HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/22/1991PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
• JULY 22, 1991 MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Vice -Chair Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Joe
Carroll, Lloyd Walker, and Rene' Clements Cooney. Member Laurie O'Dell was absent.
Chairman Klataske introduced and welcomed Rene' Clements Cooney to the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt,
Kirsten Whetstone, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman
and Kayla Ballard.
Mr. Peterson gave a description of the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item
1 - Minutes of the May 20 and June 24, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - 072-79F, Fairview Shopping
Center PUD, 3rd Filing, Preliminary and Final; Item 3 - #65-82S, Fairbrooke PUD, 5th Filing,
Amended Final which was continued to the August meeting; Item 4 - #29-91, 725 Martinez
Street PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 5 - #30-91, East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD,
Overall Development Plan; Item 6 - #30-91A, East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD,
Preliminary; Item 7 - #43-83C, Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, Preliminary, and; Item 8 -
#31-91, Amigos at South College PUD, Preliminary which was continued to the August
meeting.
• Member Walker pulled Item 2, Fairview Shopping Center PUD 3rd Filing Preliminary and Final
off the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Member Strom moved to approve Items 1 and 4 on the Consent Agenda. Member Carroll
seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0.
FAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER PUD 3RD FILING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL #72 79F
Member Walker stated that his main concern was the vacant property that currently existed.
He asked what was the ownership and what was the configuration of the property.
Steve Olt presented a slide of the map that the Board received in their packets. He stated that
the current ownership of the Fairview Shopping Center consisted of a number of businesses
currently in operation, with Taco Bell being one of the owners. The vacant land was originally
part of the Matador Apartments Fourth Filing and is currently in existence. The other part of
the property was purchased by Chesterfield, Bottomsley and Potts (CB&P) to facilitate a
parking lot that they were in the process of constructing. Subsequent to that, CB&P sold .2 acre
parcel of land, which was south of the existing Taco Bell, to Taco Bell for the purpose of
expanding their parking lot. The remainder of the land to the south was still owned by CB&P.
CB&P had recently sold approximately 1/2 acre between their expanded parking lot and Taco
Bell's proposed expanded parking lot to the Matador Apartments to be used as a buffer zone.
Member Walker asked if the dead end road along the east side of Taco Bell would be the only
access into this area and what could happen with the land south of the road.
n
U
Mr. Olt stated that there was a secondary point of access which services the Matador
Apartments and was also a private street.
Member Walker asked that if the parcel were to be developed, would an agreement need to be
made with the owners of the private drive to provide some kind of access.
Mr. Olt stated that this was correct. He stated that Taco Bell had to complete a cross access
agreement with Diamond Shamrock in conjunction with CB&P to extend the access.
Member Strom asked if there was any easement to currently use the access point to the south.
Mr. Olt replied that there was none that he was aware of.
Member Strom asked if CB&P was a party to the access agreement on the north street or was
that an easement for public use.
Mr. Olt stated that the ownership of that street was Diamond Shamrock and there were
agreements between them and Taco Bell. He stated that he suspected there were agreements
between CB&P and Diamond Shamrock as well because Diamond Shamrock owned the property
that the street was on.
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, stated that this was a pubic access easement opened
to the public but it was a private street.
Member Strom asked if the maintenance and repair was the responsibility of the private owners
but the public could use it.
Mr. Herzig replied that this was correct and that it was built to City standards.
Member Walker stated that he had concerns regarding the parking along this street and no
signage to discourage parking there.
Mr. Olt stated that the owner of the property was responsible for installing "no parking" signs
and enforcement. As part of this PUD, three "no parking" signs were indicated on the Taco Bell
property.
Member Walker asked if it would be desirable for signage on the other side of the street for no
parking.
Mr. Herzig stated that he was not sure but added to Mr. Olt's comment that if this access was
blocked and unsafe and emergency access was not able to get into the area, it would be up to
the Poudre Fire Authority to require that they keep the fire lane clear and that they remove
parking if necessary.
John Foster, resident west of the canal next to Taco Bell, had concerns about the hazardous
entrance to Taco Bell. He stated that when cars enter Taco Bell, their lights shine on his patio.
He suggested that Taco Bell extend their fence 10 to 12 feet to the north to block the car lights
from shining into his property. He stated that the entrance needed a speed sign installed. He
added that Taco Bell needs to control the trash along the canal and the trash that comes into
his yard. He stated that he had no objections to the parking lot expansion but believed that the
noise, traffic and trash needed to be controlled.
Les Nordhagen, general manager of Taco Bell, stated that he had no problem with extending
. the fence 10 to 12 feet as long as the City deemed it as not being a traffic hinderance. He
added that he had no problem with installing a speed limit sign or "caution pedestrians" sign
at the entrance to Taco Bell. He stated that he would also have no problem with sending
someone out daily to clean up the trash in Mr. Foster's yard.
Mr. Olt stated that the fence extension would not be a hinderance to visibility or create a safety
hazard.
Mr. Foster suggested that a trash container be placed along the sidewalk that goes from the
parking lot to the bridge, place signs to control noise and alcohol use and enforce the signage.
Mr. Nordhagen stated that there was a no loitering, no alcohol, and no littering sign and every
Friday and Saturday night there are guards present to keep the kids moving off the lot.
Member Walker moved to approve Fairview Shopping Center PUD 3rd Filing Preliminary and
Final with the conditions that: 1) the fence be extended further north as appropriate, and; 2)
re -enforce the slow speed, whether it be S mile an hour or caution pedestrians, some signage to
encourage people to go slower through this site. Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Member Strom commented that he had concerns about the access to the undeveloped property
but would still support the motion.
The motion to approve passed 6-0.
Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed City facility overall development plan and the
preliminary plan recommending approval of both items.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated the City had three goals associated with this
project which were: 1) to design a functional facility for the Streets Department while
preserving the historic architectural features of the buildings; 2) to design an aesthetic design
solution that was sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods, and; 3) to develop a project that
the City could be proud of. City Council directed the design team to submit this project as a
PUD instead of as a permitted use within the I-P zone. He believed that this demonstrated
their commitment to the neighborhood to involve them in the design process. He stated that
the site was currently in need of repair and had multiple tenants in the various buildings. He
added that there was currently no architectural continuity, no organized access plan, and no
landscaping.
Mr. Vaught stated that they were proposing to develop the site into four phases. Phase One
would be the 12.7 acres, Parcel A, which would contain most of the facilities, parking, outside
storage, etc. Phase Two would be the 9.3 acres, Parcel B, which was along the east side of the
site that would be the stormwater detention area as well as providing access off of 9th Street
into the first phase. Phase Three, Parcel C, would be about 7.7 acres and would be the future
location for recycled asphalt storage operation. The last phase, Parcel D, would be along
Linden and Vine and would be used for a future city facility site.
n
U
Mr. Vaught stated that after hearing from the neighborhoods, traffic was one of their foremost
concerns. After reviewing the options from an access standpoint, they believed that they would
have to gain access from 9th Street and Linden due to the railroad track along the north
boundary of Vine. The public and employee access would enter from the existing access point
on 9th Street and directed into the center of the site. The truck access would be from the
Linden Street direction. He added that the only time the trucks would use the 9th Street access
would be in an emergency situation.
Mr. Vaught stated that by designing the access point in this manner, they were able to design
the best side of the buildings to the neighborhoods and to incorporate the vehicle storage and
the outside storage of materials along the west and south sides of the site using the existing
brick structures to screen those activities from the neighborhoods to the north and east. He
stated that they would remove the unsightly buildings on the site, bury overhead power lines,
removing fuel tanks, and removing the existing trash and storage conditions that were
currently on the site. They are planning to restore the two remaining brick buildings that have
historical significance. A small facility would be incorporated within Parcel B that would
provides few parking spaces, picnic structure, and a surface that could be used for basketball.
Mr. Vaught stated that their proposal was to remove about 38,000 square feet by eliminating
the metal structures as well as the lean-to structure on the north brick building. He stated that
the additions would be an administration wing along the east side of the long brick structure,
a vehicle storage area along the south side, two areas of parking, and a wash & paint facility
located on the west side of the two brick buildings. He added that the entire compound would
be fenced but would be limited to connection between buildings. He stated that the brick
structures were very sound and could withstand renovations.
Mr. Vaught stated that these buildings did not have national or state historic designation but
the design team concluded that they had local significance and should be preserved as part of
the heritage of the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the landscaping would follow
a xeriscape concept and would buffer the railroad tracks along the north side of the property.
Member Walker asked what would the roofing and wall materials be for the new additions on
the south side of the long brick building.
Mr. Vaught replied that they would be steel panel and painted.
Member Walker asked if the area to the south would be industrial zoning.
Mr. Vaught stated that it would be industrial zoning.
Member Walker asked what would be the schedule for the parking to the east and if the
recreational and storm drainage facilities would be built at the same time.
Mr. Vaught stated that the storm drainage facility would be built as part of phase one. The
timetable for the neighborhood improvements had been discussed and that there would be no
problem with building the recreational facility as part of phase one.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if the truck traffic would still be accessed off of Linden Street
as the development was phased.
• Mr. Vaught replied that there currently was an asphalt drive that would be used as a temporary
truck access. As the sites to the west develop, that access would be moved down onto the new
private access road along the south boundary.
Member Strom asked if all the parking and driveways would be paved.
Mr. Vaught replied that they would be paved. He added that the internal area would be
concrete and the parking and access drive would be asphalt. He stated that on the overall
development plan there would be extensive screening with berming along the south side of the
railroad tracks.
Member Strom suggested that a landscaping concept should be initiated to go along with phase
one in order to size the plant material.
Mr. Vaught asked if this could be brought back in the final plan with more of a solution to this
suggestion.
Member Strom stated that this would be agreeable.
Member Strom stated that the Streets Department have been through a large amount of site
selection and had determined that this was a beneficial site for many reasons. He asked for
more information about the site selection process in terms of location relative to the growth of
the city.
Jon Ruiz, Streets Department employee, stated that important factors were access to major
arterials, availability to maintenance capabilities, size of acreage, availability of existing
• buildings, and possible improvements to the site. He stated that from a streets standpoint, a lot
of the streets maintenance currently exists in the northern part of town.
Member Strom asked if future access to Buckingham through a parcel easement would be
possible future consideration.
Mr. Vaught stated that this was investigated and at this point there was no interest by the
property owner to accommodate any type of access through that parcel.
Member Strom asked if this was, in the future, to become a possibility, would this be truck
access from Buckingham to Lemay south.
Mr. Vaught replied no. He stated that the truck traffic would be to Buckingham and would
route it back to Linden Street. This site was designed so that if this were to occur in the
future, it would tie into the public access and parking.
Member Walker asked how much of the storm drainage would be developed with phase one.
Mr. Vaught stated that this was currently at a preliminary stage and was still up for discussion.
This would not be 100% with the first phase.
Member Cottier asked if the city intended to purchase the entire parcel at one time.
Mr. Vaught stated that the city would purchase the entire 32 acres. He presented the proposed
facility model and slides of the elevations and the existing conditions.
n
LJ
James Alario, representative of the neighborhood, stated that he was in favor of the proposed
facility. He stated that he believed it would be safer for the neighborhoods if the city were
to take over this property. He stated that for the last five years the city has been using this
property and the neighborhood wasn't even aware of the truck traffic impact.
Diane Joy, resident of the area, stated that currently that was a terrible problem with traffic
and this proposal would create more traffic. She stated that any more traffic on this would
road would create a hazard. She stated that the landscaping of natural grass would not be
attractive and that there should be a deadline for installation of the landscaping. She stated
that because of the neighborhood, it would not be landscaped nicely. She stated that the
children in the neighborhood currently have no crosswalks to get across the street and this was
not safe. She believed that the money for the purchase of this site could be spent another way
such as improving the roads.
Mr. Vaught stated that the intersection of East Vine and Lemay currently warrant a signal and
there were plans to install that signal with some geometric improvements along Vine Drive that
would allow left turns even in the instance that there would be a train moving along the tracks.
This would help relieve some of the traffic during peak hours.
Chairman Klataske stated that the intersection off of Linden into the facility for the truck
traffic would be moved south.
Mr. Vaught stated that the current drive would be curved down 200 feet back from the
intersection and in the future would be moved further back.
Member Walker commented that he was pleased this was submitted as a PUD. He encouraged
the city to follow this same PUD process in the future. He stated that the city, through the
proposal of the site, accomplished several things such as improvements to this site, goals of
encouraging development in the northern part of town, consolidating city facilities in the same
area of town, a sensitivity to historic preservation, and landscaping improvements with
xeriscaping. He stated that he would like to see in phase one the neighborhood facility
developed because it would be important to be good neighbors to the people who live in the
area. He believed that the landscaping along the asphalt recycling area could continue along
the perimeter of this parcel.
Member Strom concurred with Member Walker's comments. He stated that there were currently
several users to this site and believed that the city, in developing this PUD, would make some
efforts to encourage these users to remain in the community. He added that when the final
landscape plan is presented it would demonstrate how advantageous xeriscaping could be in
this environment.
Chairman Klataske commented that this was a fine example of an adaptive reuse of a facility
particularly with historical and architectural significance. He hoped that in the park area,
there would be some mention that this was part of a sugar factory and of its significance to the
community. He believed that this was a good location as far as access and the size of the
facility with the railroad tracks acting as a buffer.
Member Cottier moved to approve East Vine Drive Streets Facility Overall Development Plan.
Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
• Member Walker believed that the recreational site in Parcel B and the suggestion of landscaping
around Parcel B should be included as a condition to the preliminary.
Mr. Shepard stated that this would be appropriate but suggested that the conditions should be
more instructive than prescriptive since this was a large area and were not sure what kind of
materials and how much distance would be covered.
Member Cottier asked if this could be addressed as, at the time of final for Parcel A,
everything that would need to be done to Parcel B be clearly identified.
Mr. Shepard stated that this could be a condition.
Member Walker stated that he would like to see a timetable on the recreational facility as a
condition.
Member Walker made a motion to approve East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD Preliminary
with the condition that the recreational facility be incorporated into Parcel A and therefore
be part of this preliminary consideration and that the consideration be given as time and money
permit to incorporate the landscaping for Parcel B and C as quickly as possible. Member
Cottler seconded the motion and added the condition that pedestrian access dealing with
crossing Lemay to the residences so the residents may get to the recreational facility be
addressed.
Mr. Shepard stated that the crossing would be at San Cristo and Ninth. He stated that given
the future signal at Vine and Ninth, there should be sufficient gaps in the platoon flow of
vehicles so there would be safe crossings. He suggested that the condition be left as such and
• the traffic consultants could come back with the best solution.
Member Walker accepted that amendment.
Member Strom pointed out that there was a correction to the original point chart as to the
variance and that it was not necessary and not for consideration.
The motion to approve passed 7-0.
VISION - PRELIMINARY - Case 04
Steve Olt gave a description of the proposal with staff recommendation of approval with the
conditions that: 1) a 46 foot wide dedicated ROW be secured by the developer/owner of
Pheasant Ridge Estates from the owners of Lot 5, Terry Ridge Subdivision prior to final
approval of this request. This access easement must be accepted by the County and recorded
with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to recording of Pheasant Ridge
Estates subdivision plat; 2) the determination of responsibility for perpetual maintenance of
the two detention ponds be made by the City Stormwater Utility prior to final approval, and;
3) a landscape plan for the on -site detention ponds be submitted to the City for final review.
Chairman Klataske asked what was the justification for the variance on street width.
Mr. Olt stated that currently the City had a standard that, in a large lot subdivision of an acre
or more, a 28 foot wide street had been frequently requested. In this case, the lots did not meet
that standard. This would require a variance from the city prior to construction of the street
in that width.
Mike Herzig, City Development Coordinator, stated that the city reviewed this and had
concerns that this did not meet the current standards. He stated that for the city to recommend
approval of the variance, the city would have to review the developer's analysis of the situation
to see what amenities would be provided, such as off-street parking, which might justify a
narrower street.
Member Walker asked what currently was the status of Westview Road
Mr. Olt stated that, currently, Westview Road dead ends and services eight lots in Terry Ridge
subdivision and was a county street. He stated that this was dedicated and accepted by the
County but they did not presently maintain the street.
Member Walker asked that with the proposal of opening Westview Road, would there be any
change in that particular status.
Mr. Olt stated that the cross section of the street would remain the same and would have to be
rebuilt. He stated that an overlay would not be adequate but would maintain current County
standards with no curb and gutter.
Member Walker asked why it would have to be rebuilt.
Mr. Olt replied that this was in a state of disrepair and with the traffic from 25 additional lots
it would be imperative that the street be rebuilt and brought up to current standards.
Member Walker asked if this would be an absolute requirement or just a good idea.
Mr. Olt replied that this would be an absolute requirement by the city and county.
Mr. Peterson stated that part of the Urban Growth Area Agreement with the County required
that, in cases such as this, the streets need to be brought up to current County standards. He
stated that the County had recently adopted an urban street standard which had increased the
nature and type of construction over what they previously required.
Member Walker asked if this would be the responsibility of the developer.
Mr. Olt replied that it would be the responsibility of the developer.
Member Carroll asked if the streets within this subdivision would be city streets and would be
maintained by the city.
Mr. Olt stated that this was correct.
Member Carroll asked for clarification of the neighborhood meeting comments regarding the
extension of Redwood Street and reorienting the subdivision to Westwood and Ridge Crest
Road.
Mr. Olt stated that this request was a 28 acre parcel which assumed that configuration.
Redwood Street was proposed, by the City Master Street Plan, to continue north to Country
• Club Road. However, this timing has not been determined. Since the neighborhood meeting,
that request was withdrawn one year ago. Proposed Redwood street was not a part of this
proposal.
Member Carroll asked if there was any history on County master plans or City master plans as
to how access to this site was proposed to be served when the areas to the north and east were
proposed.
Mr. Olt stated that, conceivably, the proposal, at one time, was with a reserved easement for
a road right-of-way going to the south with the intent to provide access into this area. The
development of Lowell Lane in the County precluded that proposal.
Member Walker asked about site distance at Westview and Country Club Road and possible
issues associated with this intersection.
Mr. Herzig stated that the City had not reviewed this and would be a County issue because it
was a County road.
Gary Nordick, applicant and property owner of this proposal, distributed a copy of the Terry
Ridge subdivision plat to the Board members. He stated that the residents in this area have
been opposed to this proposal and he believed this was because they did not want to see any
change. He stated that unfortunately any type of development or growth creates change. A
good development would create growth and change with a minimum of impact on the quality
of life. This was what he tried to have as his goal with this proposal. There have been three
separate neighborhood meetings with homeowners of Terry Ridge. He stated that a few of the
concerns that arose from these meetings were: density, which has been lowered; the future of
• Westview Drive as a major access to this proposal, which would be improved by being rebuilt
and the County maintaining it; the increase in traffic, which was studied and was determined
that this proposal would have little impact on Westview Road and would have a barricaded fire
lane only access would block the west end of the property to discourage cut -through traffic;
the lowering of property values, which, with strict covenants and architectural control
requirements, would be an asset to the area; and, the concern of Westview as the main access,
which, with the type and quality of homes and the view from these proposed homes, it would
be imperative that Westview be the main access. He encouraged the Board to approve this
proposal based on the facts that it was in the northern part of town, it was a low density
project and compatible with both neighbors, it provided Terry Ridge with a new street with
no cost to them, the traffic study showed very minimum impact on the entire area and would
not affect the quality of life, and that it implements the policy promoting growth in this area.
Bonnie Nabors, Terry Ridge Homeowners' Association representative, stated that they were not
resisting change but resisting a change to what they bought. He stated that all but two families
have children, grandchildren or both. The residents were interested in keeping the street the
way it was. He stated that on Westview Road there were 11 lots, ten of which were in the Terry
Ridge Homeowners' Association. The three other lots access off of Lemay. At the July
neighborhood meeting, 6 members voted against this proposal, one voted for this proposal, and
one abstained. The majority of the homeowners on Westview are against opening the street.
He asked for clarification of why there was only one access through Spaulding Lane.
Kevin Barry, resident of Puebla Vista, stated that he appreciated Mr. Nordick's design. He
asked that views of the Puebla Vista residents not be blocked by this development. He stated
that they currently have a problem with water seeping underneath the detention ponds and
going into the basements of the homes. He believed that the new detention pond should be
engineered so it would not affect the residents. He stated that he was in favor of this proposal.
Don Jensen, resident of Westview Road, stated that he liked the diversity and the ability for
people to find certain issues within a community that they really liked. He stated that he was
not against development or making sure that people's needs are met. He stated that one of the
amenities of the Westview area was the cul-de-sac. He was concerned about changing the road
so it would increase the traffic in the neighborhood. He believed that this discussion was about
integrity of quality of life. He believed that Redwood would not be extended for years because
it would cost too much money to cross the canal. He believed that there were existing roads
that could access the development. He didn't understand why Puebla Vista blocked the access.
He felt that this was discriminatory to say that if the road is put in one way a certain caliber
of people would come in and if it were put in another way, another kind of people would come
in. He stated that Mr. Moon, a resident in the area, started out with a nice view of the lights
and mountains and then a solid wall of two stories was put in and blocked that view. He
objected that one individual could make the decision for the entire homeowners association
allowing access. He felt that there were alternatives to the way that this project would be
accessed that would not disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood and would not knock a hole
in the cul-de-sac to allow traffic down that road. He stated that the majority of the people in
this area were totally against high density, low density, as long as it goes through Westview.
Mr. Dale Moon, Westview Road resident, stated that when he moved to this area, it appeared
that Westview Road would go straight through and he accepted that as a possibility. He would
like an explanation as to why they allowed the subdivision to the south to encroach into that
area and settle up to the proposed new addition. He believed at that point that this would be
a dead end street forever, which would be alright with him. He stated that he was against
allowing this road to continue through. He believed that there were other alternatives.
Mr. Mark Lund, homeowner in the area, stated that residents have asked how Pueblo Vista
managed to block the access that would normally have entered Pheasant Ridge. The developer
of Pueblo Vista related to Mr. Lund that this was done intentionally to not allow any more
traffic in the area and wanted an exclusive area. He stated that he knew the property owner
that had permitted Mr. Nordick access to Mr. Nordick's property and he respected what he was
having to do. He stated that there was a trade-off between this property owner and Mr.
Nordick. He stated that all the homeowners do not want this allowed except one.
Roy Naiss, Pueblo Vista resident, had concerns with the detention pond, the location, the
volume it would handle. He believed that this should be reviewed very thoroughly. He stated
that he was more affected by the detention pond because it is next to his property. He would
like to see this relocated so it would not cause any problems for him or his neighbors.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, commented that the 28 foot wide street on a 46 foot
right-of-way has routinely been used in subdivisions with lots this size. He stated that it was
unfortunate that there was not any overall planning in this area. He stated that if the policies
were to stay on the books and promote growth and development in the northeast quadrant of
town, then it should be realized that these are the kinds of problems that come up more often.
He stated that there are a number of physical barriers and a general lack of consistent planning
with the earlier subdivisions in Larimer County. He stated that if growth was encouraged, a
variety of housing types, and if this is to be a good neighborhood, then constraints should be
reviewed. He believed that condominiums were not currently the market.
10
Gary Priest, Westview Road resident, stated that he was present tonight to support the Jensens.
• He believed that the neighborhood had been bullied and threatened and informed to a degree.
He stated that he was completely opposed to this proposal.
Bonnie Jensen, Westview Road resident, asked Mr. Nordick why the road stops from Lowell
Lane to Mr. Nordick's subdivision.
Mr. Nordick stated that approximately two years ago, he was working with the Pueblo Vista
developer to acquire access through Pueblo Vista. He attempted to purchase the lot that
bordered that property. He stated that he proposed a development which went before the
County Commissioners which was denied due to the potential traffic hazard by the bridge on
Lemay Avenue and Tavelli School. This lot was later sold and the access was blocked at that
time.
Ms. Jensen asked if the only way Mr. Nordick would access their subdivision would be through
Eric Peterson's lot.
Mr. Nordick replied that either that way or by Spaulding Lane would be the only possible ways
of access.
Ms. Jensen suggested another point of access being Ridgecrest Road.
Mr. Nordick stated that this had been explored in detail. He stated that Ridgecrest Road was
a right -by -use, not a dedicated or platted road. This property was in a trust owned by Mrs.
Emin. They approached the trust trying to use this road but were turned down because Mrs.
Emin did wish to do anything that would raise her taxes. He stated he talked to his attorney
for condemnation of the road which had not been used for over 40 years. However, you can
• only condemn what you use. If the driving part was only 20 feet wide, you could only condemn
20 feet which the city would not approve a 20 foot wide street. He stated that he resented the
fact that he "bullied" anyone. He added that there were two choices to develop the property.
They believed the best for the neighborhood would be a lower density, higher quality project.
Another alternative would be to go with the city standard three units per acre.
Mr. Nordick stated that in the negotiations with Eric Peterson, they initially looked at
proposing the standard three units per acre. However, Mr. Peterson was concerned with what
would happen to the 20 acres in the back and he decided the best for the entire neighborhood
would be to limit the density to 25 units.
Member Walker asked if the fire lane barrier on Spaulding would be permanent.
Mr. Nordick replied that the barrier would stay until Redwood would access Country Club
Road or until another access was built. He believed that the connection of Redwood to County
Club Road would be a long time coming because of the major engineering concerns with
building a bridge across Redwood.
Member Walker stated that it would be more straight forward in getting to town by going along
Spaulding Lane then to College Avenue. It would eliminate a loop in travel. He commented
that the construction traffic should be a consideration along the fire lane barrier so the
construction traffic can travel on Spaulding Lane. He stated that he did not agree with the
logic of closing off the street so there would be no "joy riding."
is 11
Member Carroll asked if the detention ponds have to meet the requirements of the Storm
Drainage utility or should a requirement be placed by the Board.
Mr. Olt stated that this was part of the standard review by Stormwater Utility and would have
to meet certain requirements.
Member Strom asked who would maintain the detention ponds if they should leak.
Mr. Herzig replied that the detention pond would be heavily scrutinized for drainage concerns
but possibly not for soil conditions or bentonite conditions. This would be the responsibility
of the persons who maintain the ponds, such as the homeowners association.
Chairman Klataske asked if the soil conditions were taken into consideration when they are
designed.
Mr. Herzig stated that there are certain areas where bentonite was a consideration, which is in
the design for footing and foundation, and the street design. There was an area between the
homes and the streets which were not regulated extensively.
Member Strom asked if the city would be responsible for the pond.
Mr. Herzig stated that this was correct, it was a detention pond specifically for this site. He
stated that if there was a regional nature, then the city would take over the responsibility and
the pond would be dedicated and maintained by the city.
Mr. Peterson stated that he was hearing a concern about the responsibility and design of the
pond. He believed that the these problems should be addressed to the Stormwater Utility and
provide a response at the time of final. He added that there currently was no response from
Stormwater because they were deciding on whether or not there would be a regional purpose
to one of the ponds. They have not decided as yet.
Mr. Olt stated that the design and maintenance of the ponds is one of the conditions before the
Board.
Member Carroll asked if a variance would be required for a 28 foot wide street.
Mr. Olt stated that a 28 foot wide street would require a variance prior to final approval
through the Streets Department.
Member Clements Cooney commented that some of the current and future problems were with
distinguishing between city standards and county standards. She asked if there was a right-of-
way reserved for a future road as the map that Mr. Nordick distributed indicated.
Mr. Olt replied that this is correct and wa a plat of record in the county.
Member Clements Cooney asked if the person who owns the parcel that the right-of-way is on
would not necessarily be on his own granting that this road could go through when there has
always been a right-of-way.
Mr. Eckman stated that the way the County interpretation was that the note was not intended
to be a dedication of a road at that time but rather, that part of Terry Ridge Subdivision was
12
set aside for development so the County could acquire that property for future road purposes
• if necessary. He did not believe that the County currently owned this but was set aside for
future acquisition.
Chairman Klataske asked what was the status on Westview Road.
Mr. Eckman stated that the plat required the homeowners association to maintain that road and
if they do not, the County, in the interest of the community's safety and welfare, would reserve
the right to maintain and then assess the various homeowners for the cost of maintenance.
Member Carroll commented that the Board's governmental authority ends at the city limits.
Terry Ridge, the subdivision to the east, and property to the west of Terry Ridge are not within
the city limits. When these subdivisions were up for approval, they went before the County not
the City. One of the issues that the City attempted to avoid was to leave a land -locked parcel
that cannot be developed. This is what has happened to this piece of property. However, this
particular project is within the city limits and therefore must meet city standards and codes.
He stated that he was struggling with the issue of reopening Westview Road and how the
neighborhood does not want it opened. He believed that the fire lane barrier should not
necessarily remain.
Member Walker commented that this was an inf ill development and that given the problems of
access, it was more compatible than higher density condominium -type project. He concurred
with Member Carroll in terms of the road system. He believed that the fire lane barrier needed
to be reviewed again.
Member Cottier commented that Spaulding was in the County and the land west of the area was
in the County which gave the Board no power to require the fixing of the road and that they
• had to meet city standards. She believed that the residents of the area would not use Spaulding
Lane as a means to get south to the rest of the city. She believed that the distance of going
around from Spaulding to Lemay was considerably shorter than going to Westview to Spaulding
and then back into this area. Ideally, the access could have gone through Pueblo Vista but that
was not a viable option given the way the road has been constructed. She believed the
developer did not just block it off because of the proposed traffic but because he wasn't
required to have two points of access from the County. She stated that she had no problem
with the street width. She added that this project would look as good as Pueblo Vista because
of the high standards that the City requires.
Member Cottier moved to approve the Pheasant Ridge Subdivision with the conditions as stated
by staff.
Chairman Klataske asked for clarification of the first staff recommendation which would
require a variance by the Streets Department. He asked that if this were not granted, would
this automatically revert back to a 54 foot right-of-way.
Member Cottier stated that she believed that if the variance were not granted, the developer
would have to redesign the project.
Mr. Peterson stated that the 54 foot right-of-way would be reviewed to meet city standards.
Member Cottier stated that the developer would be required to meet city standards.
0 13
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Walker commented that he would like to see a reconsideration of the issue of how
Spaulding Lane would be treated.
Member Carroll concurred with Member Walker. He stated that he was not prepared to say
whether this should be there or not. He asked if this could be addressed on final or could this
be added tonight as a condition.
Mr. Peterson stated that this could be added as a condition.
Member Carroll moved to amend the motion by adding the issue of access from Spaulding lane
be reviewed by the Board with recommendations from staff at the time of final.
Member Cottier stated that this was acceptable. She restated that she had no problem with the
fire gate on Spaulding Lane.
Member Strom accepted the amendment as the second to the motion.
Chairman Klataske commented that if this was possible, could the construction traffic use
Ridgecrest as access. He stated to the homeowners that their concerns have been heard and if
this was reviewed only with the concerns of the neighborhood, then they would have the
majority. However, the Board is charged with reviewing the overall city development and
deciding what was best for all citizens.
The motion to approve passed 7-0.
r1e1; IZ
Mr. Peterson questioned if the. Board wished to make a recommendation to the City Council on
the Fort Collins Urban Area State Highway needs for the upcoming new program for the State
Highway Department.
Mr. Peterson reviewed the projects that he believed should be considered in the state highway's
projects which included: 1) interchange improvements at I-25 and Harmony Road; 2) State
Highway 1 improvements, and; 3) North Co►lege Avenue bridge replacement at the Poudre
River and bikepath under the bridge.
Mr. Peterson presented City staff's list of highway projects consisted of: 1) traffic operations
and geometric improvements which included the realignment of Shields Street and 287, provide
signalization at the railroad crossings at Shields and 287; 2) do a north frontage road from Vine
Drive north of Highway 14 to Mountain View Road; 3) provide parking and ride -share lots at
the three major I-25 interchanges. He stated that there were other items of importance such
as the railroad consolidation in downtown to eliminate half the railroad crossings in downtown
and by realign the UP and BN tracks it would reduce the number of trains per day from 22 to
11. The State has also been encouraged to review Highway 14 in terms of the bypass project.
The final item was commuter bike lanes on Harmony Road to I-25 with federal funding.
Member Strom suggested that improvements to Harmony Road relative to city control of
median plantings should be worked toward.
14
11
0
Member Walker believed that the park and ride share lots were important because
was there are currently a lot of commuters to Denver, and use a do it yourself facility at this
point and should give recognition to that point. In the future, something like this could have
other ramifications in the sense that if things like the airport shuttle or some sort of intercity
bus system were developed, these may be logical points for something that moves fairly quickly
and doesn't have to come all the way into town. The airport shuttle sort of does that now only
they do it like if you stop in Loveland or Longmont, they stop at a private facility that they
have some agreement with. He thought it would be a good idea for Ft. Collins to acknowledge
the fact that this is important in the future and to develop such lots and encourage this. It was
going to be particularly critical with the airport construction. There will be more people
wanting to commute down to there because it is on the north side of the City and it will be a
source for new jobs and he would envision that Ft. Collins would get some people working there
and residing in the City so he thought there were many reasons that it would be a fairly
progressive look forward and he encouraged that and it was promoting alternative type of
transportation and planning which he would certainly be in favor of. Alot of these others were
more just facilitating more auto traffic to a certain extent and this one, he thought, had some
implications for alternatives to the standard issue auto traffic. The other thing that would
have significant impact would be the railroad consolidation project, everyone complains about
the trains and he thought cutting down on the number of trains that go through Ft. Collins
would have the biggest effect on the largest number of people. He thought that the State
Highway 14 and Lemay Avenue turn would be an excellent suggestion. If he had to prioritize
he would rank them in the order he discussed them. He was in agreement that all these were
reasonable things to pursue.
Member Clements -Cooney added that the high priority for her as well as concurring with what
Member Walker said was money for the commuter bike lanes for Harmony Road and was
addressed in the Harmony Corridor Plan and if we were going to put Employment Parks out
there, bike trails are nice but when you want to get to work you don't want a nice meandering
bike trail. Also the new Transportation Plan was coming out, she was sure with the Air Quality
Task Force we want to reduce air pollution so money toward the bike lanes on Harmony was
one of her top priorities.
Member Cottier stated that her priorities were the railroad consolidation and the relocation of
Highway 14. She thought that those were the two projects that have the biggest influence on
the most people in Ft. Collins and accomplish something really significant that both have been
areas that been worked on for years and years and we have been trying to get somewhere on
them. She wanted to add on the highway relocation project of Highway 14 she would wish that
there could be some sort of interim alternate truck route, because this project was going to take
another couple of years. She would like to see an interim truck route.
Chairman Klataske commented that it a thorough list with the addition of the Harmony Road
Control Transfer and he would also like to emphasize the Park and Ride Facilities were
important to have those connections and would provide perhaps people in town who do work
out of town could go to those Park and Ride Facilities and then van pool from there or ride
share further cutting down on traffic congestion and or even bike to those points and then go
on. The other thing he would like to see for the future of Fort Collins is the C-470 Plan, its
here, the airport is being built and the airport is going to be operational very soon. He would
like the see Ft. Collins and Northern Colorado in a position where they could take advantage
if we so choose to participate in that development yet not limit out growth potential by not
having that connection available to us and he would recommend there be some funding to see
how we could participate in that 4-70 connection.
0 15
Mr. Peterson stated that what he was hearing from the Board was that there was approximately
5 projects that have a higher priority than the others and those were the State Highway 14 and
Lemay, the Park and Ride lots, the Railroad consolidation, Highway 14 relocation, E-470 and
the Bike Lanes. Mr. Peterson stated he would then pass these along to City Council and the
Transportation Department and the Ad -Hoc Transportation Committee.
Mr. Peterson stated there would be a Planning and Zoning Board Worksession on August 7th,
at 281 North College and the two major items were the Poudre Valley Hospital expansion plans
and Solar Orientation.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:52 P.M.
16