HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/19/1989s
i
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DECEMBER 19, 1988
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
approximately 6:34 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell,
Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Dave Edwards, Jan Shepard and Alternate Rex
Burns. Members Frank Groznick and Lloyd Walker were absent.
Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Mike
Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Linda Ripley, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman.
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 2 - Buxman Board and Care,
Group Home, #19-87A; Item 3 - Poudre River Business Park PUD, Phase One,
Final, #79-88A; Item 5 - Resolution PZ88-10, Vacation of a Portion of the
Drainage and Detention Easement in Tract A, Horsetooth Commons PUD,
#96-81H; and Item 6 - Orchard Annexation and Zoning, #93-88, A.
Item 1 - The Minutes of the November 21, 1988 meeting will be acted upon at
• the January 1989 regular meeting. Item 4 - The Carpet Exchange PUD, Preli-
minary, #94-88, was pulled from the Consent Agenda by staff.
Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there was other item to be pulled from the Con-
sent Agenda. A property owner in the neighborhood of Buxman Board and
Care asked for clarification regarding the change of ownership. Since it was a
change of business ownership and not property ownership he did not request
the item be pulled.
Member Kern moved for approval of Items 2, 3, 5, and 6. Member Shepard
seconded the motion. The motion for approval carried 6-0.
Item 4 - #94-88 - THE CARPET EXCHANGE PUD - Preliminary
Linda Ripley gave a staff description of a proposed retail sales building
for home improvements.
Ken Goff of Hunter Architectural Group, represented Mr. Odette, the owner.
He described the project. He noted it met zoning and will have common
access with the property to the south. The property sloped steeply (about
40') to the south. The slope had been incorporated into the project plan.
The building materials included green tinted glass and masonary units.
They will save trees when possible and replace with a higher quality tree
if not possible.
•
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 2
Linda Ripley gave the staff recommendation for approval. Member Klataske
questioned the point chart and the access on College Avenue. Mrs. Ripley
stated significant changes had occurred. They included elimination of the
northern access.
Member Kern asked about building heights. He was told they vary from 12
feet to 24 feet. The south end of the building would rise to 45 feet.
Mr. Rod VanVelson, 316 Parkway Circle North, President of the Fossil Creek
Homeowner's Association, thought the request tonight would be for a variance.
He asked if the Board/staff felt the project met neighborhood compatibility
requirements. He also asked who was notified. Most Fossil Creek and Fair-
way Estate residents felt they had been ignored. He went on to list his
major concerns as 1) Fossil Creek development shared an access with busi-
ness properties to the north; and 2) drainage - if the property became
asphalt there was a concern with what will happen with the water draining
from that area. Some of the properties had received some damage because of
erosion.
Mr. Goff responded there was an existing drainage plan and pointed out that
the entrance section of Fossil Creek Parkway was scheduled to be realigned.
Mrs. Ripley stated there was much to be done on storm drainage concerns. She
also pointed out that notification letters had been sent to both the Fossil Creek
and Fairway Homeowner's Associations.
Lynne Block, 5328 Fossil Ridge Drive, stated her concern was with traffic
impact. She was surprised to hear about moving the front entry to her
residential community and added that elementary aged children walked every
day on Fossil Creek Parkway. The curves kept the traffic moving slowly.
Traffic studies indicated 1900 vehicle trips per day added by this project and
an additional 2100 from the proposed Pace project. The entrance to the
neighborhood will be comparable to a shopping mall entrance. Air pollu-
tion problems will occur in her opinion. While not opposed to commercial
development the adverse effects of this strip commercial development needed
to be weighed and the location of this project carefully evaluated.
Debra Moyer, 5201 Greenview Drive, felt College would provide the major
access and questioned the plans for joint parking when there was nothing
developed to the south. She also was concerned with drainage, particularly
if Snead Drive was not completed. She asked if the realignment of Fossil
Creek was a foregone conclusion and what was planned for trees, sprinkler
systems, etc., already in place. She ended by stating she was against this
being heard at the January 23 Planning and Zoning Board meeting because the
process was not being followed and the neighborhood was not notified. She
would like to hear from the developer about energy conservation, traffic
effects, and commercial impact.
Chairperson O'Dell indicated the developer did not receive points for energy
conservation. Ms. Moyer explained the neighborhood, as well as the City,
were concerned about energy conservation and would like it addressed.
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1911
• Page 3
Rick Ensdorf, Traffic Engineer, stated Fossil Creek Parkway was an arterial
street and would eventually receive signalization when additional property was
developed.
Linda Ripley stated there was no neighborhood meeting prior to a final
submittal but would take names of interested neighbors to insure they were
notified.
Dr. Paul A. Opler, 5100 Greenview Court, a Wildlife Biologist, had several
environmental concerns including sedimentation caused by drainage, habitat
of a species of butterfly of special concern and the disruption of cliff
swallows home by the road realignment. He asked if the planning was compa-
tible with the Natural Resource Plan.
Linda Ripley indicated the City Wetlands Map and Wildlife Habitat Map
showed no significant areas. The Natural Resource Department raised only a
concern with the existing trees.
Del Nimmo, 5220 Greenview Drive, 10 year resident of Fossil Creek, was
concerned with aesthetics. He felt the project was not compatible and blocked
the view of the front range. It promoted the domino effect of strip com-
mercialization. He referred to circled numbers in the Homeowner's handout
as substantiation.
• Harold Swope, President of Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association (193
families) presented his support of the Fossil Creek owner's objections. He had
strenuous objections to the additional traffic generated and felt it would make
a warehouse district of College Avenue. In regard to drainage, Fairway
Estates has had continual problems since Target/LaBelles, etc., were built
and promises to help the drainage problem have not occurred.
Chairperson O'Dell pointed out the Board had no opportunity to comment on
the Fred Schmid warehouse as it was a use -by -right application.
Linda Ripley answered neighborhood questions. She indicated an agreement
from the homeowner's associations as well as the property owner to the south
could be required on the access. She stated staff was aware of the storm
drainage problems and believed they would be resolved in the process.
Mr. Goff indicated it was not the project's intent to be inappropriate or ugly
but a well thought out asset to Fort Collins. The firm has an engineer on
board to solve problems such as the drainage. While he sympathized with the
neighborhood he felt many problems had been addressed. They met with the
homeowner's and changed the project in accordance with the comments. The
original intent was to conserve water useage through areas as xeriscape. They
have stepped down the building to the south for solar gain and will bury the
north in a berm. They recognized the Fred Schmid concern and attempted to
present a pleasing side to the neighborhood.
•
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 4
Member Kern asked for a listing of bl zoning uses and Linda replied since the
property has a PUD condition, all projects on the site would be reviewed by
the Board. Uses generally allowed on a bl zone would include banks, theatres,
membership clubs, indoor recreational uses, retail shopping centers and child
care centers.
Member Kern concluded a variety of projects could be built and the Board's
desire was to make it compatible through buffering the neighborhood, mitigat-
ing effects on the neighborhood, insuring the developer had concern for
aesthetics, traffic, drainage.
Linda Ripley stated that, due to the magnitude of the concern, the developer
and staff should meet with representatives of the neighborhoods prior to final
submittal.
Chairperson O'Dell was concerned about the height on the southern end of
the building and asked that a reduction in height be looked at.
Member Shepard moved to approve the Carpet Exchange with the conditions 1)
there be a meeting with representatives of the homeowners and the developer
and 2) drainage problems and natural resource questions be addressed. Member
Kern seconded and the motion was approved 6-0.
Item 7 - #94-88 - ANTON ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Ken Waido gave the staff report and indicated the reason for annexation was
failure of property owner's septic system and replacement by a City sewer
connection.
Jack Ahnstedt, 2813 Taft Hill, appreciated the Board's continuing the item to
this meeting but had several questions on the necessity of annexation. He
had lived on Lot 10 about 18 years and said his abstract indicated "no
lots shall ever be used for any purpose other than ordinary residential."
Mr. Waido stated a prior property had not been annexed because the boundary
was not contiguous. Mr. Eckman stated the City did not rule on private
covenants. A private remedy would be enforced through the court system and
was not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Mr. Ahnstedt went on to point out Anton's own two acres and he and his
neighbors represented 12 acres. At least two of the proposed lots were in the
floodplain.
Mr. Waido pointed out this proposal tonight was for an annexation. The
property was a part of a subdivision with single family a use by
right. Also included as allowed uses would be schools, recreational uses,
churches, and utility installations.
r
0
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 5
Lawana Garrett, 2815 Taft Hill, felt Anton's short stay of one year did not
indicate a long-term investment. She felt the Anton's intent was to make
the lots more marketable through annexation. The neighborhood had become
frustrated by their input not being considered.
Jim Abrams, 2807 Taft Hill, indicated the sewer was a health hazard when it
was built and felt the planners should check sewer requests carefully.
Member Edwards stated the arguments regarded someone's rights as
opposed to another person's rights and the Anton's had the right to annex
their property.
Member Edwards moved to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning
request and Member Shepard seconded. The motion carried 6-0.
Item 8 - #60-79E - WOODLANDS PUD, Fourth Filing - Preliminary
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave staff description.
Mr. Scott Carlson, 11990 Grant, #200, Denver, 80233, property owner, indi-
cated he was impressed with the LDGS system. They had two city -sponsored
meetings and one on their own and felt they had mitigated the project con-
cerns. He then introduced Ben Herman, EDAW, Matt Delich, Traffic Consul-
tant, and Bill Blackwell, Civil Engineer for the project.
• Mr. Herman stated project work began in August. He explained the high use
areas, buffering, and access. Another concern was environmental. The
convenience store location had been moved several times and was now over
300 feet from the nearest residence.
Sherry Albertson -Clark reviewed the major issues and indicated areas still
to be reviewed. This included buffers, access, environmental issues, the
convenience store, and traffic. Regarding traffic she noted signalization
may be required and there will be median on Harmony Road eventually. The
Shields/Harmony location for the convenience store had severely limited
access. It had been moved to the southeast corner of the project.
Member Edwards asked for information about convenience stores. Mrs. Clark
indicated since 1987 approximately 14 stores had been approved. There were
approvals, as yet unbuilt, for three additional stores.
Rene Clements Cooney, a member of the Woodlands Neighborhood Association,
presented two petitions: one against the commercial development totally, and
one which opposed only the convenience store.
Joan Seeman, 613 Larkbunting Drive, President of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, reiterated the environmental concerns. Fifty-seven leaks had been
identified by complaints and double containment and continuous monitoring
might not be enough.
0
P & Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
Page 6
The Fire Department did not protect ground water pollution, and holding ponds
could be receptors. Air quality concerns also presented a health problem in
her opinion.
Sherry Clark indicated the project must score 69 percent on land use for the
staff to recommend approval and this project achieved 89 percent. The
evaluation dealt only with location. The environmental issues required a
separate analysis and the project was viewed as meeting the criteria.
Linda Murphy, 967 Bitterbrush, talked about the social issues and stated
traffic would increase 300 percent in some areas causing a safety problem.
The project was not in harmony with the neighborhood or the bottleneck
traffic design would not be necessary. The 24-hour convenience store would
promote crime in the area and the quality of life could decline.
John Cooney, 4454 Hollyhock Street, wondered how to prove compatibility and
noted the property was not currently zoned commercial.
Sherry Clark spoke about the recently adopted Convenience Center Plan and
offered Drake/Taft Hill center as an example of a commercial area on a larger
scale than this. Scotch Pines would be another example.
Rex Aden, 4473 Hollyhock, asked about the approved project for the site being
zoned for 140-160 condominiums and Sherry replied it was zoned for a 120-u-
nit apartment complex.
Mr. Aden went on to discuss the "no left turn" access off Harmony, his
concern over the hot rudders from the Community College, and the fact that
there were already three gas stations in close proximity. He felt this
commercial project had no buffer between it and the residential neighbor-
hood.
Larry Rudeen, 4413 Starflower, expressed concerns that have not been
addressed such as .the already heavy traffic, the lack of landscaping and
the 24-hour operation of the store which would interfere with the quality
of life.
Kent Geib, 4425 Hollyhock, asked what effect the project would have on
property values. Chairperson O'Dell responded they were addressed indirectly.
Wiley Smith, 4430 Hollyhock, indicated he received no notice of the meetings.
He felt the proximity of the convenience center and the electronic leak
detection were two major concerns. Southland Corporation several years ago
received a resounding "No" from the neighborhood regarding a convenience
store. In his opinion nothing had changed.
Member Shepard indicated the approved existing plan for 120 units was a
density of 18 units/acre.
Member Kern asked about the traffic design standards and what effect com-
mercial versus multi -family had on traffic.
P 11 Z Meeting - December 19, 1988
. Page 7
Rick Ensdorf stated Starflower was a collector street and Wakerobin a local
street with a higher level of traffic than anticipated. Matt Delich, Traffic
Consultant, compared the proposal with the existing approved project.
Chairperson O'Dell expressed a concern with access.
Member Edwards moved to approve the project with the condition of phasing
and that the developer's share of the improvements be defined, and that
documentation for containment and leak protection be provided. Member
Shepard seconded. Member Kern noted there were many conflicts on this pro-
ject. The neighborhood did not want a convenience store, but once it was in
place the neighborhood would use them; however, the traffic impact bothered
him and he would like to amend the motion to limit the hours of the conve-
nience store to 10 p.m..
Member Edwards believed it was not a friendly amendment.
Chairperson O'Dell indicated she would not support the motion because of her
concern about traffic. The center section of the residential development faced
the back of a retail establishment. She felt the project infringed on the
neighborhood.
Member Kern indicated his opposition although he considered the design fairly
good. He felt the convenience store hours should be limited.
• Members Burns, Kern, and O'Dell voted against approval and the project was
rejected.
The meeting was continued until 6:30 p.m., January 4, 1989.
0
12-19-88
We represent the homeowners of Fossil Creek Meadows and are here to
request that the Planning and Zoning Board adhere to the Review Process as
stated in the Land Development Guidance System. In regard to the Carpet
Exchange Warehouse preliminary P.U.D. (*94-88) we ask that the requested
variance be denied. We are not opposed to development, but feel the full
seven week process Is vital so that we may have the opportunity to express
our concerns as homeowners, neighbors, and citizens.
Some of these concerns are:
1. Time needed to retain legal counsel.
2. Notice of this proposal was not received until December 12, 1988. This did
not allow homeowners sufficient time to submit letters of objection.
3. Complete information was not available until Friday, December 16, 1988;
thus making it impossible to study these plans in any detail.
4. We believe the implications of this project go beyond the immediate
matter at hand; especially traffic, air pollution, and drainage.
Granting this variance would deny us the opportunity to research and
express our concerns as citizens of the community. We know the City of Fort
Collins prides itself on this citizen input and we encourage you to follow the
Review Process.
Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowners
IM3
•
0
Land Development Guidance System criteria to be met:
1. Most decisions have implications that go beyond the immediate matter at
hand. This project in conjunction with Fred Schmid, and the proposed PACE
Warehouse will have major affects on traffic, air pollution and water runoff.
2. LDGS stipulates property development conform to certain general criteria
designed to protect and improve the health, safety, convenience and general
welfare of the people of Fort Collins. This project violates this criteria.
�3 1 Land Use Policies Plan, Goals and Objectives assures new development
meets not only physical but social economic and aesthetic needs of the City of
Ft. Collins. (-i-; I -A)
4. Provide for the use of solar energy in land use regulation. The plans we
have seen do not have any indication of use of solar energy in this project.
(ii-; 5)
1\5. j Criteria are established which insure that each land use will be compatible
with adjacent land uses as well as foster a healthy growth pattern for the
community as a whole. A warehouse strip does not foster a healthy growth
pattern.
(6; Requires a high level of design to ensure neighborhood quality. (-iii-; 1,3)
i\7System includes extensive considerations based upon design factors to
ensure neighborhood compatibility. "The developer will get his profit; the
neighbor gets his protection." We do not feel this project is compatible, nor
are we protected. (-iv-; 6)
80 , Citizens give direction to the development of their neighborhood by
delineating neighborhood values, goals, and objectives. As concerned citizens
we wish to exercise this right. (-v-; 8)
93 Any land use likely to occur in Ft. Collins can in most cases be made
compatible with any neighboring land use through careful design and
buffering. How could the Carpet Warehouse plans be modified to meet this
criteria?
IPM
10. The city should encourage larger scale development on the periphery of
the city, although this should not be done at the expense of the established
areas... we certainly believe this project is at the expense of the established
neighborhood. (-vi-D; 1,5)
11. The system calls for trade-offs among quality attributes of a pro iect
What are the quality attributes of this project? (-vii-; 9)
12. In regard to Ordinance *44, paragraph 3--Energy Conservation Plan, what
are the plans to utilize energy conservation?
13. Has the developer provided a note on the site plan indicating that the
project will reduce non-renewable energy usage?
14. One purpose of LDGS is to "ensure that future growth and development
which occurs is in accord with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive
Plan and all planning policies of the City." Several requests were made for a
copy of the Comprehensive Plan just last week to no avail. We were
informed there wasn't one.
15. Another purpose is to "encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip
length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation." According to
the Traffic Impact Analysis 35-40 percent of traffic will be drawn from the
South and 60 percent from the North of town. How does this encourage the
above mentioned patterns? How does it reduce energy consumption and
demand?
16� Another purpose is "to protect existing neighborhoods from harmful
J
encroachment by intrusive or disruptive development..." We find this an
intrusive and disruptive development for a variety of reasons, including air
quality, traffic infringements, drainage and incongruency with existing
neighborhood development. (-I-B1-1,6,8,13)
*All development criteria:
17. "Have all differences between the applicant and the affected neighborhood
as to the social compatibility of the project been resolved?" We do not believe
differences have even been addressed, let alone been resolved.
n
LJ
y
•
•
18. "Is the project designed so that the additional traffic generated does not
have significant adverse impact on surrounding development?" Access will be
in conflict with the entry lane onto Hwy 287 for Fossil Creek homeowners,
will violate the easement rights of the existing Fossil Creek Parkway. We sit
in a low-level basin and are concerned with the air quality 1900 vehicle trips
per day will generate. (-5-; 1, -6-; 4)
19. *Public Sevices and Safety.... storm drainage.
20 "Does the design and arrangement of the site plan contribute to the
overall reduction of energy use by the project?"
C21'.) "Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas
contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration?" The
available site plans, while minimal in depth do no show neighborhood
aesthetic quality. (-9-; 29 & 31)
22) "Does the landscape plan provide for treatment adjacent to the building
which increases the overall visual quality of the building design?" (-10-; 41)
*All Development: Numbered Criteria Chart
Our understanding is that this chart was to be completed by the developer.
None was available to us as of December 16, 1988. This unavailability adds to
our need for the entire time for review.
*Community/Regional Shopping Center Criteria Chart. Question answers to the
criteria. Question points allowed for non -arterial access, joint parking,
contiguity.
23. Preliminary Plan Submittal should include, among other things; (a)
description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the
applicant; (b) detailed description of how conflicts between land uses are being
avoided or mitigated; (c) statement of design methods to reduce energy
consumption including expected savings. (-41-; d,f,g)
(,24) Appendix C: Land Use Conflicts
Development Criterion *1 requires that conflicts be mitigated as a condition for
approval of the development plan. In addition to the architectural
considerations involved in mitigation through orientation, the materials,
colors, scale, and prominence of buildings in adjacent land uses can be
coordinated so there is a gradual transition from one land use to another
rather than a sharp and displeasing contrast. (C-2; Para. 5)
25. Appendix D: Identifying Impacts on Social Compatibility.*
December 12, 1988
Tom Peterson
Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPort Avenue
Fort Collins, Co 60522
Dear Mr. Peterson:
DAN HUNTER AIAO
Architect / Planner
DEC I ?. 1988
We are currently involved in your review process for a
Preliminary P.U.D. on South College Avenue For the Carpet
Exchange project. At this point we have submitted our
drawings in which we have addressed all of the covenants provided
to us by Linda Ripley and other members of the Design staff for
the December 19th P.U.D, meeting, Because we have addressed all
OF the staff comments we feel confident the project will be
approved without significant revisions and be ready to enter the
Final review process.
It is this seven week Final review period which has created
a hardship. The owners of this property had discussed with one
OF your Planners prior to entering into their purchase agreement,
the review process For P.U.D. projects. Unfortunately they
understood the entire process to be seven weeks, not just the
preliminary review. Based on this inFormation, a timetable For
our project including several key dates, i.e., property closings,
lease terminations and construction schedules, were implemented.
As we now know, our schedule is Just half the time required.
For this reason I would like to request a variance to your
schedule for final approval.Insomuch as our preliminary plan
should be approved with very little, IF any, change, the only
additional requirement for Final approval are the plat, Final
landscape plan and the utility plans. We would like to submit
these drawings by the end of this week, and IF at all possible,
get on track for the January meeting.
I realize that this schedule will be extremely demanding and
will take an extra effort For both my Firm and your staff, but
we would be very grateful if such a variance were possible.
Thank you For considering this issue. I will contact
you on Iuesdag OF this week For your response.
Best egards
1,---75378
neth P. G❑
Sterling Drive Boulder, Colorado 80301 (303) 443-3094
ORDINANCE 140. 44 , 1982,
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 83 OF CHAPTER 118
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BEING
A PART OF THE ZONING CODE INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM FOR PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Colorado and the Charter of the
City of Fort Collins provide for regulation of land use development;
and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Land Use Policies Plan which contains
provisions calling for the development of a point assessment system for
the evaluation of development; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an Energy Conservation Plan which
calls for development in a manner that conserves energy and maximizes the
use of renewable energy resources; and
WHEREAS, the Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit
Developments provides fTexibilfty for land use in a manner consistent -with,
the Land Use Policies Plan and the Energy Conservation Plan as adopted;
and
WHEREAS, the System allows for a mixed land use pattern provided
adverse impacts of land uses are minimized; and
WHEREAS, the System contains criteria for the evaluation of develop-
ment which provides for a clear and consistent understanding of the de-
velopment review process; and
WHEREAS, the System provides for appropriate development of infill
areas and new developing areas; and
WHEREAS, the System sets forth absolute and variable criteria which
are used to evaluate a development to determine whether approval would be
in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the System is designed to provide for the development of
compatible land uses; and
WHEREAS, the System has been publicized throughout the community
and the public has had numerous opportunities to comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed and unanimously
recommended approval of the System to the Council; and
t
0
ment Services
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
December 1, 1988
Ken Goff
c/o Hunter Architectural Group Ltd.
5378 Sterling Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
Dear Mr. Goff:
0
Staff has reviewed the revisions for the Carnet Exchange - Prcliminary PUD
n94-88, and has the following comments:
The location of the temporary access to Fossil Creek Parkway is acceptable
as shown 150 feet from College Avenue. The site plan needs to indicate that
the north access to the site is temporary and will be removed when Fw;;il
Creek Parkway is realigned. There is no guarantee that Snead Drive will
connect to Fossil Creek Parkway at that time.
2. Provide a note on the site plan indicating that the proicet will reduce
non-renewable energy usage, through the application of alternative energy
systems or through committed energy conservation measures beyond that
normally required by City Code. Verification of energy conservation mea-
sures will be provided at final review.
3. Snead Drive needs to be extended to the project phase line, with a 80 foot
diameter temporary turn -a -round provided at the end.
4. The 35 foot maximum width for a curb cut is measured along the curb line.
Please adjust the site plan accordingly.
5. Staff is concerned about the northern most loading zone. It appears that
trucks backing in to service the area would block traffic on Snead. Design
the loading zone to accommodate the entire length of the truck.
6. City standards require the minimum setback from College Avenue to the
first parking stall be 100 feet.
7. Provide handicap access ramps at all intersections.
8. Provide a "Planning and Zoning Board Certification" on the site plan.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
J
Page 2
9. The sidewalk along College Avenue needs to be located 10 feet from the
curb line. Locate street trees 3 feet from the sidewalk on the west side of
the sidewalk.
10. Add a note to the site plan indicating that all landscaped areas will tic
equipped with an automatic underground irrigation system.
11. The proposed free standing sign does not meet the City's sign code sctbae:<
requirements.
12. Parking stalls which overhang into landscape areas can be 17 feet.
13. The site plan needs to specifically state that the land uses proposed for the
site are low intensity retail use such as a carpet warehouse, furniture store
and related home improvement retail stores.
14. A decel lane will be required for the south entrance on College Avenue.
Please note this on the site plan.
15. Include the legal description on the site plan.
16. The "BK" zone indicated on the plan is really a "bl" zone.
17. The drainage sub -basin north of this site was not taken into account when
calculating the gutter flow in Snead Drive. The red lined drainage report
has been forwarded to the project engineer.
18. The City will accept a 15 foot utility easement in lieu of a 70 foot half
right of way along College Avenue.
19. As your site plan indicates, the construction of the project will remove
several existing trees. A preliminary inspection by the City Forester has
determined that four Siberian Elm in the 20-30" caliper range and one
35-40" caliper Cottonwood tree would be considered valuable natural
resources. Since the project you are proposing does not provide an opportu-
nity to preserve the trees, staff suggests that you upgrade the proposed
landscape plan in quantities and sizes of plant material to mitigate the loss
of this natural resource.
20. The parking lot turning radius in the area of the west fire hydrant does
not provide the required 20 foot inside and 40 foot outside turning radius
for emergency vehicles. This situation will not be acceptable when the
` northerly access is closed unless the buildings are sprinklered. Provide the
following note on the site plan,"All portions of the exterior walls of the
first floor of all buildings will be located within 150 feet of an approved
access roadway in which emergency fire equipment can be maneuvered or
the building will be provided with an approved automatic fire extinguish-
ing system."
•
•
DATE:1�/%6
ITEM:
17--ga
Carpef EXe--Idx e CS'a�rn��l�uE mt�na % s7o,C';reveAu/)
~-
DEP
ARTMbJ: s--trm wa ILc r
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below)
,Z:7
.4 r/4
yY6zu���a��/'�lra'/.npc�rra�r�
Date Signature,.
�XC�+aNbc Gr/,hu'�!°:gam A L,µ,v.4fty .?</. D
COMMUNITY/REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER I
POINT CHART C.
For All Critera I
Applicable Criteria Only
I
u m N/ I'
C:rcie
i
�
Is The
The
Vca mum ,.
Criterion
Cr,;erion
Correct
?cints
AeoIoctIe
Applicocle
scxe
Multio!ier
F=ej
Fcvs
Yes No
Ye,. V"V* No
1e?t
h
a. "North" Fort Collins I
X
I Xi 21 1
1 1
O I 2 1`
b. Arterial street I
X
XI(A 0
2
¢ 1 4 1'
T_ , nil I
C. 1,ui1J,IrouT� i
(
i
I \/I 2!
I/\I�I
a, parr or ragio� �a+ ccl Ater
; % `
f X A3
D i I
e, Non -arterial access
X
AL41 0(
2
I!
4
f. Joint parking
! 1 0911 OI
2
i g. Energy conse-rvation
I X
11 121
01
4
1
18
h. Contiguity
X
x1i
01
5
I
i. Historic preservation
1
11210
2
1
1 I
j,
112101
f
1
k.
I
1
2
0
1
I
i
I
1112101
I
• VW — Very well Done Totals
I
f Mcx ^^liccb!e Pc!^ts V/Vl=`.illKv
m�mp��
-12-
December -�L— , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Signature
•
Address
i6(.7 a —
f �G rY
kx
Il,
is-s 2,
De, -tuber _LL , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
W, 4,qfff
Address
A479L
y9`4 '2 CljprlGO'v✓
`40 ► CC+
December 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Signature
•
0
Address
`7 yl2-
`1 y o 4
J
SlY%i 5L A-
De,ember V% , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Address
�< ak C
�lti I_
FM
J / �/ �y - 2 r (A d
Ocember 1988
. I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
S' atur _Address
VA
0
0
44 �/o/(wheck SF l�f P l(i� r
De_4mber P- , 1988
1, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodland, Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the developmLrit of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Address
28
tacember , 1988
. I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Address
0
De mber J( , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Address
0 Ocember 4-L , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Signature Address
,'K
December , 1988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood
Association, am opposed to the development of a
Convenience Center/Gasoline Station as proposed in the
Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
i nature Address
9
December I ) - 1988
Io the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort Coiling, Colorad, and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood Association, 0
commercial development am opposed to aji
Proposed in the Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
December / ` l988
I, the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado
and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood Association. aoo onposed to all
commercial development proposed in the Woodlands PUD Master Plan.
Address
/tt// ,
December I( . 1988
I. the undersigned, as a resident of the City of Fort Collins. Colorado
and member of the Woodlands Neighborhood Association. am OpDosed to all
commercial development proposed in the Woodlands PUD blaster Plan,,
Addrew
0
Decembei, 1988
1. the Undersigned as a resident of the Citv of F:7[)r-t
and member of the Woodlands Neiahbor-hood Assoc.jaItiorj.
commercial development d t c) o I
proposed in the Woodlands PUE, Haster Plan.
qion,.- ��
Cam"
Oddr ess
9yydr A=t—/6 '64,
rt6ll hn4k
Ila Z", k�k 4 -4