Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/20/1989PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES . November 20, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 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, Rex Burns, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard and Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Rick Richter, Mike Herzig, Ken Waido and Georgiana Taylor. AGENDA REVIEW Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the October 23, 1989 meeting; Item 2 - Forbes Rezoning, #49-89; Item 3 - Kieft Annexation and Rezoning, #49-89; Item 4 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD - Master Plan, 044-89; Item 5 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD - Preliminary, 044-89A; Item 6 - Foothills Parkway PUD - Preliminary, #36-89. Chairman Kern asked if there were any items that staff, the Board or the audience wished to have pulled for discussion. Member Strom asked that the Forbes rezoning (Item #2) be pulled from the Consent Agenda. . Member Shepard moved to approve Consent Items 1 and 3. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. FORBES REZONING - #48-89 Member Strom asked for an explanation of the size of the lots and the intended use for the property. Mr. Shepard replied that the purpose of the two southerly lots was to place each individual farm house that existed on the property on its own lot. It was the desire of the applicant to do some remodeling and improvements to the property and the structures in the near future, in which case building permits would have to be received. To receive building permits, they need to be on a subdivided lot. There were no plans for development. The 10 acre lot to the north, would remain in pasture. The reason it was platted was so the right-of-way along the frontage of the property for County Road 11 could be dedicated via the plat. Member Strom asked if there was any proposal for development of this property other than the existing uses. Mr. Shepard replied there was not. Member Strom moved for approval. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve Forbes Rezoning passed 7-0. 0 SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - MASTER PLAN - #44-89 SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - PRELIMINARY - #49-89A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the property and stated that staff recommend approval of the Master Plan. Don Richmond, gave a f+Nesentation of the project. The property was 8 acres, located on a major arterial. He believed it would be a good location for a business service type use. The proposal for the Master Plan was to develop 1.5 residential units per acre on the western portion of the property. The site was bordered on the west by The Ridge Subdivision (a density of 1 unit an acre). The property on the east of the site was Clarendon Hills Subdivision which was being developed at a density of 3 units an acre. Directly across the street was a proposed church. The east side of south Shields had been completely improved past the veterinary site to the south, approximately 300 feet, and all improvements were in on that side of the street with the exception of the sidewalk. The proposal was for a residential appearing, southwestern style architecture, clinic. Mr. Richmond discussed the landscaping, parking, lighting, signage, land use, utilities, and presented a plan which showed the landscaping and parking. Ms. Clark gave the Staff Report on both projects and showed slides of the area and the proposed project. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommended approval with the condition that the applicant submit detailed information justifying the proposed energy conservation measures with final PUD application. Ms. Clark stated that since the applicant did not achieve the required 50% on the point chart, staff would support the requested variance. Ms. Clark stated that they also recommend a condition that the off -site utility easements be secured by the applicant prior to submission of a final PUD application. Member Burns asked Ms. Clark about the phasing of utility improvements in the area. Ms. Clark replied that some utilities were missing on the east side of Shields, so contiguity credit on the point chart could not be given. Chairman Kern asked if anyone in the audience would like to address these proposals. Bob Browning, 1316 Hepplewhite Court, commented on the density of the Ridge. His concerns were statements made on the Master Plan regarding access to the cul-de-sac through the Ridge. If no plans were contemplated, he would like to have these words stricken from the Master Plan. As far as the utilities connection was concerned, he was led to believe by the City Planning staff that any easement for utilities cutting through The Ridge would be done privately with the lot owners involved. He asked if that had changed. Ms. Clark replied that it was her understanding from Mr. Richmond that the applicant was working on securing an easement through the neighboring lots, down to Hepplewhite Court, for installation of utilities. -2- Mr. Browning asked if it would be an easement by agreement, but not by condemnation. Ms. Clark replied that was correct. Ms. Clark replied that there had been discussion on the potential in providing vehicular access to Hepplewhite Court, connecting these two properties. She stated that the reference should be deleted from the plan. It was determined the access was not needed. Mr. Browning stated that the concern was not one of content but what was documented on the Master Plan, and would like to see it stricken. Richard Lee, 1400 Hepplewhite Court, commented he was a neighbor of Mr. Browning and would re-emphasize that the wording about the vehicular access to Hepplewhite be stricken from the Master Plan. Member Shepard moved for approval of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic Master Plan with the condition that the statement referring to the access to Hepplewhite Court be deleted from the Planning Objectives. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. Member Carroll moved for approval of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic Preliminary with the conditions that the applicant submit detailed Information justifying the proposed energy conservation measures with final PUD application, and a that off -site utility easement be secured by the applicant prior to the submission of a final PUD application, if the Hepplewhite Court utility route is chosen. Member Strom seconded the motion. Ms. Clark suggested that there needed to be some wording in the motion regarding approval of the variance. Member Carroll moved to allow a variance to the point chart. Member Strom seconded the motion, and went on to say that his support of the variance was based on his belief that the strict application of the criteria would be creating an undue hardship on this owner by prohibiting him from proceeding because of his failure to meet the point chart standards results from a simple matter of timing that was out of his control. Member Carroll commented that The Ridge has reached maximum development and, except for one lot, would never be in a position where more development would take place in The Ridge. Chairman Kern agreed with Members Strom and Carroll and went on to say that he felt that the owners were affected by timing. Additionally, the proposed clinic was an appropriate use so far as it served as a transition and a buffer to the remaining development. 9 The motion was approved 7-0. -3- FOOTHILLS PARKWAY PUD, PRELIMINARY - #36-89 Ted Shepard gave a description of the project. He stated it was a request for a preliminary PUD plan for a 2,780 s.f. auto tune-up and auto lubrication shop, which would be an Econo-Lube, and a 770 s.f. drive up restaurant which would be a Good Times Burger. The site measured .998 acre and was located on the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Foothills Parkway, in front of the Steele's Market. The parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business. Ed Massey, President of Round the Corner Restaurants, the developer of the Good Times Restaurant stated they had worked with the Econo-Lube to be their co -tenant. This was a project similar to some other Denver projects. Mr. Massey stated that he would like Boyd Hobak, Chief Operating Officer, and Ed Zdenek, their architect, to talk about the technical aspects of the application. He would talk about the responsibility aspects. He stated that after the last meeting, he asked his people to redesign what they had submitted so they would be completely compatible with the South College Access Plan. He stated he was concerned that the project be done to be compatible both short-term and long-term. He stated that when a new plan was prepared, a meeting was held between Boyd Hobak, Ed Zdenek and Rick Ensdorff, the City's Transportation Administrator. Mr. Ensdorff said it was acceptable to the city and it met all the requirements of the South College Access Plan for short and long-term. After the meeting with Mr. Ensdorff, they contacted their neighbors and asked them to meet to discuss the plan and raise any objections that they might have with the ingress or egress. He stated that they met with Ted Shepard, Joe Frank, Dick Dellenbach, Mike Dellenbach and representatives of Jack Williams. He stated that they went over the plan, answered all of their questions, and everyone, except the Dellenbachs, said that they had done a good job and that it was compatible. The Dellenbachs said that, on the surface, they had answered all of their questions and objections. He stated, that based on these comments, he was going to resubmit so they could go before the Board tonight. He stated that they had asked the Dellenbachs to study the plan and if they had any questions, to call him. He stated that it was his responsibility to get the answers to the Dellenbachs. He stated that they did not hear from the Dellenbachs until last Thursday when Mike Dellenbach called him and asked him if there was adequate land there to develop. He replied that, as a single purpose user, they look for approximately 10,000 to 15,000 square feet and that Econo-Lube looks for about 15,000 and 20,000. Combined, it was the perfect size for a co -development of an automobile type user trying to use the same ingress and egress and that they were trying to do some of the same projects with Minute Lube, Grease Monkey, and Econo Lube and other automobile oriented businesses compatible to this proposal. He stated he went over the plan with Mike Dellenbach and he felt that it was compatible. Mr. Massey stated that they believed they were being responsible by being good citizens. They prepared this plan to be acceptable to the Board and staff, and acceptable to his neighbors. They wanted to be good neighbors. -4- Ed Zdenek, architect designer, thanked the Board and staff for their quick response in allowing them to appear this evening. Mr. Zdenek distributed an area map that showed more clearly the traffic issues that they would be speaking about. Mr. Zdenek stated that at the end of the last Board meeting, they felt the land use issues and the architectural aspects of the PUD were not an issue with the Board, but the issues centered around traffic circulation. As a result, they have worked with the neighbors and city staff extensively to arrive at an alternative proposal. Mr. Zdenek pointed out that at the last month's hearing, they had a right turn -in only like the one that had been 'recently approved at the McDonald's site with two consequences. One was that the right turn -in eliminated a lot of landscaping along College Avenue, and second made access to Dellenbach more difficult. Mr. Zdenek stated the new plan created a T-intersection with the access into Steele's. He stated it would provide a thru traffic motion and would allow for future access to continue to the north into the Dellenbach property, if that was their desire. Mr. Zdenek stated they had also introduced a minor right -in only access on Foothills Parkway. He felt this would meet the needs of Mr. Williams, who was the neighbor to the north, as well as the Dellenbachs. Mr. Zdenek stated that, in the future, a right -turn only from College Avenue would happen if desired by the adjacent property owners, anywhere within the shaded area as shown on the plan. It would fit completely within the South College Avenue Access Plan and it could happen as the adjacent land owners desired it to happen. Mr. Zdenek reiterated that the intent was to relieve the current problem of the frontage road. He stated that they had also eliminated the potential for U-turn's on Foothills Parkway which currently existed. The existing landscaping along College Avenue would remain intact. Mr. Zdenek stated they agreed with all of the conditions recommended by Staff. Member Klataske asked Mr. Zdenek about the use of the area to the east of the Jiffy Lobe. Mr. Zdenek replied that it was parking. Member Shepard asked Mr. Zdenek to review internal traffic circulation. Mr. Zdenek replied that there was a right turn -in only access from Foothills Parkway which would intersect with the new frontage road alignment. This drive in would be one-way and would be 14 feet wide. The other access point to Foothills would be a full turning access with three lanes: a left out lane; a right out lane, and; a right -in lane. -5- Member Shepard asked Mr. Zdenek about how a vehicle would enter Good Times from both accesses. He replied by demonstrating to her the circulation from both accesses. Member O'Dell asked if there would be any kind of stop signs or yield signs where the one-way frontage road heads north and where the vehicles would be exiting the Good Times restaurant. Mr. Zdenek replied that there was a stop sign where there was a bend in the road which would become a stop intersection. He showed that there were two stop signs and both lanes were in a stop condition. Member Strom asked that if someone were entering the drive-thru restaurant, coming off the frontage road turning south into the property, how would they know what window was open and what window was not open. Mr. Zdenek replied that one of the windows was only open during the peak hours being the lunch hour. It would be closed the rest of the time and there was a gate during the off hours. Member Klataske asked where the loading and unloading would take place for supplies. Mr. Hobak, president of the corporation, replied that the unloading comes in through the back door of the restaurant and the delivery trucks use the drive-thru lanes. Member Klataske asked what time of the day would deliveries occur Mr. Hobak replied that they had an agreement with their supplier that it was never the time the restaurant would be open, that it was early in the morning. The suppliers will have keys to their restaurants and they deliver even before the restaurant is opened. Mr. Shepard replied that the staff recommended approval with the three following conditions: 1) the final plat indicate reciprocal cross access easements for the realigned frontage road and the right in curb cut off of Foothills Parkway; 2) the amount of screen material in the area of the menu board along Foothills Parkway be increased so that the menu board is not visible from the street. The screen material may consist of berming and landscaping; and, 3) at the time of final PUD, the applicant provide a legal instrument suitable for recording designating the eight parking spaces immediately west of the Good Times restaurant as shared parking. Such agreement should be in the form a non-exclusive parking easement executed by all pertinent parties. Chairman Kern asked if anyone from the public would like to speak on this issue. There was no audience participation. Member Shepard asked staff if the City's position last month was to get rid of the access to College Avenue and adding the one-way frontage road back in, which seemed to be something to satisfy the property owners north of this property. She asked if there was any thought given to eliminating the one-way frontage road at such time that Dellenbach put through an entrance to their property from College Avenue. -6- Mr. Shepard replied no, that if the curb cut that was proposed mid -block between Foothills Parkway and Swallow was to go in, there was no condition that this 14 foot access lane be eliminated. Member Shepard replied that she did not mean the access off of College Avenue, rather the access off of the road that was on the boundary with Steele's parking lot. But in either situation, if something happened to improve access to Dellenbach and Long John Silver's, could the one-way frontage road be vacated. Mr. Shepard replied that if this project received final approval, the frontage road would become private, at which time it would not be the city's to vacate. Member Strom asked Mr. Shepard why the city would want to make a public frontage road a private access way. Mr. Shepard replied that the public frontage road would become more of a parking lot drive aisle built to a 28 foot width with raised vertical curbing. It would not become a public street that the city would maintain but it would be reserved for public access and public utilities. It could not be closed down, it would remain for public use. The reason that staff felt comfortable in recommending the vacation to the private property owner was because of the improvements the city would receive by closing off the intersection with Foothills Parkway. If the intersection were moved further west, there would be a considerable public benefit in improving circulation. Member Strom asked if it was the City's position that this was an improvement to the frontage road to bring it back away from College Avenue. Mr. Shepard replied yes. Member Strom replied that if this was the case, why was a 14 foot in -only access needed. If it would work as a frontage road through this property, it seems that the 14 foot access way was redundant and also leaves a hazard at that intersection point. Mr. Shepard replied that the right -in turn movement was considered a through movement. It was the exiting movements that cause the congestion. The illegal u-turns and the stacking at the intersection cause the sort of grid lock that was currently happening. The unimpeded right -in, through movement, will not effect the safety or the efficiency of the intersection. Member Strom commented that it was his personal observation that when you are turning into a 14 foot lane, you slow down quite a bit from what you normally would and that his point still stands if the other drive actually functions as we want the frontage road to function, what was the point of putting this one in. Also, regardless of the right -turn in only being an acceptable free movement, it created additional congestion within the site and onto the frontage road further back, in terms of left turn movements to get around to either to the quick lube or the restaurant. Mr. Shepard stated that the City's Transportation Director had reviewed the traffic impact analysis and the general circulation and had approved the lane. It was wider than a normal one-way aisle. He stated that staff had reviewed it and found it was acceptable. 7- Member Carroll commented he had to take a different outlook on it, stating he read the letter from Dellenbachs, who had concerns about the traffic congestion problems in the site, especially at the four way intersection on the west side of the property. It seemed to him that by having the right -in only, some of the congestion would be alleviated in the area in which people would be coming from Swallow, or northbound on College who wanted to go to Dellenbach's, Long John Silver's or this particular site, could make their right turn and then proceed directly north, pulling some of the traffic out of the interior of this lot. He felt that it might end up as a traffic jam at that four way intersection or even where they come back on to Foothills Parkway, although that would be a right turn in, but this right turn in on the old frontage road would alleviate some of the internal congestion, but then again the point was well taken that there still may be some congestion as the people slow down to get into that relatively narrow drive -way. Member O'Dell stated that when McDonald's at Harmony Road requested a right -in only access on Harmony Road, and wanted the access soon after the intersection of Harmony and College, that wasn't acceptable. She was concerned as to why this was more acceptable in this situation. Mr. Shepard stated that this situation was a little different in that Foothills was a collector and not a major arterial. The traffic volumes on the frontage road are about 600 or 700 vehicles per day and it would be predicted up to about 1,100. All of the intersections are at service level A & B, in fact the Foothills/College intersection was at service level's A & B. The Foothills Frontage Road intersection would operate at levels A & B for all movements. These intersections are relatively uncongested and considered acceptable in terms of levels of service analysis. Chairman Kern asked if level A & B was throughout the day and would some of the traffic levels at some of these corners be higher than that. Mr. Shepard replied that it was throughout the day. Chairman Kern asked whether that was an average, or whether there was times when it would peak. Mr. Shepard replied that the noon hour was the peak time and nothing gets below service level B at all the intersections. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, added that a big difference between this project and the one at College/Harmony was that Foothills Parkway was carrying about 4100 trips and at College, it was about 25,000 trips per day. The Board might want to ask Matt Delich to comment upon what the traffic impact might be of not having the 12 foot driveway. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant for this project, stated that the traffic volumes at Foothills were acceptable. It was far enough back and the volumes were so much lower on Foothills Parkway compared to Harmony Road, that this was a much better condition than having the frontage road at the existing location. Member O'Dell stated that what she was concerned about was having an immediate right -turn in where the existing frontage road was. -8- Mr. Delich replied that it would operate very well because it was 14 feet wide at this location. Mr. Delich indicated on the map how the turns of the right -in only would work. Member Strom asked Mr. Delich about access to the Jiffy Labe. He stated that he understood that people coming in for a quick lube enter from the east, and people coming in for a tune up would have to enter from the south. He was concerned about what would happen to the guy who came in and wanted a tune up and got in line for the lube job and had to back out and work his way around. He felt the access was very tight. Mr. Zdenek replied by showing the escape route on the map and also pointed out that they had treated the plaza much as the fire access through Old Town. He also noted that the car was taken by an individual, and that it was not a drive that the customer had to take. Member Strom replied that still added to the congestion of the whole site. Mr. Zdenek answered that it probably would, but that it would happen very infrequently, in his opinion. Member Strom stated that he felt there was an awful lot of signage for such a little site, and he was unsure whether the project was functionally a part of the Steele's Center or not. What he felt was proposed was about 575 square feet of signage, including a sign that was 22 feet tall for the Steele's Market. He felt that instead of the project serving as a functional center, it was strictly commercial on College Avenue in front of the Steele's Market and that type of signage that was proposed reinforced that impression. He asked staff to describe the signage and how it was evaluated. Mr. Shepard replied that the two parcels for the two users would be platted on their own individually platted lots. Under the sign code, they would be allowed one square foot of signage per linear foot of lot frontage or two square feet of signage per building frontage, whichever one was greater. The two monument signs that were proposed were within those parameters. The Steele's Market had asked for a project identification sign on the Foothills frontage of the Good Times Burgers lot, that was a corner lot so they would have signage allowance on the frontage road and on the Foothills Road. The sign on the Foothills Road would be taken by the Steele's project ID sign and the sign facing College Avenue would be the other frontage. The height of the sign that was proposed for Steele's was conceptual at this point, and it was shown on the plan as an indication, it was a schematic, it was not designed to specifics yet. It approximated the height of the Rain Tree sign at the northwest corner of Shields and Drake or the Cimmaron sign at the southwest corner of Shields and Drake. It was a taller sign, for the anchor tenant, Steele's who would be located further to the West and the two monument signs on College Avenue would be monument signs mounted on a pedestal. Member Strom stated he felt the Board was dealing with what was reportedly a single center and really does not see any coordination at all on the basis of the two monument signs having similarities, but they were a very small element to the whole feature and did not see any relationship at all between them and the Steele's Market sign. It seemed that the applicants were generating a whole lot of signage for three independent uses and were trying to justify as a coordinated center. Mr. Shepard replied that if the Board would like to add a 4th condition relating to unified signage, he would work with the applicants and the tenants over the course of the final review to accomplish this. Member Shepard asked why Steele's wanted to put their center sign on the tiny Good Times parcel rather than on the curve of their parking lot which would be more closely identified with Steele's, It seemed to her that there was no reason that Good Times should have to have the center sign, basically be penalized and have that much signage on that tiny parcel when the center sign would be more appropriate to Steele's. Mr. Zdcnck replied the sign was there for what was an obvious reason that it was closer to the street and that was what they were looking for. They were looking for an identity to College Avenue and they felt they didn't have one. Also, that they could, if it were a condition of the Board, move the sign to the other side of the entrance and would agree to coordination of the signage before final. Member Carroll moved to approve the Foothills Parkway PUD with following four conditions: 1) the final plat indicate reciprocal cross easement for the realigned frontage road and the right in curb cut of Foothills Parkway; 2) the amount of screen material by the menu boards along Foothills Parkway be increased so the menu board is not visible from the street; 3) that the property owner to the west, Steele's Market give a cross easement which legally provides to Good Times restaurant the eight parking spaces directly to the west. It would be in the form of a legal instrument binding the property owner to the west suitable for recording, basically a non-exclusive parking easement executed by the pertinent parties; and 4) that the signage on the site be coordinated and that the Steele's monument sign be located directly to the west of its location on the west side of the intersection. Member Burns seconded the Motion. Member Shepard stated she supported the motion of approval of this project, and the project had suffered from mixed signals and changing directions with respect to the frontage road. She hoped that in approving this, the Board would still have the option of closing off the one-way frontage road, particularly since the goal of the City was to have an access off College which would alleviate the need for this. She stated that her vote in favor was a comment that she would still like to see the frontage road closed. Member Strom stated he had struggled quite a bit with this proposal both last month and this month and he could not support the approval of the plan as it stands. His impression was that they were trying to accomplish too much on too small of a site. He felt that the project was not part of a functionally existing shopping center and felt the project was awarded too many points which if they don't get points for being a part of a planned center would drop them down below the 50% requirement. It was his impression that several points in the all development point chart were not adequately addressed, and that the proposal was not well integrated with the organizational scheme of the community and the neighborhood which was Site Design Criterion 026. Also, for Criterion #27 under Site Design, he didn't think it produced an efficient, functionally -organized planned unit development. Under Site Design Criterion #36, which requires that the street parking system be designed to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site and configuration. He felt this proposal, with a tremendous amount of asphalt and very difficult access -10- situation for uses that are essentially high traffic uses did not meet this criterion. Finally, Criterion #40, asks is the pedestrian circulation system designed to assure that pedestrians were able to safely and easily access between Steele's and the proposed site? If a pedestrian would cross Foothills Parkway across the College frontage of this site a pedestrian would have to cross three driveways, a street and 170 feet of frontage. Consequently, he did not feel he could support this proposal at this time. Member Klataske stated that he could not support this proposal for the same reasons. In addition felt that Criterion #33 had not been met. He concurred with Member Strom on Criterion #36. He felt that Criterion #37 had been met to a limited degree, however, he questioned the adequacy of the parking arrangement. He felt Criteria #40 and 041 also had not been met. Member O'Dell stated that last month she cited Criteria #26 and #35 as a reason for denial. She stated that she has struggled with this, but felt the new plan was better because there was not any direct access off College Avenue, but did not believe that Criteria 026 nor #35 could be answered yes, so she would not be able to support the motion. Chairman Kern stated that he went out to visit the site twice and jotted down which issues to address and tried to evaluate what the site might look like when built, and what the traffic might be like. Some of the distances were awfully short especially within the site, but, some of the numbers that Mr. Delich had given and Mr. Shepard gave reference to, have alleviated some of those concerns. He mentioned Criterion #35 relating to parking and movement of vehicles on and off the site. He felt the access was better than before and by the nature of the design that some of the external concerns would be addressed because people just were not going to use that road. He stated he still had concerns about the internal circulation which didn't seem to be smooth for a noon time crowd. Motion for approval was denied 5-2, with Members Shepard and Burns voting yes. OTHER BUSINESS Administrative Review Soundtrack at Arbor Plaza Mr. Shepard explained that the applicant for Soundtrack had applied for an Administrative change. The administrative change was denied based on the change in character being interpreted as being major, in which case it was brought to the Board for formal action. Bill Messner, architect with RMA architects, representing Soundtrack, and with him Alan Kessick with Soundtrack stated that they applied for an administrative change to change the proposed color of the metal roof on the Soundtrack building, which was currently under copstruction, located on the corner of Harmony and College. Mr. Messner presented slides of the Soundtrack building and the shopping center located right behind with the brown roof. He explained the color scheme. 0 Mr. Messner brought in samples of the color of the roof and a block of the building to show the blue color and the material of the building. Member Burns asked if the sample was the same blue as on the Arbor Center. Mr. Messner replied it was as close as they could get with a pre -finished metal roof and, due to the longevity of the finish, they really didn't want to do anything to change it such as painting it. Member Carroll asked Mr. Shepard if he had reviewed the metal piece before he denied the application. He asked why it was denied. Mr. Shepard replied no, he did not see the sample. When the application was denied, Mr. Messner brought the sample, at which time they decided to forward the request to the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Carroll asked if staff had drawn any conclusions based upon the sample. Mr. Shepard replied that the primary reason for denial was to bring it to the Board. Member Strom asked if the block that was presented was the same color as the rest of the buildings in Arbor Plaza. Mr. Shepard replied no, the Arbor Plaza was more yellowish, not quite a beige Member Strom asked if the grey block was already approved. Mr. Shepard replied yes it was. Chairman Kern asked for public input. There was none. Member Shepard moved for approval of the blue color, stating it was an upgrade to the overall appearance of the center. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Strom stated he supported the motion, saying he felt the blue went better with the grey stone than the brown. Chairman Kern stated he would vote against the motion for several reasons, some historical, but bases the disagreements on Criterion 026 and #33 of the LDGS. Motion for approval passed 4-3 with members O'Dell, Klataske, and Kern In the negative. Out -of -City Utility Service Recommendation Joe Frank stated that this was a recommendation to the City Council on Ordinance Section 26-651 of the City Code dealing with City utility service outside City limits. He stated that currently, the request for out -of -city service takes as long as two months, that included both the Water board and the Planning and Zoning Board to review routine requests for out -of -city service. He said that this was a lengthy review period for items that are fairly minor -12- 0 LI in nature and that staff was recommending a change in the Code which would allow administrative approvals of simple service requests, but still require that more complex or multiple out -of -city service requests come back to the Water Board and the planning board for approval. Staff felt this was a good change and that he recommended that the Board recommend to City Council that these changes be made. Chairman Kern asked if anyone from the public wished to address the Board on this item. There was none. Member Burns moved for approval, Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. -13-