Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/24/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • September 24, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman. Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Ken Waido and Gail Ault. Board Members present at the September 21, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier, Margaret Gorman and Lloyd Walker. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW ,Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the July 23, August 22, and August 27 meetings; Item 2 - Enclave at Golden Meadows, 5th Filing -Replat of Lots 1-22, Preliminary and Final, #78-80E; Item 3 - Overland Hills • Subdivision - Preliminary, #38-90; Item 4 - Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd Filing, Preliminary, #38-90A; Item 5 - Huntington Hills PUD, Replat, #11-81F; Item 6 -Galatia Annexation and Zoning, #36-90. Staff requested that Item 6 - Galatia Annexation and Zoning be pulled for discussion. Citizen Tim Beatty, 2614 Powell Place, asked that the Overland Hills Subdivision, Items #3 and 4, be pulled. Member O'Dell moved to approve consent agenda Items 1, 2, and 5. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. OVERLAND OVERLAND HILLS HILLS SUBDIVISION. SUBDIVISION Preliminary - #38-90 2nd Filing - Preliminary, #38-90A Steve Olt gave staff report on this 1987 annexation recommending approval. He noted it would be served by City Light and Power; sanitation in the first filing would be by the district and in the 2nd filing by septic system. There are four conditions on each item: 1. Trail alignment will be coordinated with City including a 50 foot wide easement for Spring Creek Trail. 2. Springfield Subdivision, 6th Filing, Amended Plat of Lots 24, 25, and 26, must be recorded with the County prior to final approval. 3. The Development Agreement will indicate property owners of Parcel C will be responsible for their portion of construction of both the east and west sides of Overland Trail extension when it is built. • 4. A HEC-2 analysis, stream profiles and cross sections will be provided at time of final review so easements and tracts can be determined. Tim Beatty asked about the Overland Trail extension. Ken Waido responded the proposed extension of Overland Trail has been relocated to the flat portion of ground between Drake and 38E. Ken explained development activity would be the actual deciding factor of how and when Overland Trail develops but the City is currently reserving options for this development. Karen Johnson, Highlands West resident, asked how the developer arrived at the number of lots in each filing. Jim Gefroh, representing the applicant, indicated the topography of the land was the main factor in how the number of lots in each subdivision were determined. Filing One is on higher land lending itself to typical single family lots, although larger lots than those in the subdivision to the east and smaller than Highland Hills to the south. Mr. Beatty went on to state the smallest lot in Highland Hills is 20,000 square feet and the largest in this development barely that large. He felt this development would reduce his property value by $30,000 and was not a good zoning compromise for the area. The least expensive home in his development was $169,000. Mr. Gefroh indicated there would be protective covenants on the property and the homes would be semi -custom or custom, and he felt they would be over $100,000. Member Walker recognized the City's policy to encourage mixed use development and felt this proposal was not an abrupt change from the surrounding areas. Member O'Dell agreed. Member O'Dell moved to approve Overland Hills Subdivision and Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd Filing, with the four staff conditions. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion carried approving both items 7-0. GALATIA ANNEXATION AND ZONING. #36-90 Ken Waido gave the staff report on this 235 acre proposed annexation with zoning of 25 acres Highway Business, 143 acres Industrial Park, and 65 acres Planned Residential, with a Planned Unit Development condition. Staff is recommending Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to City Council. Member Strom questioned the irregular zoning boundaries. Eldon Ward, Cityscape, representing the applicant, explained the natural boundaries, as well as highway frontage road constraints, were used to determine the zoning boundaries. -2- Jim Martel, representing Kitchell Properties to the north, indicated concerns • with the IP Zone. He described Kitchell as 16 five acre lots, four of which are sold, houses in the $150,000-200,000 range, zoned FA-1. The FA -I Zone compares to the City's RE Zone and he suggested this zone or the T-Transition zone rather than IP. He felt there was no need for an industrial zone at this location although at a later date development may move east of the Interstate. It would be more appropriate to request the IP Zone at that time. Jan Lacy, property owner of property to the south, indicated she had not been notified. She added there were serious traffic problems in this area with almost daily accidents occurring at the I-25 overpass. She felt the plan condemned a whole established area by placing a commercial/industrial zone next to residential properties. Ken Kuhn, owner Lot 8, Kitchell Subdivision, stated he bought his property to have a large residential acreage and was opposed to the industrial zone and smaller lots proposed by this project. Chairman Klataske responded this annexation was being reviewed at the applicant's request, and not as an involuntary annexation by the City. Bill Jump, Homestead Estates property owner, asked the Board request a show of hands to indicate the number of people in the audience here for this project. Chairman Klataske asked for a show of hands and approximately 30 people responded. • Richard Dunn, 5021 Kitchell Drive, stated he was not opposed to growth but he was opposed to being in the City and the proposed industrial zoning. Chairman Klataske asked that Mr. Waido explain the IP, RE, and T zones. Mr. Waido indicated IP was for light industrial use occurring next to residential uses or along major arterials. The PUD condition insured future proposals would come to the Board so stricter landscaping and buffering could be required along the residential border. The RE Zone required a 2.3 acre lot size and the T-Transition Zone was used when the property owner wished to annex but not commit to any particular zoning district. No development could occur in the T Zone and the property owner's consent was required for the T Zone. Mr. Waido went on to state HB and IP Zones were appropriate given the proximity to the I-25 interchange. He added he thought the area was identified as industrial on the County Plan. The City felt, due to the importance of the I-25 Corridor, annexation of this property was important to insure development was governed by City requirements. Don Zimmerman, 1716 Carriage Lane south of the proposal, needed specific examples of light industrial. Mr. Waido sited. Hewlett-Packard, NCR, and Teledyne as examples. He noted Woodward Governor and Anheuser-Busch were considered heavy industrial and went on to caution it was hard to generically classify development. The PUD condition would insure surrounding residences would be appropriately buffered. Mr. Zimmerman expressed concern that the people in the area be heard. Their • homes represented a valuable investment and needed to be considered. Larry Ekblad, 4701 E. Prospect, owner of 25 acres to the south, also expressed -3- concerns. He wished to see the master plan and wondered what would happen to the UGA. Chairman Klataske responded master plan review came later. Allen Guffey, 1725 Meadowaire Drive, Homestead Estates, moved to be in the country and was concerned when the UGA moved closer. He is now concerned about annexation. He felt there needed to be more consideration for current residents and a harder look at the development of light industry as far as a half mile east of the Interstate. Tim Vine, Berthoud, part owner of Kitchell Subdivision, felt this proposal brought industrial too close to residential properties and there needed to be some type of residential barrier dividing these properties. Cherrie Nichols, 1601 Meadowaire, was concerned and had questions regarding possible tenants and how the acreage was determined. Eldon Ward responded no specific tenants were identified. Physical constraints as well as existing policy and collector street possibilities determined zoning boundaries. He explained a collector street moved traffic within a development internally and to the outer edges. Some master planning had been done showing a series of transition or less intense uses for buffering between the larger industrial uses and the residences. The property would take many years to develop so he hesitated to identify specific uses but more intense uses would be nearer 1-25. Traffic would not be introduced into residential areas. Mrs. Nichols noted residents wanted some say about how their area grew and her major concerns were increased proximity to the City, traffic concerns, water and sewer, and what governs future. Mr. Ward stated that, when traffic increases warranted, a signal would be installed. Mr. Waido indicated the area was currently in Boxelder Sanitation District and Elco water. A major City trunk facility was proposed at Prospect and utilities would be extended when needed at a cost to the developer. Mrs. Nichols requested a transitional zoning so property owners could be assured of setbacks. Mr. Waido explained the PUD condition and the master plan, preliminary, and final phasing. He indicated no use would be allowed without Planning and Zoning Board approval. Jan Lacy asked when neighborhood needs would be addressed. Mr. Waido stated final decision of what locates where would be at preliminary and final plan stages. He added that industrial/residential/commercial development is not inherently incompatible with residential. Don Zimmerman questioned the notification procedure and Mr. Waido responded. Paul Eckman added the LDGS required notification of property owners within 500 feet. Member Carroll requested all questions be stated before the process of giving answers begin. Mr. Ekblad asked timing on enlarging Prospect Road from I-25 east to the -4- Poudre River. • Barry Nichols, Homestead Estates, expressed concern with their neighborhood being annexed and felt they would lose the essence of why they moved to the area. Maryann Wood, 1733 Meadowaire Drive, liked her rural atmosphere and didn't want businesses as a neighbor. Paul Eckman read from annexation statute that this property must not be divided without the owner's consent since it is under one ownership. He added the LDGS makes no distinction between whether a property is inside or outside City limits regarding notification procedures or dealing with neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Waido indicated a traffic study would be required for Prospect Road and the City off -site street ordinance required a 38 foot pavement as a minimum. He went on to state the Board had several courses of action they could take and added the applicant would like to work with the property owners but needed some guidance from the Board. Member O'Dell understood citizen concerns and felt it was appropriate to have the HB Zone and some IP Zone at 1-25 and Prospect but not in the area to be newly incorporated in the UGA. The Board needed to be concerned about the transition between the existing residential and proposed IP Zone. • Member Strom generally agreed with Member O'Dell and added the IP Zone with a PUD condition provided more protection than the neighborhood realized. He added he would like to see this proposal zoned T-Transition or continued so the applicant could work further with the neighbors. Member Carroll agreed with Members O'Dell and Strom. He added the Board was not approving or disapproving development but, while approving a zoning district creates some , expectations, actual development depended on the applicant's proposals, zoning, and market trends. This was a large piece of property and he believed the T Zone or a continuance would give affected property owners time for dialogue. Mr. Eckman noted the petition could not be withdrawn and Mr. Waido stated the Board could not place the T Zoning on the property without the applicant's consent. Member Cottier agreed with the neighbors' concerns, feeling that abutting industrial to residential was not appropriate. Member Cottier moved to continue the proposal to the next meeting in hopes the developer could redefine appropriate boundaries. Mr. Eckman read from the code statements regarding the T Zone. Member O'Dell seconded the motion adding a condition that the applicant meet with interested property owners to discuss zoning and answer their questions. • Member Cottier accepted the amendment to her motion but felt it was treating the project as a master plan rather than a zoning. Member O'Dell felt it -5- would provide for an educational process on how annexation works. Member Walker agreed HB and IP Zoning was appropriate near I-25 and there was a "place for all the pieces" but felt a closer look at issues was needed. He added the City encouraged mixed use and felt the PUD condition was a safeguard mechanism for the City and adjacent owners. Chairman Klataske felt the annexation with a PUD condition could be supported since residents would be assured an opportunity for input. Motion to continue Galatia Annexation and Zoning to the October meeting passed 7-0. HARMONY CORRIDOR Chairman Klataske asked if there would be any opposition to continue the Harmony Corridor Plan and its elements to Monday, September 30, at 6:30 PM. None existed so that item was continued. VICTORIA GABLES AT SILVERPLUME PUD - Preliminary. #63-89D Kirsten Whetstone gave the staff report recommending approval with a condition that the storm drainage issue be resolved prior to final. She noted this proposal would replace existing approval for 144 multi -family units with 40 paired units and complete development at Silverplume. Member O'Dell questioned what Rossborough Park to the south was used for and Ms. Whetstone replied it was open space for unstructured activities. Member Carroll asked the status of the northern area and Ms. Whetstone noted it was developed and the southern area was covered by an approved PUD. Dick Rutherford, representing the applicant, reiterated the change of the boundary line to the north and the use of open space indicating the single -story paired housing would result in a dramatic reduction in density. ri 0 • Member O'Dell questioned the Tracts A, B, and C exchange for property near • Lot 7. Ramsey Myatt, attorney for Colrad Development, the owner who has placed the property for sale to the developer, stated contrary to some rumor the property had never been placed in foreclosure. The boundary irregularity was created when three supplements were filed to the condominium project and is a legal boundary. He added he was available for any questions. Peter Bullard, represented Gables at Silverplume condominium association, 72 condominium owners of condos to the north of proposal. Mr. Bullard stated the condominium board was opposing this proposal. He presented the Planning and Zoning Board with photographs of designated points along the irregular boundary showing the proximity to existing buildings. While they were ready for the property to develop and glad to have Tracts A, B, and C deeded to them, remaining issues were of concern and he asked the Board to deny the project. Craig Jefferies, President of Gables at Silverplume Homeowners' Association, noted time was an issue since the HOA felt not sufficient time had been given. He added the architecture of the proposed units was not consistent with existing units. Another issue is not will but how will open space be maintained. Their association has been maintaining the area at some expense and they don't chose to give up the results of their long-term maintenance. Other concerns included the proximity of buildings, particularly Buildings 7/8. A trade of Tracts A, B, and C for a section of land neighboring Buildings 7/8 was • unacceptable to the HOA. Open space issues have not been resolved, there is no consensus and more time is needed to resolve some of the issues; therefore he asked for the Board to deny or delay this proposal. • Beth Grimes, board member, indicated her home had earlier flooding problems which have been resolved and she questioned whether this development would create more problems for her. She felt the confusion over ownership of common areas was a major concern to be resolved. Rhonda Melday, association member, noted parking from park users was already a problem and felt this concern needed to be addressed further. The brick proposed in this plan for low maintenance was not consistent with the architecture and styling of Victorian homes. She added the small turnout at the neighborhood meeting was a result of inadequate notification. Dennis Nix, Western Investors and HOA management, indicated their belief was foreclosure was involved. He noted problems in open space maintenance as the current HOA sprinkles land owned by Colrad and there was a concern about the two associations not being able to agree on covenants. He asked the Board to deny the project or at least continue it. -7- Mary Verkuyl, President of Cal-Neb-Co, indicated their offer for the property was accepted June 11, 1990, and her firm sent out 241 notices regarding a July 12 neighborhood meeting. She and Mr. Mackey personally met with Dennis Nix who had said he would invite the condo board to the meeting (but no members attended). Later her firm met with Mr. Jefferies and several board members regarding the neighborhood meeting and were assured they would be invited to the next board meeting (but weren't). She felt sufficient time had transpired and they had made honest attempts to resolve these problems and asked for approval. Mr. Nix added the boundary lines were extremely close to existing structures but he felt a mutual agreement could be reached with time and discussion. Bob Hamlin, Building 2 owner and association member, felt some of the problems were a result of a trying to obtain consensus among a committee. He also felt Tracts A, B, and C were not sufficient to straighten out the irregular boundary and considerable discussion still needed to occur. Ramsey Myatt interjected that landscaping had been put in by the developer and the boundary line was not an issue. The association wanted additional land be deeded them and an additional Tract D was not an option. Much discussion, good faith efforts by the developer, and several months had passed and the project should not be delayed any further. Mr. Rutherford noted the current drainage plan should not cause problems with building 2 and the time between preliminary and final should be sufficient to resolve issues. Member Walker asked how the line originated and Mr. Rutherford explained. Member Klataske questioned the private street and City enforcement. Ms. Whetstone indicated it was a private drive, 28 feet in width and public traffic would be discouraged, possibly by a sign if necessary. Because it was a private drive the City would not have jurisdiction. Forty-three guest parking spaces would be provided as well as a pedestrian access through the project to the park. Craig Jefferies asked if Building 7/8 was not too close to existing property line. Mr. Rutherford stated originally as a trade for Tracts A, B, and C, they were to get a small triangle of land from the HOA for Building 7/8 to resolve this issue. Member Strom asked if there was a setback requirement and Mr. Frank indicated the LDGS doesn't specify a setback, it establishes expectations such as privacy. Staff supports the project based on the boundary line issue being resolved and perhaps a condition to that effect is warranted. Member Strom felt he had this issue resolved earlier but perhaps it was still an issue. Mr. Frank indicated Lot 18 in the proposal had adequate setback, but the impact of Building 7 was of concern because the setback is very close to the -8- property line leaving two apparent solutions: 1) realign the property line or 2) • eliminate Building 7. Member Walker felt social compatibility was the issue. Mr. Eckman felt the two parties needed to get together and work out the problems. The existing property has a right to be protected from negative impacts. Member Strom felt the maintenance of property straddling the property line needs to be resolved and the LDGS required documents relating to care and maintenance of open space. Member O'Dell questioned the feasibility of one homeowners association. She felt the need for some kind of resolution. Member O'Dell moved to approve the preliminary with the condition issues regarding property common with the existing Silverplume condominiums be resolved prior to final. Member Strom seconded. Member Carroll felt the Board was exceeding its authority by telling the developer to move the boundary line or come to resolution. Member Strom interjected the Board is not telling the developer the solution • has to satisfy the Board. Member Cottier, in an attempt to clarify the motion, asked if it was more relevant to talk about use and maintenance of the open space and the area near Bldgs 7, 18-21, and require some evidence they tried to work on a solution. Member O'Dell felt the clarification was unacceptable because the boundary is an issue. Member Walker stated he agreed with both Members O'Dell and Cottier. His concern was the fuzzy boundary line and social compatibility. Mr. Eckman stated the Board does impose conditions on preliminaries and that something must be done to satisfy the Board that a criteria of the LDGS is met, but no criteria has been specified. Member Carroll concurred with Mr. Eckman and added that reaching agreement with the neighbors is the best thing that could happen, but that can't be mandated by the Board. Member Cottier felt possible a 40 foot corridor between the two properties could be specified that was subject to both associations. Member Strom reiterated the issue was maintenance of open space and the criterion was social compatibility. The Board needed to see some resolution • before final. Member O'Dell indicated the development criteria involved was neighborhood N compatibility and social compatibility, with issue revolving around the property line. It would be of benefit to both parties to do some negotiating. Member Walker suggested handling of the green space jointly. Chairman Klataske listed criterion 45, 39, 35, 33, 32, 27, 8, and 3 as areas of concern. Mr. Frank indicated social compatibility as an issue but stated that the applicant had followed the process with notification, neighborhood meeting, etc. and, even though the parties didn't come to resolution, this met the LDGS requirement as resolution was not required. Member O'Dell restated the condition to her motion that all issues concerning common property lines with the existing condominiums would be resolved prior to final. Mr. Eckman asked that the issues be identified and Member O'Dell stated setbacks, depth of property line, sprinkler and landscaping locations, and who's task land maintenance is. Member Cottier agreed with Member Carroll and felt the proposal was so much less dense than the currently approved project for the site that it can't be such a bad intrusion. The real issue remains the open space. Member O'Dell pointed out the parties do not share open space. Member Strom noted the issue was not where the property line is but the relationship across the property line. Member Cottier stated she didn't hear that in the motion. Member O'Dell expanded that no property lines need to be changed, just issues surrounding the property line need to be resolved. The motion passed 4-3 with Walker, Carroll and Gorman opposed. HARMONY MARKET PUD THIRD FILING - STEELE'S MARKET - Final. #54-87E Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval. Greg Fisher, architect for the Neenan Company noted .the property was owned by Nash -Finch. Steele's would be adding an additional facility employing approximately 125 people with an initial size of 45,000 square feet and expansion possibility to 55,000 square feet. The vehicular access would connect Builder's Square with access from Lemay. The pedestrian access also would be largely completed with this development. Steele's would continue landscaping in the previously established theme and signage would be located at Lemay and Harmony identical with the Pace Warehouse sign. Architecture would also be consistent with Builder's Square and Pace. Member Strom asked if driveway between Steele's and Builder's Square would be paved and Mr. Fisher responded affirmatively. Member Carroll asked if Oakridge Drive would be extended to the west edge of Steele's if Builder's Square was not built and questioned the height of the berm to the west of Steele's. -10- Mike Herzig responded that should Builder's Square not be completed the drive • connection would probably be extended to the west end of Steele's property and Builder's Square would be responsible for extending the drive from the west of Steele's property to the eastern edge of the Pace property. He added Builder's Square was in the final stages of construction approval with the City. Mr. Fisher indicated the berm would be 2-3 feet high. Member Carroll moved to approve Steele's Market. n L.J 0 Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. 203 WEST MULBERRY - Preliminary and Final #41-90 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report recommending approval with 3 conditions: 1. Internal illumination of the proposed awning be deleted. 2. Additional landscaping be provided on Mulberry and along the western boundary for buffering. 3. The identification sign be a monument sign. Member Carroll questioned the use of the property to the west and the landscaping on the proposal. Ms. Albertson -Clark described it as a long narrow piece of vacant property which the applicant is interested in purchasing. The project property currently has several crab apple trees, two existing desiduous trees and a small planter. Member Carroll questioned the deletion and Ms. Albertson -Clark responded the building with 18 inch high letters and from Mulberry. of illumination on the lighted awning awning was on the north side of the there was a fair amount of visibility Member Walker felt requiring the identification sign be monument style was a good idea, but wondered if the Board needed to determine the location. Chairman Klataske asked for information regarding lighting on the lot and height of such lights. Ms. Albertson -Clark deferred to the applicant on the question stating she believed they would be using existing fixtures. Ed Hyatt, Cityscape, representing the applicant, stated this was an in -fill project and the proposal was to use the property practically as it exists with substantial upgrades. There would be upgrades to the landscaping, and additional awnings for cosmetic improvement. He noted it was a difficult site requiring a specialized use which was why it had been vacant for approximately three years. He went on to request approval for the project without staff's conditions. He added the additional landscaping would hinder snow removal. Visibility will be greatly limited requiring the illumination because of the building location on the lot and the short distances of awning on the facade. The maroon awning with, more than likely, white lettering, would be fairly unobtrusive. The pole sign is an existing feature which meets sign code and would be the most efficient way to use the site. A monument sign would be a futile effort in terms of visibility. Jim Vogesser, Lending Officer, Home Federal Savings, current property owner, indicated the value of the property has decreased significantly and, while he is supportive of the Planning Department, he can't ignore the economic situation. The property owner might have attempted to let someone use the property for free had they known the non -conforming use right would be lost after 12 months. He asked for favorable action by the Board that would return this property to income producing. Jerry King, applicant, stated to move the sign and put in a monument sign would decrease visibility and cost $10,350. The lighted awning is necessary because of the limited visibility. He projected four to five million dollars of sales in the first year and hoped the Board would approve this project without the conditions. Craig Hau, realtor for The Group, indicated support for the project. He represented himself as selling broker, The Group at 401 W. Mulberry as a neighboring property, and five additional neighboring property owners (Wayne Schrader, Jerry Moore, Mark Teets, Bill Evans, and Andy Miscio) and gave the Board a letter of support signed by the five owners. He added the conditions were not necessary or economically feasible. Member Cottier asked the status of the house across the street and Ms. Albertson -Clark replied she believed it was still a residence and to the north was the side of a laundromat. Member Carroll asked if two motions were needed - one for the project and one for the variance. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded one motion with specific wording relative to the variance would be adequate. Mr. King added that the wording on the dark awning would read "King's Auto Sales." Jerry Moore stated he was pleased someone was interested in the vacant ground. Nearby houses were owned by the Presbyterian church and used as rental houses. He felt the illuminated sign would not affect the houses any more than currently illuminated signs. Betty Cook, The Group, stated she worked at night and she considered the added lighting a safety factor. Andy Miscio indicated he'd been trying to sell the property for two years and actually had a prospect interested in using it as an auto repair shop. This proposal was more acceptable and would definitely be an improvement over a vacant corner. He felt an entrepreneur should not be penalized with additional costs when what was existing should work. Member Walker asked how many hours the lighting would be used, how many poles, and the output of the lights. Mr. King responded there were eight poles on the property and no spillage off the property. He couldn't imagine lights being on after 9 at night unless there was a vandalism problem. -12- • Member Carroll felt an undue hardship would result if the variance were not granted and was persuaded by the location of the property and the fact there was illumination along College that an illuminated awning was acceptable. He initially was in favor of the monument sign; however, with the heavy volume of traffic with stacking at intersection perhaps a monument sign was not adequate. In addition most auto sales have a vertical sign, the one-way northbound traffic, and the setback of the building made him support the illumination and pole sign. Member Carroll moved approval of 203 West Mulberry deleting all conditions except additional landscaping be provided along Mulberry only. Member Cottier felt this was a positive proposal for the downtown and seconded the motion. Member Walker could not accept the visibility problem and felt an auto sales lot practically advertised itself, but also understood Member Carroll's points. Member O'Dell could not support the motion and felt the applicant didn't need both illumination and a pole sign. Member Strom agreed, and felt more landscaping was necessary because the lot to the west was so narrow. The motion passed 4-3 with Strom, O'Dell, and Klataske voting no. • FOX MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK, Amended Master Plan - #8-82F FOX MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK. Neighborhood Convenience Center Preliminary - #8-82G Chairman Klataske declared a conflict of interest since he was an Affected Property Owner and would not be participating in the discussion or vote. Member Strom became Acting Chairman. Ted Shepard gave the staff report for both the Amended Master Plan and Neighborhood Convenience Center, Preliminary, recommending approval with conditions. Frank Vaught, representing the applicant, noted the updated Master Plan was a result of the location of the detention pond and there were no objections to the staff conditions. There was no citizen input. Member Walker questioned the retail/office setback. Mr. Vaught responded they had used Collindale PUD as an example and stated the various setbacks. He added the setbacks were adequate and they could have built closer to the residences but chose against that option. Member Walker questioned the canopy for the convenience store and indicated ishe would not like to see it changed and hoped they were committing to the pitched roof with gable top and Mr. Vaught responded they were. -13- Member O'Dell asked what "transport path" referred to, and whether the entrance to the daycare lot was a concern. Mr. Vaught defined "transport path" and noted the island allows the tankers to pull in and make a turn around the car wash. He stated the entrance to the daycare was a given because of the curbcut and the detention pond limits an additional curbcut on Big Horn. Member Walker moved to approve the master plan. Motion was seconded by Member O'Dell. Motion carried 6-0. Member Cottier moved to approve Fox Meadows, Neighborhood Convenience Store - Preliminary with the conditions of staff. Member Carroll seconded. Motion carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Joe Frank indicated there would be a special Planning and Zoning Board meeting on Wednesday, September 26, at 6:30 p.m. to hear the East Side/West Side Rezoning proposal. The meeting continued at 11:40 p.m. to Monday, October 1, 1990. -14-