Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/14/1978PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1978 Board Members Present: Bob Burnham, Gary Spahr, Charles Unfug, Phyllis Wells, Gary Ross, Ed VanDriel Staff Members Present: Charles Mabry, Eldon Ward, Sue Gilley Legal Representative: Don Deagle Bob Burnham called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1) Approval of July 10, 1978 minutes. Ed VanDriel: Corrected the title of David Lauer page 3 to read "Buckingham Residents Council". Charles Unfug: Corrected the spelling of Steve "Lauer" on page 2. Ed VanDriel: Moved to approve the minutes. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously with Board members Wells and Ross absent. 2. #108-78 University Square P.U.D., Revised Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for an office/residential Planned Unit Development on 6.8 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on S. College Avenue at West Pitkin Street Applicant: Poudre Valley Construction Company, 1301 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Said letter requesting that this item be withdrawn had been received. Board concurred with withdrawal. 3. #100-78 Larkborough Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 340 single family lots on 94.6 acres located on Harmony Road west of the C & S Railroad right-of-way. Proposed zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. Applicant: Art Builders, Inc., 582 Mohawk Drive, Boulder, Colorado, 80303. Eldon Ward: Presented staff comments as follows: The preliminary plat has been revised so as to provide a portion of the neighborhood park for this area at the northwest corner of Planning & Zoning B and Minutes • August 14, 1978/pa62 the site. Also, internal street pattern has been changed in response to staff comments in July. The 15 acres along the C & S railroad previously shown as a park is now proposed for multi- family P.U.D. devleopment in the R-P zone (maximum 12 d.u./ acre). Staff comments are: 1. Troutman Parkway. a) Detailed analysis should be given to the need for an additional crossing of the C&S railroad tracks in this area. At present, the Police, Fire, Engineering, and Planning Departments feel that a collector street crossing of the C&S railroad tracks in this area will prove to be necessary and desirable in the long run. The plan should thus provide for the possibility of this crossing (which it does). However, considering the uncertainty and long period of time associated with pursuing this crossing, the plan should not depend on it (nor should actual street improvements). b) The intersection of Troutman Parkway and Manhattan Avenue should be somewhat altered. 2. Multifamily tract. The multifamily area should not depend on an uncertain Troutman Parkway railroad crossing for its primary access. Thus areas shown for multifamily and single family development south of Troutman Parkway and Warbler Drive should be switched. This would provide more direct access from the arterial street to the multifamily, and provide for low density uses at the more internal location. 3. Drainage. Drainage considerations are crucial in this area. Provisions must be made to accommodate the passage of the 100- year storm from the basin above this subdivision. Detention must be provided for the difference between the 100-year developed storm and the 2-year historical. Discharge from the detention storage should be into a natural drainage way and not into an irrigation ditch. Lot by lot detention is not acceptable. A complete drainage report based on new City storm drainage specifications should be submitted with utility plans. Plans for detention pond should include appropriate seeding, trickle channels, overflow structure, etc. Noted that staff had been trying to look at the entire section at one time conceptually, trying to get the configuration of collector streets and park site for that section. Mentioned that letter had been received from Hill and Hill noting concerns withthe approach. Also noted that not all of the Larkborough tract was zoned at present due to unsurety as to where the multi -family area and park site were going to go when zoning was originally requested. Indicated that there would probably be upcoming zoning requests to reflect these altered circumstances. Staff saw no land Planning and Zoning Bo Minutes August 14, 1978/page 3 use related problems with these changes. Bob Burnham: Asked about arrangements for the remainder of the park site. Phyllis Wells joined the Board at 6:35. Eldon Ward: Replied that the City had had positive responses from 3 owners and that there was only 1 negative response from the SW property owner. This would allow for at least a minimum of a 15 acre park possible which was within the range of what Parks and Recreation was looking for (12 - 24 acres). Ed VanDriel: Had questions on street name duplications. Felt that "Startling" sounded much like "Sterling". Eldon Ward: Said no specific comments had been received on that, but that it would be worked out on the final. The intent of the preliminary was mostly to tie down street configurations, park location, and the location of the multifamily area. Ed VanDriel: Asked if there had been any responses as yet from the railroad in regard to the crossing of Troutman Parkway. Eldon Ward and Don Deagle: Not yet. Charles Unfug: Asked if there were any intentions to set up a meeting of property owners in the square mile. Eldon Ward: Said that was not generally done, that usually the first plat in an area has determined the configuration for those following. City policy has been to have collectors at 1/2 mile intervals and that the section plan as it stands is conceptual only and in no way final. Gary Ross joined the Board at 6:40. Lloyd McLaughlin(M & I Engineering): Said they had no problems with staff comments and offered to answer questions. Charles Unfug: Asked if the number of lots had changed from the original sub- mission. Lloyd McLaughlin: The number has been reduced to 273. Eldon Ward: Added that the actual densities were less with this plan than the original zoning allowed. Charles Unfug: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plat subject to staff comments. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 4. #109-78 LaBelle's P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on 10.3 acres Planning and Zoninooard Minutes • August 14, 1978/page 4 zoned H-B, Highway Business, located on South College Avenue north of Troutman Parkway (1/3 mile north of Harmony Road). Applicant: Joseph Kealy, c/o University Realty, P.O. Box 471, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522. Eldon Ward: Said that staff recommendation was for conditional approval subject to the following comments: 1. Traffic Circulation a) College Avenue private curbcut should be eliminated. This curbcut is unnecessary because the main entrance to the site at Troutman Parkway should be designed so as to provide adequate access from S. College to all of the Highland Plaza (now called Fossil Creek Plaza) area. Moreover, this curbcut is undesirable because it would add to the congestion and hazards of turning movements in the southbound lanes of College Avenue given projected traffic volumes, as well as conflict with signalization at Troutman Parkway. The State Division of Highways also recommends against this curbcut, b) Final site plan design of the Troutman-S. College Street intersection, as well as the entrance to the site from Troutman, should be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer, c) Internal parking lot layout: Drives near main entrance should be revised to eliminate conflicting turning movements; Width of main entrance should be reduced; Parking stalls should be 19' in length (including overhang of curbs and sidewalks where applicable) and provide 24' of backup into driveway aisles, d) Provisions should be made for possible internal connection with future parking lot to the north. 2. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrians are generally adequately provided for on this plan. Minor revisions should be made to provide: a) A well defined pedestrian crossing of the drive between the LaBelle's store and the other stores to the south; b) Pedestrian crossing of Troutman Parkway; c) Sidewalks along public streets, and pedestian links between peripheral sidewalks along streets and interior system of walks; d) Sidewalk widths increased at some locations to allow for parked car overhang. 3. Landscape Treatment a) Treatment of building facades facing west toward McClelland Drive should be improved with landscaping, b) Continuous rows of parking should be interrupted every 15 parking spaces or so by landscaped islands for shade trees (which this plan does in all but a very few areas). Islands should be of adequate width for root aeration, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 14, 1978/page 5 c) Landscaping along S. College Avenue should be designed to provide visual and physical separation of parked vehicles from travelled lanes (e.g. with berms), but without im- pairing sight distance of motorists, d) Existing trees should be indicated on the preliminary plan and preserved where possible. 4. Other a) Final utility plans should indicate on -site drainage deten- tion, b) Building envelope for small building near southeast corner of site should be adjusted to allow for setback from adjacent driving lanes and for pedestrian circulation, c) Final plans should indicate security lighting. Bob Burnham: Asked who was responsible for the design of Troutman Parkway as it fell between Labelle's and Target P.U.D.'s. Eldon Ward: Said both groups have the same engineer and that things had been closely coordinated with the City's Traffic Engineer. Gary Ross: Asked what would happen to Troutman Parkway if one P.U.D. developed before the other. Eldon Ward: All parts of Highland Plaza Subdivision are under one ownership which is responsible for all street improvements and signal at intersection. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the arrangements were the same for McClelland Drive. Eldon Ward: Yes. Lloyd McLaughlin: Confirmed that it was anticipated that McClelland and Troutman would be developed in conjunction with the P.U.D. under considera- tion as that would probably be the first one to be developed in the area. Phyllis Wells: Asked for clarification of truck traffic movement. Eldon Ward: Explained. Phyllis Wells: Asked about bike access from College. Eldon Ward: Wanted to keep bikes off College. Anticipated them using McClelland and series of access roads across College. Did see sidewalks along College becoming more and more necessary as surrounded by urban density development. Ed VanDriel: Asked what the proposed north -south extent of McClelland would be. Eldon Ward: Full mile from Horsetooth to Harmony to replace awkward system of frontage roads. Joe Kealy - representing Modern Merchandising, LaBelle's - Addressed the staff comments: 1) Curb cut: felt that keeping the curb cut intended as a right Planning and Zoninokoard Minutes . August 14, 1978/page 6 turn out when the median is developed on College would help reduce congestion at the Troutman Parkway intersection as it is called on to handle more and more traffic; 2) asked for explanation on parking lot tie-in to the north. Eldon Ward: Explained that only involved leaving option open to extend driveway to the north. Joe Kealy: Felt that would be no problem. 3) sidewalks a) along College: didn't feel that was a good idea for pedestrian safety reason being along a major thoroughfare; b) along Troutman Parkway: no problem. 4) landscaping: fully intended to comply with City standards 5) drainage: being worked out 6) traffic: no problems with designating pedestrian areas as long as they were not required to be raised 7) Troutman Parkway and its development: being handled by the Troutman estate and Labelle's not involved. Bob Burnham: Indicated that he had received a letter from the New Mercer Ditch Company indicating potential problems with relocating the ditch. Lloyd McLaughlin: Indicated that that was partly a communication problem and that he was in contact with the ditch company's engineer and that things were being worked out. Joe Kealy: Noted that: the change of ditch location was a condition of sale; and that security lighting is planned for the site. Also explained the buffering planned for loading dock areas and landscaping planned for the rear of the building. Ed VanDriel: Asked if a landscaping bond would be required. Don Deagle: Yes. Phyllis Wells: Felt that the landscaping would be very important, especially with the string of parking lots developing along College. Hoped that an imaginative, pleasing design would be developed for the lot. Also felt it was important to require pedestrian access along the perimeter of the site including a walk way off College. Gary Ross: Asked for square footage of the third building envelope. Eldon Ward: 6300 square feet. Charles Unfug: Thought that the question of the right turn only curb cut ought to be addressed. Asked the distance from Troutman to the cut. Joe Kealy: Approximately 500 feet. Charles Unfug: Noted that Troutman could be a major collector if it does cross the railroad into Larkborough and suggested that at that point it might be good to have a right turn only curb cut at the Planning and Zoning Bo: Minutes August 14, 1978/page 7 proposed location. Eldon Ward: Explained that there was no clear need for a curb cut at this location, and that it was generally accepted city policy not to allow cuts without clear need shown as curb cuts on arterials cause major problems. Felt that in the future as traffic volumes require 3 moving lanes that the 3rd lane which serves as an acceleration/deceleration lane will disappear. Phyllis Wells: Asked for a comparison of Troutman Parkway to Foothills Parkway. Eldon Ward: Indicated that Troutman is intended to be a collector street through a mile section while Foothills Parkway becomes little more than a local street past the mall. Gary Ross: Felt that it would be difficult to remove the curb cut once granted should it prove troublesome. But felt that if in the future a clear need could be demonstrated that the subject should be raised then, expecially if median installed in College. Phyllis Wells: Agreed and added that when Troutman Parkway crosses the railroad tracks that conditions will change and the curb cut subject can be reopened then. Gary Ross: Felt that McClelland Drive would take some of the pressure off College. Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plan subject to staff comments leaving the option open that the curb cut subject may be reraised. Gary.Ross: Seconded the motion and added that he felt it would be important to note that Troutman Parkway should be developed in its entirety at the time this property develops. Gary Spahr: Agreed to make that condition a part of the motion. Gary Ross: Also noted that he felt that if there is indeed a concrete shortage, that the developer ought to be allowed to phase in the installation of Concrete walks. Eldon Ward: Felt this could be taken care of in the utility agreement. Saw this as applicable in this case especially in the short run. Vote: Motion carried unanimously, with Charles Unfug adding that he concurred with Gary Ross' position that the Board should be sympathetic to a future curb cut should such come up again. 5. #110-78 Target P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on 9.9 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business, located on South College Avenue, south of Troutman Parkway (1/3 mile north of Harmony Road). Applicant: Daryl Krammer, c/o University Realty, P.O. Box 471, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522. Planning and Zonir0oard Minutes • August 14, 1978/page 8 Eldon Ward: Gave the staff presentation with a recommendation for conditional approval subject to the following comments: 1) Traffic Circulation a) Access to S. College Avenue via a "potential" future private curbcut at the south end of the site should not be anticipated where indicated, b) Final site plan design of the Troutman - S. College street intersection as well as the entrance to the site from Troutman should be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer, c) Internal parking lot drives near main entrance should be revised to eliminate conflicting turning movements; also d) Provisions should be made for possible internal connection with future parking lot to the south. 2) Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrians are adequately provided for on the interior of the site, however, the plan should indicate sidewalks at periphery along streets and links to interior system of walks. Also pedestrian access should be provided to tract for future development at the northeast corner of the site. 3) Landscape Treatment a) Continuous rows of parking should be interrupted every 15 parking spaces or so by landscaped islands for shade trees, b) Landscaping along S. College Avenue should be designed to provide visual and physical separation of parked vehicles from travelled lanes, (e.g. with berms), but without impairing sight distance of motorists, c) Visual impact of building side of facades facing S. College and McClelland should be improved by landscape treatment, d) Existing trees should be located on the preliminary plan and preserved where possible. 4) Other a) Final utility plans should indicate on -site drainage detention, b) Clearance around compactors at rear of building should be verified, c) Final plan should provide for security lighting. Gary Ross: Asked for staff reaction to the "alley" on the southern edge of the building. Eldon Ward: Said it was defined for delivery and service uses. Gary Ross: Felt it was as wide as a street and was concerned about a potential traffic flow around the building. Wondered if it was possible to move the building to narrow that area. Eldon Ward: Didn't see any advantage to anyone trying to circle the building instead of using regular entrance. Lloyd McLaughlin: Said the proposed city sewer trunk line will cross through that area and the Utility Department had requested that a 12" feeder Planning and Zoning Bo: Minutes August 14, 1978/page 9 water main be placed there to cross College so that the building couldn't be moved further South. Eldon Ward: Suggested the only other alternative would be to move the landscaping further north. Forrest Russell(Landscape Architect for Target): addressed the rear "alley" problem: 1) building setback of 60' is due to fire code rating 2) the trash compactor pick up requires that kind of arrangement 3) felt that circulation around the rear aided emergency vehicle and fire vehicle access 4) noted that the area was easily identifiable as a loading area, and no striped parking areas are in evidence 5) 7 other Target stores have been built in other areas in the last few years utilizing the same basic design with no problems. Bob Burnham: Asked what type of code required the 60' setback. Tom Bonneville(Project Administrator for Target): The 1976 Uniform Building Code requires the setback for the desired fire rating for insurance rating purposes. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval of the prelminary plan subject to staff comments. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 6, #111-78 West Prospect Fourth Annexation. Description: Proposal to annex 35.9 acres located on Prospect Street east of Overland Trail. Applicant: Staff initiated. Eldon Ward: Said this was a staff initiated annexation of an area which had been left as an enclave along Prospect Street. There are no plans for imminent development. In the absence of a Land Use Plan the staff feels that R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District zoning, would provide a good transition between the school and single family development to the east and the more intense multiple family ground to the west. Suggested that R-L-P was not a hard and fast recommendation, that T-Transition would also be a possibility. Gary Ross, Asked if the property owners had been in touch with the Planning Office. Eldon Ward: Said no; they had been notified, but there was no response. There was no one present opposing the annexation. Gary Ross: Moved that the Board recommend to City Council that annexation proceedings should be begun. Planning and Zonin0oard Minutes • August 14, 1978/p4ge 10 Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Charles Unfug: In considering the zoning, thought that in the absence of input from the owners that T, Transition would be most appropriate. Moved that the Board recommend that the area be zoned T- Transition. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Bob Burnham: Asked what the time frame on the Land Use Plan was. Eldon Ward: Said target date is October. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 7. #112-78 Amendment of Village Gardens Addition P.U.D. Description: Proposal for 40 multi -family units on 4.07 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on Swallow Road at Lemay Avenue. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Said staff recommendation was for conditional approval based on the following comments: 1) The driveway serving the eight units south of Swallow Road should be perpendicular to Camelot Drive at the intersection .and designed to avoid any sight distance problems caused by the bridge on the irrigation lateral adjacent to the site. 2) The building parallel to Lemay should be shifted approximately 15 to 20 feet east to provide for adequate fire protection. 3) The dead end parking areas should be modified to facilitate egress from the end stalls. Phyllis Wells: Asked if there would be any problem with the existing trees along the ditch when the drive South of Swallow is paved. Eldon Ward: Replied that the City Arborist had voiced no specific concern. Doubted that there would be a problem with the ditch right there. Earl Stafford (Everitt Enterprises): Said the drive area between the tennis courts and trees had been measured and that there would be no problem with width. Will only serve four units. Charles Unfug: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the amendment subject to staff comments. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Gary Ross: Asked Mr. Stafford if there would be any problem with moving the building 15' as requested. Planning and Zoning Boad Minutes August 14, 1978/page 11 Earl Stafford: No. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 8. #113-78 1415 & 1417 South College P.U.D. Description: Proposal for a business P.U.D. on .5 acre zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on College Avenue south of Lake Street. Applicant: Jim Bowser, P. 0. Box 666, Fort Collins, CO, 80522. Eldon Ward: Noted that these properties had apparently been zoned B-P on the premise that single family dwelling uses were no longer viable. The site plan does commit to non -retail uses in these buildings. Said that staff recommendation was for conditional approval subject to the following comments: 1) The deceleration lane as designed would be ineffective. A preferable solution would be to provide a drive from the existing curb line, angled to promote right turn ingress movements. 2) Two of the parking spaces on the south boundary of the site do not have adequate back-up. The parking area should be redesigned to provide an adequate number of workable spaces. 3) A four foot walk separated from the curb should be provided. 4) Building envelopes should indicate provisions for handicap access ramps if such ramps will occur outside the existing buildings. 5) The applicant has not yet received a variance on the two acre requirement for a P.U.D. as it was tabled at the August 10, 1978, ZBA Meeting. Staff does not see a problem with this since it follows policy guidelines for this block as adopted by the City Council. Noted also that a packet of material had been received from Ken Medearis, the adjacent property owner to the north, in opposition to this proposal. Gary Ross: Asked if one driveway cut were being given up. Eldon Ward: Yes, and the existing gravel parking lot in front of Fort Collins Realty will be sodded over. Ed VanDriel: Asked if there was any indication as to who the occupants would be. Eldon Ward: Said presently an insurance office in one, but that it would not be possible to prescribe one and only one use. Bob Burnham: Asked if home occupations were a specification of the development policy for the 1400 block. Eldon Ward: No. Planning and Zonineoard Minutes • August 14, 1978/page 12 Bob Burnham: Asked for clarification of the Zoning Board of Appeals position. Don Deagle: Tabled for a lack of a quorum. Rick Brown - Robert'Sutter Architects - Said they saw no problem with staff comments. Indicated that they had received a variance for the handicap requirements. Mentioned that the property at 1415 is presently for sale. Tom Varco - Current owner of 1415 - Indicated there were no problems from his standpoint; that a contract pending on the property depended on this P.U.D. Jim Bowser - Owner of 1405 - Asked for further clarification on why staff was recommending against the deceleration lane. Gary Ross & Phyllis Wells: Explained the problems with such a short deceleration length. Ken Melod - 1523 Remington - Thought the deceleration lane was a good idea and that even if deceleration does occur before this additional lane starts, that any assistance ought to be welcomed. Felt that per- haps both the deceleration lane and the driveway changes should be considered. Gary Ross: Was afraid that people might try to turn back out of the lane into the mainstream of traffic on College if they discovered themselves in the wrong place. Asked what the City Traffic Engineer's recom- mendation was. Eldon Ward: Said Traffic Engineer was the one who brought up the subject and made the recommendation. Ed VanDriel: Asked for clarification of the 20 trip policy in the 1400 block guidelines. Eldon Ward: Quoted from report: "The area including lot 1417 and north of it generally consists of houses which should be preserved, provided that appropriate commercial uses can be located within them. The suitability of such uses should be a function of vehicular traffic generation to a large degree and of the compatibility between various uses to a lesser degree. Commercial uses on these six lots should be limited to non -retail and only low trip generating uses not to exceed twenty (20) daily trips including those of employees. Ed VanDriel: Questioned whether an insurance office would generate so few trips. Eldon Ward: Agreed that there would be a problem of enforcement even though it would be written into the covenants. Manager of the Insurance Office to locate in the P.U.D. Office use is not primarily to write new policies and so will not draw many people in. Phyllis Wells: Asked about enforcement of covenants. Eldon Ward: Indicated that enforcement could be done by Zoning Administrator since covenants of the P.U.D. would be with the City, but that enforcement would be done only on a complaint basis as with Zoning violation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 14, 1978/page 13 Charles Unfug: Brought up the privacy fence question from Medearis' letter. Eldon Ward: The parking lot for the property to the north faces the parking lot for this project. The City requirement for 6' privacy fence between commercial and residential land uses is intended to deflect headlights, etc. Rick Brown: Indicated that the driveway between 1413 and 1415 was being vacated and sodded and that there would be no problem with a privacy fence between the two parking lots; since the rest of the area would be grassed, didn't see the need for a fence anywhere else. Phyllis Wells: Felt the site plan was an improvement over what was presently there. Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plans subject to staff comments and subject to ZBA recommendation for approval of the variance and also recommend that it be approved with the conditions of the criteria set up for the block (i.e., low traffic business) and to eliminate the deceleration lane but modify the driveway entrance. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Unanimous with Ed VanDriel indicating his vote was a reluctant yes. 9. #114-78 Top Hat P.U.D., Preliminary and Final Plat and Plans. Description: Proposal for a business P.U.D. on .5 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on West Elizabeth Street at Taft Hill Road. Applicant: Dwight Ghent, c/o Al Hockett, P.O. Box 767, Fort Collins, CO, 80522. Eldon Ward: Indicated the proposal was for a combination carwash/gas station use at this corner. Staff recommendation was for conditional approval subject to the following comments: 1) The curbcut on West Elizabeth, immediately west of South Taft Hill Road should be eliminated. 2) A six foot easement along adjacent streets should be indicated on the subdivision plat. Also a portion of the internal traffic circulation pattern encroaches on public right-of-way. The Engineering Department has approved this encroachment. 3) Legal documents for landscape maintenance should be approved before final Council approval. Gary Ross: Asked for an explanation of interior traffic circulation pattern. Eldon Ward: Explained. Gary Ross: Suggested that perhaps the curb cut served those people who wanted to buy gas and didn't want car washes by getting them out of the more complex wash traffic pattern. Bob Burnham: Asked if there were a right turn lane of Taft Hill. Eldon Ward: No, Elizabeth is actually wider than Taft Hill at that point. Indicated that the reason P&Z was looking at this particular site was due to a change of principal use. Even if this P.U.D. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 14, 1978/Page 14 were not approved there would be some combination of these two uses.on this site. Doing the P.U.D. removes the nonconforming use status which would otherwise occur. Gary Spahr: Asked for a restatement of the problem with the curb cut. Eldon Ward: Said curb cut caused 1) sight problem for people coming out and turning right, and 2) there was a problem of people coming out and trying to turn left onto Elizabeth. Amos Jacobs - Al Hockett Construction - Indicated they agreed with all of the staff comments except the curb cut. Felt that the curb cut was necessary for traffic coming in for gas only. For this traffic there was really not enough room to exit around the carwash. Indicated that the curb cut was to be signed "Right turn only". Gary Spahr: Asked how big a line could form ahead of the wash. Amos Jacobs: About three vehicles. Gary Ross: Asked if it were possible to move the curb cut further from the corner by having the City allow more of the right-of-way to be used in closing the curb cut and having a shunt constructed next to the turn area for the carwash. Eldon Ward: Indicated that it seemed feasible but others would need to look at it also. Would move the curb cut further from the corner. Amos Jacobs: Saw no problem with the suggestion. Charles Unfug: Indicated that he liked the configuration as shown on the plan and the idea of including landscaping on the lot. Felt that since the use could be put in now as a non -conforming use, that he didn't want to see any stumbling blocks put in the way of the plan. Didn't see the potential for accidents due to the curb cut as that great as long as the shrubbery was not too large. Gary Ross: Saw the problem of the curb cut as its being more than a right angle turn due to the configuration of Elizabeth Street. Gary Ross: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plan subject to staff comments and that the existing curb cut be closed, but widening the circle for no more than two lanes of traffic to pass through, recognizing that this will increase the encroachment. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Charles Unfug: Didn't see how widening the circle would help. Vote: Ed VanDriel - YES Gary Ross - YES Phyllis Wells - YES Gary Spahr - YES Charles Unfug - NO - Didn't agree with the curb cut change Bob Burnham - YES Planning and Zoning Boa. Minutes August 14, 1978/page 15 Motion carried. (5-1) 10. #115-78 Ponderosa Park Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 10 single family lots on 1.7 acres zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located on Ponderosa Drive south of West Mulberry Street. Applicant: Paul Baetz, 333.W. Mountain Avenue, P.O. Box M, Fort Collins, CO., 80522. Charles Mabry: Indicated that staff recommendation was for approval subject to the following comments. 1) The area shown as possible future development has not been reviewed and the petitioner should not assume that the lack of comments presumes quasi approval. 2) a. All street rights -of -way must be dedicated and dimensioned. b. Utility plans must adequately address drainage. c. The short street between lots 4 and 5 needs to be reserved for a 60' street right-of-way but would not be required to be built until access is needed to the area to the east of the proposed subdivision unless lot 4 or lot 5 plan to take access off of the proposed street. 60' would allow that right-of-way to be developed as a lot should a street not be required. d. Lot 10 needs to provide for dedication of the Ponderosa Drive right-of-way to gradually phase the part of Ponderosa north of Orchard Place into the part south of Orchard Place. 3) Sewer service to lot 2 should be coordinated with the Water and Sewer Department. Paul Baetz(Applicant): Saw no problems with staff comments. Asked how much land would be required from Lot 10. Charles Mabry: Explained how corner should be rounded to make existing one. Estimated 16 feet or so to the north; 3-4 feet back from pan. Paul Baetz: Didn't see any problem. Indicated that there was a legal problem of 2 feet which seemed not to be in anyone's ownership. Don Deagle: Said he and Lucia Liley had discussed the situation which looked like it resulted from an original survey problem. Indicated that they couldn't see any problem arising from it in the future, and felt that it would be cured by the passage of time. Charles Unfug: Asked about the existing partial completion of Orchard Place. Eldon Ward: Explained how responsibility for development of a street to the centerline used to be taken more seriously than now. Now such piecemeal development does not occur, Planning and Zonin and Minutes August 14, 1978/pag*6 Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval of the plat subject to staff comments. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 11. #116-78 Edora Acres, 3rd Filing, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for six multiple family lots on 3.23 acres zoned R-H, High Density Residential District, located on Riverside Avenue south of East Prospect Street. Applicant: Dan Bailey, Hansen Realty, First National Tower Bldg., Fort Collins, CO., 80521.' Charles Mabry: Indicated that staff recommendation was for conditional approval subject to the following comments: 1) Access to lot 6 from Prospect Road should be confined to the one in place curb cut presently existing on Prospect Road. 2) A ten foot utility easement is required along Prospect Road instead of the six foot easement as indicated. 3) Location of buildings on lots l through 4 should be coordinated wit' the Fire Department so adequate fire protection can be provided. Bob Burnham: Asked about drainage. Eldon Ward: Indicated that essentially it all goes into Spring Creek; will have to be addressed in final plan. Dan Bailey(1825 Longworth): Saw no problems with staff comments. Indicated that the locations of buildings on lots 1 through 4 was intended for the west which should relieve any potential problem of fire access. Gary Spahr: Moved that the plan be recommended for approval subject to staff comments. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Gary Ross: Suggested streetname problem for Prospect "Road" or "Street" and Riverside "Drive" or "Avenue" be clarified on plat. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 12. #122-78 Collindale Industrial Park Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for two industrial lots on 14.2 acres zoned I-P, Industrial Park District, located on Timberline Road north of Horsetooth Road. Applicant: Bartran Homes, Inc., 1942 Constitution, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 14, 1978/Page 17 Charles Mabry: Indicated that staff recommendation was for approval subject to the following comment: 1) Required dedication of a 15 foot utility easement along the north side of lot 2. Bill Bartran - Applicant - Saw no problem with the comment; offered to answer any questions. Charles Unfug: Asked legal counsel if the Board would see a site plan on the development. Eldon Ward: Replied that the I-P zone does not require P.U.D. plans. Indicated that the Board would not review the site plan if the lots developed as a standard subdivision. Development would still have to meet the more stringent landscape requirements, etc., required under I-P. Bill Bartran: Indicated that the intention was to proceed as a straight subdivi- sion, but anticipated no problems with the requirements. Gary Ross: Asked where the ditch crossing was. Bill Bartran: Indicated that the crossing was not as shown on the map, and that it would not effect this plat. Gary Ross: Asked how the length of the cul-de-sac was measured. Eldon Ward: Said that depended to some degree on which staff member was consulted. .Felt it was somewhat ambiguous with the two lots involved. Gary Ross: For consistency's sake wanted to be sure it was within prescribed limits. Bill Bartran: Indicated that chances of it remaining that long were slim. Anticipated a tie-in when the area to the north developed. Ed VanDriel: Asked if in that case the name should remain as a "Court". Bill Bartran: Saw no problem with changing it in the future if it became necessary as only two lots were involved. Gary Ross: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plat subject to the staff comment. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 13. #123-78 Amendment of Stuart Street Day Care P.U.D. Description: Proposed amendment of an existing P.U.D. on Stuart Street, west of Lemay Avenue, on .25 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District. Applicant: Edith Wright, c/o Bobby Lynn Day Care Center Too, 1218 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80526. Charles Mabry: Indicated that the item had been withdrawn. 14. Other Business a) Staff Report on Greenhouses Planning and Zoning oard Minutes August 14, 1978/Page 18 Eldon Ward: Indicated that pursuant to a report done by Robert Steiner, the staff recommendation was for greenhouses to be included as a legal use in the RM zone as part of a P.U.D. Bob Burnham: Asked how this would specifically affect the greenhouse problem in the Hiatt Annexation. Eldon Ward: Explained that the use would conform as a P.U.D. Indicated that this would also open the door to having more greenhouses -in other residential areas. Gary Ross: Felt that greenhouses didn't belong in residential areas. Didn't feel they were compatible uses - not attractive, have noisy fans, and may generate heavy traffic. Charles Unfug: Indicated that greenhouses don't have to be retail uses. Eldon Ward: Agreed that a stipulation on retail vs. non -retail use could be included. Indicated that staff had not considered greenhouses as florist shops. On an acre for acre basis a greenhouse would not generate more traffic than multifamily development would. Gary Ross: Felt that in this area the vast majority of greenhouses include retail uses. Cited a case in which a sale of property had been lost due to the proximity of a greenhouse. Ed VanDriel: Asked legal counsel if locating greenhouses could be looked at on a case by case basis rather than as use by right. Don Deagle: Indicated this was not a procedure which would be recommended. Suggested a division on the wholesale/retail basis would be preferable. Charles Unfug: Said he'd grown up near Richard's Greenhouse and didn't see. any problems within the neighborhood. Phyllis Wells: Felt that even with a two -acre site that there could be a dwelling virtually next door to a greenhouse. Agreed that they are noisy. Bob Burnham: Suggested setback requirements could be included. Phyllis Wells: Mentioned the problem of fairly continuous lighting. Eldon Ward: Said it becomes a question of whether the P.U.D. requirements are adequate to mitigate the impacts. Phyllis Wells: Saw how greenhouses could be located in residential areas through the use of a point system, but saw problems in allowing such locations as a use by right. Charles Unfug: Didn't feel greenhouses should be relocated to industrial/commer- cial zones as he didn't feel they were as "adverse" as those uses. Suggested greenhouses might fit under RH. Planning and ZOning Board Minutes August 14, 1978/page 19 The Board generally agreed with this suggestion. It was decided to forward the report along with the Board's concerns to the City Council for its consideration. b) Consideration of Revised Street Width Standards Bob Burnham: Asked about widening arterials at intersections. Eldon Ward: Replied there is some flexibility as to how the pavement is placed on arterials, the standards generally specify right -of- way - Bob Burnham: Indicated that there should be some procedure of meshing the "old" standard with the "new". Eldon Ward: Noted that collectors are done pretty much independently, but that the whole meshing would have to be done mostly on an individual case by case basis. Bob Burnham: Asked is Bernie Cain had anything further to present from the Design Professional group. Bernie Cain: Indicated that he was not aware that the item had been placed on the agenda. Eldon Ward: Said he thought it was clearly stated at the July meeting on Street Width standards that the Board would take action on this date. However, individuals were not notified directly that the item was to be on the agenda and since part of the reason for not making a decision in July was for further input from the design professionals, it might be best to defer action. Chuck Mabry: Indicated that he felt any action tonight would not be the final action; that the subject will come up again. Viewed this as only a step in looking at the whole ordinance. Thought it time to implement at least this much. Bernie Cain: 1) Felt that staff recommendation was a step in the right direction, but hoped that because an action is taken it will not mean that it ought to be put on the back burner. 2) Recommended that after a year the new standards should be re- viewed to see how they are working, and should not be accepted as fiat. 3) Covered the background of the Design Professional's recommenda- tions and indicated they were due in part to the increased "fire- proofness" of buildings which strong codes have promoted. 4) Appreciated the time that had been given to consideration and development of the standards and the input from design professionals. Bob Burnham: Thanked the Design Professionals for all their input and coopera- tion and hoped it was just a start of more to come. Suggested to the Board that some action be taken. Planning and Zon Board Minutes August 14, 1978/P 20 0 Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend that staff recommendation for street width requirements be adopted with special areas of concern for arterial intersections and accommodating the changes when they occur. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Ed VanDriel - YES Gary Ross - abstained since he was not at the work session discussion Phyllis Wells - YES Gary Spahr - YES Charles Unfug - YES - didn't want Fort Collins to continue to be known as City of "wide streets and narrow minds" Bob Burnham - YES - thought that street widths were only one thing which was being addressed under the current means of operating; felt that there could be other preferable ways of addressing the problem under other methods of operation (ex: ratios) c) Other Business Charles Unfug: Asked what was status of letter to Council re: Planning Dept. budget. Charles Mabry: Said was attached to budget request which would probably be going to council for initial presentation in September. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.