not one of them brought up that an administrative change to the PUD was required to do that. He said they did proceed with the project and in his opinion and alot of others, feel it enhances the project and was visually appealing. Mr. Lund stated they had put forth a request to state why the project was turned down and have not got an answer to why not and what he would like to solve tonight was what they needed to do to make it that way. Member Shepard what hours were the lights on Mr. Lund replied that they come on at 6:00 and halted by mid -night and that they were on a timer. Member Klataske asked if there were any tenants operating until mid -night. Mr. Lund replied that Western Sizzlin is open until 11:00 p.m. and the Pulse is open until 10:00 and extended hours till 11:00 certain times of the year. Member Carrol asked if the lights they were concerned with was 4, 5, 6, but all the lights, 1-8, that were installed were not on the plan. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and that the administrative change dealt with all eight fixtures. Member Carrol asked if the ones that caused the concern was 4, 5, and 6 or was it all of them. Ms. Clark replied that was one of the questions the board needed to answer. Member Burns commented that he thought the trees were beautiful and he did not have a problem with the lights but would have a problem if the glare is such as to bother motorists on either Shields Street or Drake Road. He stated he would support an administrative change. Member Strom commented that he thought the trees were beautiful too but he was not too hot on the lights. He questioned the location of the lights since he had not been out to look at them and what was the location of lights 1, 2, and 3 and the heavy duty uplighting as well. -22- Ms. Clark replied that based on the information they had, lights 1, 2, and 3 are the ones located on the landscape island in the parking lot. Lights 4, 5, and . 6 are located adjacent to shields street. Member Strom asked if all six of them shined on the trees. Ms. Clark replied yes, they were all angled upward toward the trees. Fixtures 1,2, and 3 are pole mounted; 4, 5, and 6 are ground mounted. Member Strom asked about lights 7 and 8 and their location. Ms. Clark replied they were ground mounted that were angled upwards toward the reader board on their main identification sign at the intersection. Member Strom asked if 7 and 8 were approved. Ms. Clark replied no, they were included in the packet that was submitted as an administrative change. Member Walker stated that there was a problem with all the lights. He stated 4, 5, and 6 shine up into the trees and 1, 2, and 3 were on a pole and basically shine to the west and are visible if you head east on Drake. He stated that what they had heard from the applicants was the lights are a given, now tell us what we have to do to fix it so it is O.K. with us as a board. He stated the argument they were looking at here was these people have come in to suggest that they want to light trees and they had to look at do we consider that lighting as an appropriate administrative change. He said they . had to get away from, telling us what they had to do to fix it. The issue was arc we agreeable to the concept of the lights. Member Walker stated he had a concern with driving by the location on a regular basis. Did they consider several of the environmental criteria in the LDGS, specifically item 24, which dealt with exterior lighting and excessive glare on public streets. He said he would argue that was not done and that was not the case, and at least on that, he felt there was a problem with the LDGS. Member Walker stated another problem was item 33 and the question of aesthetic quality of the site configuration, in terms of design and open space contributing to aesthetic quality. He also stated compatibility and there was a loss in perspective of the fact that this was a neighborhood shopping center and the whole intent of neighborhood centers was the fact that they were primarily in a residential setting and therefore, they will not have such a high profile as a more heavily business oriented area. He felt that the question of "we need more light" is just that. There was not supposed to be more light there. It was not a heavy commercialized district, it was a neighborhood shopping center and by design, we did not seek to have heavily lit areas because it was not compatible with the area. He stated that because of the elements stated, he felt there were grounds to deny this administrative change. Member Carroll stated that on fixture 7 and 8 that light the board had only 175 watts and lit the reader board. Did they see this generally and was this a typical lighting design in neighborhood shopping centers. -23- Ms. Clark replied that the use of reader boards in a neighborhood shopping center was not that common of a feature and that sign was approved with the original development of the Raintree Shopping Center. In terms of lighting, it was not at all uncommon to see some sort of ground mounted lighting angled upwards the main identification sign. Member Strom was in support of the comments Member Walker made and was concerned that this was not strictly a question of whether or not the lights on the trees were attractive or not, but was inappropriate for this amount of light to be used in this type of commercial area. He stated further concern that if they should approve this lighting that the next thing every neighborhood shopping center will want is some sort of drama lighting and the purpose of lighting in a neighborhood shopping center was to be dramatic. He stated that the trees are visible with this kind of lighting for roughly a mile away and that was a tremendous radius for a neighborhood shopping center to have to attract attention. He added criteria 22 where intense direct glare and 28 where they talk about favorable relationships of the site plan and he did not think it was facetious in this particular context. He also sited criteria 29 with regards to energy usage. He felt this type of lighting in this type of center was excessive. Mr. Jeff Hill, designer for the lighting, stated to Chairman Kern as to his question of why was this not on the original plans, poor engineering was the best answer for that. He stated the engineer that did the original lighting said that corner was going to be left vacant for a future tenant to take care of. The future tenant came in, Western Sizzlin. He said the lighting at some point would be taken care of on that corner. He stated the engineer was not authorized to make that decision, the owner was. He stated that on questions on the neighborhood shopping center, there was only residential use on one corner, two corners were commercial and the third corner on the east was going to be a new car wash and he was doing the engineering on lighting for that corner. He stated that neighborhood shopping centers reminded him of something in the middle of a neighborhood, not on a major busy intersection where there are commercial properties on three of the four corners. Mr. Hill stated there was absoutely no direct glare on the trees, there was glare if you got into the right angle, but that was the same as any light source. You will never be able to eliminate glare as long as there was a light source. He stated there was no intense glare because the lights were primarily shining upward unless you were in a plane and then it might be intense. He stated he had not heard a negative comment from anyone and he had talked to 500 to 600 people that had looked at the lighting on the trees. He stated that it brightens up the corner and the employees at Western Sizzlin are happy because when they leave work, there was light in the parking lot. He cited the Safeway Store at Drake and Taft's poor lighting and the King Soopers at Taft and Elizabeth's poor lighting. He also stated the lighting and the glare at Rolland Moore Park and the 215,000 watts of light, not 7,000 watts. They were lighting trees and the City was lighting grass. He stated you could fin 25 to 30 fixtures that were not even aimed properly at Rolland Moore. He stated there might be one or two fixtures at Raintree that might need a little more adjusting. He stated that Foxfire had gone through and planted bushes on the Shields side of the street in front of the lights and that was part of the game plan to get the bushes in and growing as to hide the fixture. The fixtures would not be seen from Shields. -24- Member Strom moved for denial of the administrative change appeal for Raintree Commercial PUD. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker stated for the record that they had cited a number of criteria of the LDGS and that was what he based his seconding of the motion on. Member Strom stated for the record that items 22, 24, 28, 29, and 33 of the LDGS for the motion for denial. Member O'Dell stated that she had been by during a snow storm and that it was beautiful and thinks it detracts from the shopping center itself. You see the trees instead of the shopping center and felt that was better, but at the same time, the board members had made some good comments and cited the criteria in the guidance system and would be voting for the motion. Member Walker commented on the lighting in the parking lot and suggested that if there was a problem with lighting in the parking lot then that could be looked at in terms of how we normally light parking lots. Chairman Kern stated for the record for Sherry to give a brief definition of a neighborhood of a shopping center and its relationship to surrounding homes. Ms. Clark stated that in general, they would define the neighborhood service area for this particular center and typically define the service area as what was in the square mile surrounding the area. The residential area that came to mind were Hill Pond to the north; the apartment complexs at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersections of Shields and Drake and the properties that were west of the site on both north and south sides of Drake. She stated that City policies were that they have a neighborhood shopping center located per square mile and the concept originally of a neighborhood shopping center as this one was initially designed, was there would be a supermarket or grocery store as the anchor for the neighborhood service center and that relates back to the one mile square mile service area. She stated there had been changes in the center over the years and obviously the anchor we can identify for Raintree now is Pulse. Member Walker added that right behind Raintree was an approved PUD for an large apartment complex and that further indicates that this was a residential area. Member Shepard stated that she was not going to support the motion, that she had no problem with the lighting and the criteria that was being stated. To support the motion was quite subjective and she had no problem with that level of lighting at a neighborhood shopping center and the trees were an incredible feature and warrant some attention. Chairman Kern stated that he first noticed the lighting on the trees when driving by and his reaction was "what the" and found it distracting to him while driving by. He said he was aesthetically in favor of such things but was not appropriate here. He said he asked himself would we have permitted this sort of lighting, this intensity of lighting on the original development. He -25- stated no, he thought it would be a bit much for what they were intending for this particular site, so personally he will vote for the motion to deny. The motion for denial was approved 5-2. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. -26- • S. FORT::. • • . ..... ............... ............. N...... ..... •' ......::::. .. �.:::7....... key RjjaRfEE.f. ........... )S VET CLINIC; ................ 1 V.N'J9L7 wenrl s, • . r PW ....... `... ' :�. Lrto K& C r City Limits' 1.1.90