Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/22/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 22, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison 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 Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. rarmiymi Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 18, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Little Caesars PUD - Preliminary, #28-92; Item 3 - Potts PUD - Final, #6-92A; Item 4 - Best Buy PUD - Preliminary, #29-92; Item 5 -Hampshire Square II - Preliminary Subdivision, #31-92; Item 6 - Silverberg PUD - Overall Development Plan, #12-92; Item 7 - Prospect/Overland PUD - Final, #5-94D; Item 8 - Resolution PZ92-8 Vacation of Utility Easement (Continued until July 27, 1992); Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-9 Vacation of Temporary Easements for Access, Drainage and Utilities; Item 10 - Dakota Heights Subdivision - County Referral, #32-92; Item 11- Woody Creek Subdivision - County Referral, #33-92; Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas; Item 13 - Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan, #52-82D; Item 14 - Southside Service Cuter PUD, Phase III - Site Plan Advisory Review, #52-82E; The following items continued until June 27, 1992 - Item 15 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan, #54- 87F; Item 16 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, #54-87G; Item 17 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, #21-92B; Item 18 - Stoneridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, #21-92C; Item 19 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, #60-91D. Item 2, was pulled for discussion by the applicant. Item 4, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 5, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 6, was pulled by a member of the public. Member Klataske stated he had a conflict with item 7. Member Carroll moved for approval of items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 2 Member O'Dell moved for approval of item 7. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0, with Member Klataske not voting due to a conflict. LITTLE CAESARS PUD - PRELIMINARY. #28-92 Steve Olt, Project Planner gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the following conditions: The dedication for the entire width of future Mitchell Drive (including that portion of dedication needed from the neighboring property on the west side) between East Horsetooth Road and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 be completed, by plat or separate document, prior to Little Caesars P.U.D., Final being considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. The applicant must incorporate brick material on the exterior of the Little Caesars Pizza Building to bring continuity to the existing office buildings to the east being part of the commercial office center that this use will functionally be a part of. The signage stating "Pizza Pizza" on the west elevation of the building on the south and west corner must be eliminated from the west elevation of the building and overall signage package. Al Hauser, Architecture One stated they requested that the item be pulled from the consent agenda because of the final two conditions, both of which were unacceptable as written to the owner. They wanted to present their reasoning and the importance of the items as to why they need to be part of the project and have some ensuing discussion of those items. Mr. Hauser addressed the issue of the brick material. They are only seeking preliminary approval at this time and a final would be submitted sometime in the future. He stated that it would be a lower intensity use as far as signage is concerned as well as just a small monument sign being required outside the building. He identified the problems with the brick material on the outside of the building as follows: 1. A great deal of money is always spent in franchising and trying to follow the suggested corporate image. It was common on pad sites to incorporate brick into a building. Their feelings were that in this situation, this particular site received preliminary approval with Continental Plaza PUD back in 1981. That approval has since expired in 1983 and they feel this property was being brought through as a separate development. He did not view this any different than other areas that he could think of along College Avenue, which are all projects that have continuity as far as vehicular circulation through their parking areas. Certainly there were no requirements that the masonry on one project be similar to the masonry used on another, just because they were P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 3 adjacent, which was the situation they had there. He felt that he should reiterate that they were different uses. 2. The orange brick that was used on Continental Plaza to the east was really not compatible with the remainder of the color scheme that has been suggested for this building. He spoke on signage and the proposed changes since the colored renderings were submitted. They had gone through two sessions with Steve Olt and Peter Barnes to come up with a scheme that meets the sign code in association with the restaurant use and they felt they had done that. They were under the maximum allowable sign area permitted by the sign code. The "Pizza Pizza" sign for what ever reason, seems to be of particular objection to staff. The "Pizza Pizza" sign is important to the owner in that it relates to the whole marketing philosophy of Little Caesars. "Pizza Pizza" is indicative of the fact that with Little Caesars you get two pizzas for one price, it is a part of their whole marketing scheme and to drop the signage off of the building was a rather important sign for the owner to drop. They did drop the Little Caesars roof sign on the east side which was discussed earlier because it did not have good visibility eastward down Horsetootb, it did more or less face the buildings in Continental Plaza to the east and they felt that was an acceptable compromise to the signage package at that time. He stated that they had also included on the PUD, per staff request, that there would be no painted window signage and that a neon window sign had been also eliminated. Their feeling was that to single out this one particular sign, when they are in compliance with the sign code as a whole, did not seem to be that tightly related to a land use issue and was an important marketing consideration for the owner to have that signage visible to the west. The owner felt that they have a location here zoned Highway Business, which was not adjacent to residential areas and with the total signage package being in agreement with the sign code, it was mystifying to them why the one sign had been singled out. He stated that the applicant felt that without significant justification, they were asking him to make an adjustment to the corporate image, which was a significant part of an expenditure in terms of obtaining a franchise and staying consistent with the sign ordinance the other requirements of the PUD. Member Carroll asked if the entire exterior was to be stucco. Mr. Hauser replied, stucco and then the three sided roof on the north end of the structure was a standing seam metal roof. Member Carroll asked if the middle strip was to be dark stucco. Mr. Hauser replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked if there was any similarity in the rust colored stucco as to the brick buildings to the east. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Hauser replied there was some, although it was more reddish in nature. Member Carroll asked if there was a dual objection that it did not follow the Little Caesars corporate image and the second was the expense. Mr. Hauser replied that he did not want to bring the expense up as an issue. The stucco material was not an inexpensive building material, brick is slightly more expensive than stucco. It would involve another trade that is not currently present on the job, so there would be some expense there. Member Carroll asked if the main objection was to the corporate image. Mr. Hauser replied yes, coupled with the fact that this was a different use than originally proposed on the preliminary submittal for Continental Plaza PUD and he thought that to a large extent, it was difficult to gain a lot of similarity between a 2,300 s.f., 16 foot high building and a 3 story, 40,000 to 60,000 s.f. building to the east just by the similar use of a brick material. Member Carroll asked if it was more a matter of aesthetics, that the corporate image did not carry brick and that the owner or the corporation felt that brick was not appropriate with this particular building. Mr. Hauser replied that was correct. The corporation did have a desire to see their franchises build their buildings as closely as they can to the corporate image that was being suggested. Member Carroll asked if the owner would object to a material like brick made of colored concrete and has brick outlines implanted into the brick, so it looks like brick, but it was not brick. Mr. Hauser replied that he would think so, he noticed tonight that it was written in the staff report as brick material. His discussions with Mr. Olt have been limited to just brick masonry, which he did not know what brick material might imply if it is not the use of brick masonry. Member Carroll asked if the only sign on the east would be the corporate logo and that it indicated that the "Pizza Pizza" sign was not illuminated. Mr. Hauser replied that it was a cut out letter like a quarter inch acrylic material. It was not an individual can that was backlit. Member Carroll asked if they were illuminated by ground lights. Mr. Hauser replied that typically by building mounted lights. Member Carroll asked if that was from the top shining down. Mr. Hauser replied yes. Member Carroll asked if the entire building was lit. 0 P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Hauser replied to some extent. Member Carroll asked if the Little Caesars lights on the front and on the west side were neon lights. Mr. Hauser replied they were can letters, and yes, they were internally illuminated. Member O'Dell stated she was familiar with the Little Caesars on the east side of town on Prospect and that was in an existing shopping center, which is made of brick, and it does not look anything like this building. Could he explain to her why there is a corporate standard that was important in this particular case, but was not in the case of the one in Park Central Shopping Center. Mr. Tony Fonte, owner of Little Caesars of Northern Colorado, replied that out of almost 4,000 stores nationwide and internationally too, 90% of them are inlaying stores like at Park Central Shopping Center where what ever the shopping center is made out of, it is just a rented space that goes into 1200 to 1400 square feet. That was the reason there was no corporate image there outside of signage at Park Central. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member O'Dell asked about the possible use directly west of this on the corner of College and Horsetooth. Mr. Peterson replied that we were not aware of anything at the present time that could come in on that corner, but the odds were some sort of commercial/office activity. Member O'Dell added that most likely what ever use it would be would eventually cover up in some ways, the "Pizza Pizza" sign from view on College. Mr. Peterson replied that it was a good possibility that a portion of the sign would be obscured by a building at some point. Member O'Dell asked Peter Barns about the sign code and how this conforms or does not conform to the sign code. Mr. Barnes replied that they had calculated the sign allowance for this property as being 328 square feet. The proposal that was submitted, minus the sign on the east facia, was 323 square feet. The location of all the signs comply with the sign code, as did the amount of signage. Member O'Dell asked if the numbers of square feet were based on your footage or front line on an arterial or building frontage or something like that. Did they get credit for just being on Horsetooth, or Horsetooth and College. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Barnes replied that the sign code allowed you to, on corner lots, to have signage allowance based on each street frontage. Member Cottier asked if the computation of square footage include the little man sign. Mr. Barnes replied yes, the diameter of the circle was counted. Member O'Dell asked if before they took off the Little Caesars sign on the east side, it was over the sign code allowance. Mr. Barnes replied that had not been involved in it that much, Dan Coldiron in their office did the calculations, he went over with him the final calculations. Mr. Olt replied that the original submittal had indicated about 356 square feet with the signage on the east facade and that was close. They had some disagreements about the size of the letters and the calculations. The deletion of the Little Caesars on the east side brought it into compliance. Member O'Dell asked if the "Pizza Pizza" sign was calculated by the letters or the entire piece behind it, what was the sign. Mr. Barnes replied that it was considered an individual letter sign and therefore, including the area enclosed by the smallest perimeter enclosing the letters of the sign. Member O'Dell asked that it would be the letters themselves, not the colored piece behind it. Mr. Barnes replied yes. Chairman Strom asked how was it that a use that has two access points, one off of Horsetooth Road and one off of Mitchell Drive. How did that qualify for getting 8 points as being on a non -arterial street. Mr. Olt replied that the fact that the primary access was considered to be off of Mitchell Drive. At sometime in the future when a median was constructed in Horsetooth and the City has determined that a median will occur in Horsetooth Road, the access point between the office buildings and Little Caesars would be a controlled access right -in right -out. The primary access was considered to be off of Mitchell Drive, not of East Horsetooth, therefore, it did riot gain its primary access, as the point chart indicates, off of an arterial street. It's off of a local street, which Mitchell Drive is classified as. Chairman Strom asked how it was determined what was primary and what was secondary. Mr. Olt replied they have looked at this as the primary access would be off of Mitchell Drive because that would be a right -in from the south and a left -in from the north, so it would be a full access into the site. The access point directly off of East Horsetooth at the northeast corner would be limited at some point in time, therefore, the primary access is considered off of Mitchell Drive. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 7 Member Klataske asked how was it that giving points as part of a planned center and yet the applicants discussion talked about this as separate from the original PUD. Mr. Olt replied that as the applicant had indicated it was a different use than originally approved with the original master plan. This lot had been approved for a financial institution. However, functionally, if you were to look at the traffic circulation, the primary entrance is off of Mitchell Drive. It shares a common driveway between Little Caesars, the proposed future office space and the office buildings to the east. The drive will continue through to the south and east of these uses into that office facility. Functionally, it will be part of Continental Plaza. He thought the applicant's argument was the visual aspect. Member Strom asked if it was effectively being argued to the Board that they give it points for functional relationship but that they ignore the aesthetic relationship. Mr. Hauser replied that he had discussed that with Mr. Olt on the phone and they had come to the conclusion that they had 50% on the point criteria without the 4 points that were taken for the joint use. Some points were taken there because this development, as a development on its own, has a mixed use with the office building and restaurant being on the same site. His final comments to Mr. Olt were that if the inclusion of those points bothered him as being considered part of Continental Plaza to the east that they could be eliminated from the point chart. Member O'Dell moved for approval of little Caesars PUD, Preliminary, with two conditions: 1. The first condition as outlined by staff concerning the dedication of the entire width of the future Mitchell Drive (including that portion of dedication needed from the neighboring property on the west side) between East Horsetooth Road and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 be completed, by plat or separate document, prior to Little Caesars PUD, Final being considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. 2. That the architecture of the building include some brick and that could be worked out with staff. They had some ideas of what would work and what would not work. She cited LDGS All -Development Criteria M2, "Is a development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the neighborhood, relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, and building height, identity and historic character, disposition and orientation of buildings on the lots and visual integrity. She thought because this functions as part of the center, she thought that it was important that it look like it was part of the center. The sign was fine, this was a highly commercial area and she thought the signs they had proposed with the elimination of the Little Caesars on the east side was appropriate on that location. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Carroll stated he would support the motion. He also wanted to note that in support of the use of the brick material, it was not just the immediate site that incorporates brick, as one moves down Horsetooth to the east, one comes upon many office buildings built of brick, which is also the P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page g neighborhood. The Square across the street was also brick. As far as the "Pizza Pizza" sign, he would support deleting the condition, for staffs benefit, this points out another area of the audit, the applicant was able to use the fact that he faces on two streets for sign frontage but then takes the sign frontage on Mitchell and moves it around to the north and west sides of the buildings, which was a concern to him. He thought obviously the applicant was proceeding within the law, but it was something that needed to be addressed to prevent when we do the audit to prevent stacking of signs in one location. The motion was approved 6-0. BEST BUY P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY - #29-92 Member Carroll stated he was the one who pulled this item and was wondering about the line of trees that runs along the north edge of the property against the back of the Fountainhead P.U.D. The site plan they have indicated Elm Trees would be selectively removed. It was his understanding that when this was addressed by an earlier Planning and Zoning Board that line of trees was of some importance. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, on behalf of Best Buy Inc., replied that selective in his mind was that the trees that were healthy and could be saved, would be saved. The back of the Fountainhead Retail Center was not particularly something they wanted to expose to College Avenue so they were not only saving the healthy trees, if they are elm trees, but adding some landscaping along that side. Member Carroll asked if he thought that could be addressed at final, if they would be along that far to where they could make that determination. Mr. Vaught replied they could, they could even go out with the City arborist and tag the trees that he thought acceptable to be saved. Member Carroll understood that they were chinese elm, not the type that most landscape architects would put in these days. The south wall of Fountainhead is not one of Fort Collins' aesthetic features and sometimes the folks that were removing the trees have not talked to the architects. If it says selective, and there was someone in a bull dozer, he was concerned. Member Clemeta-Cooney asked about a letter the Board received from Fountainhead Center Partners which had a number of design questions. Had the applicant received the letter and would these questions and concerns be addressed. Mr. Olt replied that he also received that letter today and provided the applicant with a copy of the letter. The three concerns were drainage from the site, that would be addressed as part of the overall drainage plan for Best Buy and there had not yet been a concern expressed. The applicant and Staff has had discussions throughout the review process about the potential for the service vehicles for Best Buy using the Fountainhead driveway. That would be something that Staff would want assurance on as we move through the process as to how that was going to occur. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 9 Member Clements -Cooney stated there was another concern about a fire hydrant which might have to be removed located in the driveway which was going to be extended to the south to connect with the existing Phar-Mor Center. Mr. Olt replied that he did not know how that was going to be resolved, but did not consider that an issue of significance that would be accommodated. It falls within the confines of the driveway as proposed as it continues to the south. It was a minor item. C111011 (data -am There was no public input. Member Carroll moved for approval of item 4, Best Buy P.U.D. with one condition, that the retention of exsting landscaping on the north boundary of the property be more specifically addressed at final with in mind to retain as much of the existing foliage or landscaping as possible. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 11A I SQUARE II PRELIMINARY SUBDIWSION k31-92 Member Carroll stated the reason that he asked this be pulled was the treatment of the border between the fence and the street which was shown on the plans to be rock and sidewalk. This was questioned at our work session basically under criteria two, if this was really compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment. He thought that the question they had in mind was if this was a proper treatment for that streetscape, keeping in mind what was present to the west and east of it. Perhaps you've had a chance to look since then and could address that with us. Steve Olt, Project Planner replied he had. Hampshire Road goes to the north and the project then would be serviced off of Hampshire Road. There was an existing detached sidewalk all along the street frontage on West Drake. There was about a five foot wide parkway that existed from curb to sidewalk, then a five foot sidewalk, then approximately seven feet from the existing sidewalk to what would be the back lot lines of the proposed lots. Along that lot line would be a six foot high wood fence with brick pillars approximately every 100 feet. What the applicant had proposed in the parkway was street trees in the form of shade and deciduous trees. What we had to work with here, however, was not only street lights, and there was a minimum separation requirement by the City that there be a forty foot separation between street trees and the light posts, that were existing in this area as well as a high voltage transmission line all the way along the frontage. It actually might be adjacent to the fence as you see it here. That was controlled by Platte River Power Authority and they had a requirement that trees did not really grow any taller than about 30 feet to avoid the sag in their lines along this frontage. They also had a thirty foot separation between their poles and he thought there were, only two poles in this area, Therefore, the selection of the trees addressed the concern of both the City Light and Power standpoint as well as the P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 10 Platte River Power Authority's standpoint. As a ground cover or mulch, if you will, what the applicant was proposing was a cobblestone as a ground cover being relatively maintenance free. To address Mr. Carroll's concern about what happened to the east and to the west, there was the Drake Crossing neighborhood shopping center to the east of Hampshire Road and that did in fact have a relatively broad set back which incorporated berms. It was a manicured turf grass with some trees in this area. As you move into the existing neighborhoods to the west of this, he thought it was Brown Farm, you pretty much had the same cross section as you see here. From curb to sidewalk there was about a five foot sex back then the wall itself, then seven to eight feet to the existing fences. There was a variety of solid wood fences along that street frontage. Some incorporated brick columns, some did not. There were absolutely no trees in that area. He was out there today to look at this and it was not being maintained at all. It was weedy was what it was. To the south and directly across from Brown Farm at Quail Hollow there was a five foot parkway between the curb and gutter and the sidewalk, then the walk itself, then the fence. There was no separation similar to what you would have here. There was no separation between the sidewalk and the lot lines. There was a shadow box wood fence along here. There were trees in the parkway along Quail Hollow. Some of that area was being maintained, cut, some of it was not. Some of that was weedy as well. Chairman Strom asked would they be getting more specificity on the varieties of trees with the final? Mr. Olt replied, they did not have to be specific at the preliminary level. Member Strom stated he understood that was correct. Member Clements -Cooney stated that at the neighborhood meeting there was a comment about having open fences for access to existing ditch and trail to the west. Would there be access to this trail? Mr. Olt replied, yes at the west end of the cul-de-sac as you see on the plan there was a 20 foot wide utility and trail easement that was being platted to access that trail easement along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Chairman Strom asked if the fence extended along the west side of the property. Mr. Olt replied that had not been determined yet. Those were property lines, specific lot lines and had not yet addressed what fencing would occur along the west property line adjacent to the ditch. Richard Storck, Storck Development mentioned they had developed a number of projects and also noticed other developers and they also get concerned about what streetscaping looks like and the lack of maintenance. Obviously, they did not only think it was important for the City to have an attractive setting, but also for their purposes of marketing and long term relationship with the City and future projects. One thing that they found in subdivisions of this size if not larger, was those areas a lot of times did not get maintained and in fact become garbage collection, raw dirt and as you could see here weeds and so forth. In a project we are doing in Louisville currently and a number of other projects down there, what they have gone to is a mixture of cobble size, in other words from one inch to four inch. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 11 So, what that does do is create a texture getting away from the blandness of just straight concrete. It was a low maintenance type of an issue as well as they were also looking at savings in water. He guessed that was what they would like to propose and with the trees there, felt like that would create the texture that they were looking for and prevent the unsightly situation. Chairman Strom asked if he would consider the possibility of some shrub islands or something in there to break up the hard surface. Mr. Storck replied to a certain amount. He was not sure how extensive he was suggesting, but would be willing to work with Staff. They had already added the brick columns. Brown Farm had a mixture of some brick columns, majority not brick columns. All he would ask was that they did not have to excel what other developments have had. Chairman Strom had a concern that they recognize the problem of maintenance and that if it was not well maintained it did go to seed and look pretty bad. The cobbles tend to make it hard surface from fence line to fence line and it would seem that something on the ground level, shrubs or something on that order in a few islands would break that up a little bit and soften the texture. Mr. Storck replied he and Mr. Olt had an opportunity to speak earlier and he guessed what he would propose was perhaps where they saw the lighter green trees and putting some planting beds there perhaps using some type of xeriscape material so that they did not have to have the watering and maintenance and that type of thing. Chairman Strom asked if they would be watering the trees? Mr. Storck replied they would take care of those for a period of two years. After such time they should be established and should maintain themselves. Chairman Strom asked if the same kind of thing could be done with shrubs? Can you get shrubs established and not have to worry too much about watering over the long term? Mr. Olt replied yes, two to three years should accommodate, especially if the materials were selected again from a xeriscape pallet or something like that. There was a lot of things with it that could be done. Establishment would be necessary so that they would be able to sustain on their own after that period of time. Member Carroll replied that was his concern. He certainly would not want to require high maintenance items to be planted out there that were going to die, be it blue grass or high maintenance shrubs. He thought the concern that they noticed in the work session was that the sidewalk was a straight as the crow flies sidewalk and with stones on both sides of it and the fence it gives the illusion of just wall to wall concrete. The trees were going to help and he did not have anything in mind, but he thought perhaps something very xeriscape type items that wouldn't be terribly expensive, yucca plants or what have you that would break up that line along there. He understood that with the brick columns and the street trees P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 12 it would look better than other areas and maybe it would prompt those people to do something. That was something they could look at with the final. Member O'Dell asked if they were talking about replacing the trees with shrubs in the section between the street and the sidewalk, or the six foot seven foot wide strip next to the fence? She was not sure what was being suggested. Mr. Storck replied he would like to propose keeping the trees as we show them currently and then cobble stone next to the planting beds in these areas to break up that with xeriscape. Chairman Strom asked if he meant at the base of those trees. Mr. Storck replied yes. That would come out from the distance of the fence itself to the sidewalk and so that would make a definite substantial break. Member O'Dell asked if they would carry it from the fence to the sidewalk. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member Carroll moved approval of item number 5, Hampshire Square H, Preliminary Subdivision with one condition, that some additional landscaping be shown at final on the streetscape. Member Collier Seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked if he was thinking along the same lines in terms of landscaping. Member Carroll replied he did not want to get too specific, but some landscaping in between the trees as the applicant proposed between the sidewalk and the fence, of low maintenance that would become established in two years, xeriscape that would break up the canyon effect of the streetscape and the wall. The motion was approved 6-0. SILVERBERG PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Roger Anderson stated his concern was actually he did not know anything that was going in there. It had nothing on the list here, but that's why he was here, to find out. Once he found out, he may object to it. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff; report recommending approval. Chairman Strom asked for a brief synopsis of what the ODP meant and what additional stages they would be going through before anything happens in terms of actual development on this site. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 13 Sherry Albertson -Clark replied the ODP basically set out the expected or proposed land uses and a sense of the intensity or the scale of those uses. It also determined the future access points such as we talked about at Prospect Road and the frontage road. Beyond this level of development proposal was required both at preliminary and final P.U.D. The preliminary was the focus on land use and the overall site design of the site. The review of the final was to make certain that the final plan was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan. Final approval was required before there was any type of construction to occur on the particular piece of property. Member Carroll asked for clarification if there was nothing specific proposed on any of these four pads at this time. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and typically with an ODP it was fairly normal to see a preliminary P.U.D. at the same time. However, in this particular case the applicant has shown an interest to Staff to at least to try to focus on pinning down access points for this site so that they would have something to potentially market in the future. Ric Hartman, Gefroh-Hattman Architects, just wanted to emphasize that the ODP did not at this time have any specific site users, current land uses consistent with the zoning it had received. We were looking at a possible marketing with this ODP. We did not see any potential uses at this time or any users that had expressed any interest in the site. One thing that we they were looking at doing was adding a minimum landscape strip along the interstate highway and cooperating with the City on that project. Mr. Anderson stated he saw the planning for Prospect and the wildlife reserve that they were going to have along there and it was really nice. They were always looking for a gateway to the City, he just hated to see it be highway businesses, you can't change that or anything. As far as a motel or motel alley on Mulberry Street, he would like to see them all stay there and better planning used for the corner. After all, they advertising our wildlife along the Prospect Road projection, and you come out there and people come along the highway and it tends to look junky. That was just the area he was opposed to. It was already planned, and he could not back anything up, and he was sure it would be used but it was something to think about. Gas stations up there eventually, you know they look tacky and you come off onto Harmony and there was a little gas station convenience store there and things look tacky. They just don't look good for being a gateway to the City. That basically was his objection and to let you know that they could plan a little something better. Chairman Strom responded that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the current development at I-25 interchange had been done under the City's P.U.D. regulations. At a minimum they would be taking a harder look at development on this site than anything that was going on at those other interchanges and they would certainly be looking at landscaping and texture character and all the other requirements that showed up in the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System at that time. That was the reason he asked Sherry to go through a brief discussion of the process. There would be additional stages of review before anything is built here certainly. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 14 Member Clements -Cooney asked how this ODP might be impacted by the Prospect Street Scape program should that be adopted. Ms. Clark replied they would be reviewing that at a preliminary P.U.D. and she would think that this could affect potentially the landscape set back, the area that was delineated now. It also could help them determine the kind of plant materials that go into that area. Right now the ODP was showing a forty foot landscape setback. There was potential that this could be somewhat different depending on what version of Prospect Corridor was ultimately adopted and how this area fit into that corridor plan. They would be evaluating any future preliminary P.U.D.'s against whatever they have adopted for the Prospect Corridor Streetscape. They would be looking at plant materials as well as the landscape setback, also, the specifics on the street design and how Prospect was constructed in that area would also be determined somewhat by whatever was adopted in the Prospect Corridor Streetscape Design. Member Carroll moved for approval of Silverberg PUD, Overall Development Plan. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion, Member Carroll added the Mulberry/I-25 area was totally out of the City's control when developed and so the City had no input into that area. This site was annexed in 1989 and when it was annexed it was zoned as a highway business zoning but with a P.U.D. condition, meaning that if it didn't have that condition someone could simply build a use that fit the highway business without any further review by us. It did have a P.U.D. condition so he would certainly hope this would be given a much stronger look than some of the other areas that you see that are ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years old and they were are already looking at the Prospect Road Streetscape going all the way a mile past I-25, which if adopted by Council would incorporate this property into it. Chairman Strom commented that looking at the map they still don't have any control over highway 14 and I-25 or for that matter Harmony Road and I-25 so that would mean some better influence over those intersections before anything happens there. Motion passed 6-0. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director gave a brief overview and background on the proposed amendment and Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator and co -manager would went over in detail the sign amendments. [2i11011441`►r 11 Mr. Alan Cunningham, president of Scenic Colorado, stated they were very interested in billboard control, on -campus signage. They also had concerns about on -premise signage and towers and overhead P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 15 utility lines, and other visually polluting sights such as junk yards, vehicle storage, unnecessarily exposed extraction equipment, mining scars and commercial strips. Regarding on -premise signage they were very pleased with the progress in the Fort Collins Sign Code. Regarding the changes tonight, the only things that were a concern to him was that they were grandfathering in whatever was out there now in the affected districts. People may have just put up an expensive sign two years ago, maybe even with PUD approval. They felt that at some point in the future, that existing signage should be brought into conformance. There weren't really very many out there in the affected districts that would need to be brought into conformance, given enough time for amortization. He was a little unclear on why it was the exact classifications of areas, such as Neighborhood Service Center were listed. It would seem to be in the concept of fairness, that all signage in the affected districts be viewed in the same way. He did not understand why the free standing and ground signs should not also be internally illuminated only. He did not think anywhere in the code was there a reference to the intensity of brightness except as if affects traffic hazards. He thought they might want to look at having some kind of lumens output designated, particularly in the residential areas. Finally, the concept of window signage, the viewpoint of Scenic Colorado regarding on -premise signage was that window signs should just simply be counted in the allowable sign area and whether they were temporary or permanent, was not a matter of concern. They recommend that they be included in the allowable sign area in these districts. Fred Franz, Adcon Signs, stated several years ago, the City of Fort Collins adopted a very comprehensive Sign Code. That Code, which is in effect today, was still regarded very highly in the city and throughout the country. He thought this could be very easily demonstrated by reading letters to the editor that had appeared most recently in the past months concerning campus signage. That did reiterate that the general citizenry of Fort Collins was happy with the code we have. Earlier this year, the City Planning Staff contacted members of the sign industry to explain a proposed code devoted to business uses near residential areas. It was the intent of staff to downsize signage in areas of the City that presented impacts on neighborhoods. Four representatives of industry, Mr. Mery Eckman from Adcon Signs, Mr. Fred Gardner from Gardener Signs, Mr. John Shaw from Shaw sign and awning and himself, had devoted many hours in deliberation with City Planning and Zoning personnel to insure a smooth transition that would allow adequate signs for the business community and still leave a favorable impact on the neighborhoods. During the planning stages of the new portion of the sign code, the inddstry representatives voiced their concerns over the lack of consistency and decisions being rendered to commercial enterprise under the guise of power granted by the Land Development Guidance System. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 16 Some projects were allowed to erect signs consistent with the current law as defined by the Sign Code, while other signs were severely reduced in size for no apparent reason. They were told by Staff, that these concerns of size, pertained only to the businesses that were in primarily residential areas. They had no affect on the industrial, commercial and highway business zones. The proposed code changes did in fact downsize the impact of signage in the new residential neighborhood sign district. Members of industry support the new code revision with one major exception. Under the new sign district, a business person would be allowed signs under a strict zoning formula, everyone would be treated equally and know in advance what the law allowed. Planning and Zoning Board would not rule as to the size of signs allowed but would still determine the position of signs on the building. This was also agreeable with industry. However, under the new code change, there was no provision to remove past problems with regard to number and size of signs allowed by code in the very heart of the commercial districts. In a recent worksession, which industry representatives met with the Board, they discussed what they felt were certain inequities of the past. He would strongly restate the position of the industry with regards to signs in non-residential zones. They felt that the law was very clear on what was allowed to each and every sign user. They felt the code was very clear as to the size and placement of signs. They did not agree that signs allowed by law, trigger LDGS Guidelines for being excessive nor a detriment to the neighborhood. They concur that the Board should determine placement of signs on the buildings of PUD's but the signs as allowed by code, should be the law of the land. They think they have a very beautiful City in which each business person was able to advertise their commercial endeavor, but cannot and will not support the new sign regulations unless the City Sign Ordinance was returned to its rightful place as the authority of sign usage in the commercial districts of Fort Collins. LOSE OF PUBLIC INPUT Member Clements -Cooney asked if there was a plan for existing signs to be brought into conformance should the new Sign Code be adopted. Mr. Barnes replied that the proposal before the Board would be applicable only to new PUD's which would be approved after the effective date of the Sign Code amendment. It would not be retroactive to existing centers. Member Clements -Cooney asked about the large realtor signs and the fact that this did not take that into account, was this form of signage taken into account anywhere in the Sign Code. Mr. Barnes replied, in the sign code presently, in a residential area, those signs could be no larger that 6 square feet for "for sale or lease" signs. In non-residential zones, those could be no larger that 32 square feet. Member Clements -Cooney asked them to consider bringing existing signage into conformance with the sign code. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Barnes stated what Mr. Cunningham aluded to was an amortization period. When the code was originally adopted in 1971, there was a 6-year amortization period, which meant by 1977 all of the signs that did not comply with the code had to be brought into compliance. Chairman Strom asked since the new Sign Code would only apply to new PUD's, did that mean that an existing PUD that changes ownership and the new owner decided that he was not happy with the signage he had now and for whatever reason wanted to bump it up to the previous sign code limits, could he do SO. Mr. Barnes replied he could go to whatever the PUD authorized him to go to under the current proposal. Chairman Strom asked if most of the PUD's have fairly a specific sign limits. Mr. Barnes replied only the new ones. Go back 4 or 5 years, they would not be that specific. Chairman Strom stated it made him wonder if they shouldn't consider dealing with existing signage in existing PUD's more on the order that they deal with non -conforming uses in the zoning code and effectively say that if you were over the new standard, then you could stay that way, but you could not expand. Mr. Barnes replied that was another way of dealing with amortization, dealing with trying to bring non- conforming signs into conformance when the use changes, was when the new sign is put in. That was something they could give them more information on. Member O'Dell agreed with that idea. She thought it would be more equitable to have the existing PUD's come into conformance with the new Sign Code. Member Cottier asked, when they did amendments, was there usually an amortization period involved. Mr. Barnes replied the only time they had an amortization period was when the original code was adopted in 1971. There was also one when they deal with annexed properties. Member Klataske asked if there had been any consideration as to style of architecture being considered part of the signage. Also, interior illumination of some remodeled video stores in town were projecting light out for half a mile. Mr. Barnes replied that he did not believe illumination was signage. That could be dealt with in other criteria of the LDGS as a separate issue. Member Carroll commented that in the compliance or amortization issue, there are a number of ways that could be handled and he would like to see several options they could look at. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 18 Chairman Strom asked on item 10, how much signage were they likely get on the back wall and how that would affect the interface with the residential area. Mr. Barnes replied the limitations that would be placed on their sign allowance space on the new formulas were going to be pretty restrictive and they would not be getting carried away on the back side of buildings. They were going to want to use their signage where it did the most good. The role the Planning and Zoning Board would have on this would be to determine where on buildings the appropriate locations for signage would be. Chairman Strom asked on item 14, how did they define building frontage. Mr. Barnes replied building frontage was that side of a building that faced and was parallel to a public or private street. The length of the frontage was determined by measuring the outside walls of the building. There could be only one building frontage for each street upon which a building faced. Chairman Strom asked if on a corner lot they would be in the same situation. Mr. Barnes replied on a corner lot, their sign allowance would be based on each street frontage, the same as it was now. Chairman Strom asked if there would be some authority to review locations. Mr. Barnes replied yes. Chairman Strom asked if they had any neighborhood convenience centers that were over 200 feet in building frontage. Mr. Barnes replied no. Chairman Strom asked about having some better control over window signage. If they combined items 17 and 18 they allowed 25% window coverage for permanent window signs and another 25% for temporary window signs and that was 50% window coverage. Mr. Barnes replied that item 19 stated that in the case of both permanent and temporary window signs were placed in the same window or door, no more than 25% of that window or door could be covered. Chairman Strom asked about the enforcement of the code. Mr. Barnes replied he did not know what kind of workload the new Sign Code would produce, but if it did get out of had, they would try enforcement on a trial basis and if it got out of hand they would have to revert back to a complaint basis. Chairman Strom asked if they investigated other communities and how they dealt with signs and did they find anyone that had any success with window signage. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Barnes replied the survey they did of Colorado communities, they found that only one community had real success in enforcing it and that community had staff devoted to signage. Chairman Strom asked if there was a variance procedure for the Sign Code. Mr. Barnes replied the Zoning Board of Appeals was authorized to grant variances to article 4 of the Zoning Code, which was the sign ordinance. Chairman Strom asked what kind of criteria they used for variances for signage. Mr. Barnes replied you had to prove a hardship and they would seldom grant a variance to increase sign allowance. Member Cottier asked was there any limitation to the size of awnings. Mr. Barnes replied not under the Sign Code, they would view awnings as an architectural feature of the building. They should be reviewed when the Planning and Zoning Board was reviewing the architecture of the building. Member Cottier asked when they talked about free standing signs in centers, if they only gave the center name and not identify tenants, they would get an allowed bonus. Did the bonus only apply to the free standing sign. Did the individual tenant get any kind of a bonus if his name was not listed on the main sign. Mr. Barnes replied it was only going to apply to the primary sign, the primary free-standing or ground sign. It did not apply to wall signage or any other signage that might be on the property. Member O'Dell asked if someone in a neighborhood service center with their primary sign could get a bonus because they did not list the tenants, but on their secondary sign could they list the tenants. Mr. Barnes replied the secondary sign would be for a specific user generally. Chairman Strom asked if window signs were included in the overall limits. Mr. Barnes replied the language was not clear that they were. The way it worked in the code right now was they generally did not deal with window signs as far as permits. It was very difficult to keep up with. Generally, almost all of the window signage that was within the city fell within the total sign allowance that property might have. Chairman Strom stated it might be good to make that explicit from the standpoint that if someone did exceed their total sign allowance, and was causing problems with their window signage, they would be in a position to have some serious leverage in terms of controlling window signs. Member Cottier asked for examples of how signs were measured for future discussions. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 20 Mr. Barnes replied they could provide that. Mr. Franz thought that his statement might be misconstrued and wanted to say that the industry did support the Sign Code change, but because of the fact of the problems with the other zoning districts they could not at this time go through with their fulfillment of the code change. They wanted to see the whole package put together. They were not opposed to this change because of the change itself. Chairman Strom stated this would be heard again for a recommendation at the August meeting. SOUTHSIDE SERVICE CENTER - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, N52-82D SOUTHSIDE SERVICE CENTER P.U.D.. PHASE HI - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW, 852- 82Es Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval with the following two conditions: 1. At the time of expansion of the City of Fort Collins Transfort Facility onto Parcel 1B, or the adoption of a Habitat Management Plan, the General Services Department re-evaluate the facility needs of the urban service providers, as it applies to the Southside Service Center, and submit an amended O.D.P. that is comprehensive in scope and current with existing plans and policies and other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. At the time of a comprehensive amended Southside Service Center O.D.P., the City of Fort Collins General Services Department investigate the placing of transitional land uses, linear greenbelts, or other buffering features, on Parcel 2A in order to promote neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Shepard also gave the Staff report on the Southside Service Center, PUD, Phase III, for the Poudre R-I Bus Storage and Maintenance Facility, it was a site plan advisory review. Staff was recommending approval. Member Corder asked what the parcel was south of 2-A. Mr. Shepard replied Southside Service Center buildings and parking. Member Corder asked what was directly east of that parcel. Mr. Shepard replied Brittany Knolls, Filing One. Member Cottier asked why the condition did not apply to parcel 2-B. Mr. Shepard replied it could apply, it was seen as 2-A being the most specific'critical element of the relationship of the neighborhood. The line could be drawn anywhere the Board would like. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 21 Member Cottier asked if there was any current residences just east of parcel 2-B. Mr. Shepard replied the northern portion of filing two of Brittany Knolls. Member Cottier asked what the status was of the sub -station parcel. Mr. Shepard replied the sub -station was developed to the extent that it had the landscaping established and it was excavated and graded. It was ready for the placement of electrical facilities. It had been planned for electrical facilities for quite some time and rights -of -way acquisition, easements, power line locations was all being geared towards bringing the power to that particular site. It had not been installed with the facilities. Member Cottier asked if they had seen a preliminary on that. Mr. Shepard replied it had been platted, it was part of the subdivision plat that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board back in 1983 or 1982. It had gone through the PUD process as a substation. Member Carroll asked if the location they were looking at for possible placement of the bus area was where on the map. Mr. Shepard pointed out the location. Member Carroll asked where the City's Transfort facility was. Mr. Shepard pointed out the location. Member Carroll asked if they would be touching each other. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked if the only developed area was the Transfort area. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. Member Carroll asked if the project was a request to convert a portion of the two areas designated as Light and Power Training and Emergency Services. What did that mean. What would be allowed there now if they did not amend the plan. Mr. Shepard replied that Light and Power had certain job functions that require working on high voltage lines at great heights with certain equipment, certain trucks, certain voltages. They at one time planned on using the area to set up a training center. Emergency Services meant that it was envisioned to be a substation for an ambulance. Member Carroll assumed that both of the uses had determined to locate elsewhere. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 22 Mr. Shepard replied that they had a memo to that effect in their packet. They saw a County Referral several months ago for Poudre Fire Authority locating on the CSU Foothills Campus at the end of West Vine Avenue. Member Carroll noticed the Transfort facility located at the corner and asked if the L-shaped thing around it was indicated as Transfort expansion. How was it screened from the east. Mr. Shepard replied the topography was different, the ground was closer to Trilby, it sat a little higher than the site they were considering tonight. It did not fall off as low as the Poudre R-I site. It was screened with a black vinyl chain link fence for security. 'there was some rather mature landscaping around the area. It sat at a little different level. Member Carroll asked how the buses were stored. Mr. Shepard replied a combination, the majority of the buses were stored indoors, but it was his understanding on occasion some busses would be stored outdoors. Member Clements -Cooney asked if they were stored in pole barns. Mr. Shepard replied a fully enclosed structure. Merle Hayworth of Robb, Brenner & Brelig Architects, gave a run down of the site plan. The plan was to only extend Portner Road to serve their site with an agreement to share cost when it proceeded further. He also talked about circulation on the site. He stated the servicing on the site would be light repair and maintenance. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the sections in blue would only be for future expansion. Mr. Hayworth replied yes. Member Carroll stated they had the busses in the middle of the parking lot, surrounded by concrete or gravel. It seemed to be a traditional way to store busses, was there any reason why they could not be pushed closer to the berming. Mr. Hayworth replied the distance between the busses and the berm was necessitated by circulation needs and the turning radius of the buses. Member Clements -Cooney asked if it would be possible to break up the sea of yellow to put a tree lined median in between the buses. Mr. Hayworth replied they had laid the site out to maximize the use of the site and to reduce the amount of space purchased that they were not using for circulation or bus function and put most of the free space on the east side of the site. If they split it, it would be necessary to reconfigure the site to allow to expand to the full 60 buses in the future. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 23 Chairman Strom asked about some landscaped islands. Mr. Hayworth replied they were aware of the visibility problem and one of the things they did in revising the site as they changed the grading such that they lowered it as much as possible and still get drainage behind the berm so the buses were less visible. He thought they could reconfigure the site to break the buses up some what. Chairman Strom asked if they had done some line of sight cross sections. Mr. Hayworth replied they had not, they did not have the topographic data to do that with. Chairman Strom was concerned that even with a ten foot berm you would not have to be much higher on the east side to still see the roof of the cluster of buses. Mr. Hayworth replied that was possible, yes. Member Cottier asked them to comment on the use of this facility or will any buses be run out of the Laporte yard. Mr. Hayworth replied most of the buses would be run out of the Laporte yard. Member Corder asked if there was any plan to discontinue the use of the Laporte site. Mr. Hayworth replied no. PUBLIC INPUT Alan Anderson, homeowner in Brittany Knolls, stated there was a neighborhood review six weeks ago and had good feed back. He had general concerns about the planning process concerning this. The City sale of the land to the School District, they were disappointed to not hear about until a few days before the neighborhood meeting. He stated none of the neighbors in their neighborhood were notified by the City when they talked to them before building in their development of the Master Plan in the area. They spoke with the Planning Department and with Natural Resources. Some of the owners were in the Planning Office and were never shown the Master Plan. He stated that the extra landscaping would be well received by the homeowners in the area. He would encourage extending any landscaping into the 2-B area. Their current development did extend well to the north of 2-A. They had some concerns in the approval of the Brittany Knolls development on why the developer did not include the buffering that some of the developments around the city seemed to have from such an area as the Southside Service Center. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 24 They were concerned about the Portner Road extension, and it was a natural basin and the implication affects not just the school bus facility but the traffic that would come with the Portner Road extension. They also have trouble with motorcycles going around the barricades around Transfortthere and tearing around the open space and the extension of Portner would even make that worse. He added that there was a general concern of the Homeowners on what the City might be able to work with the School District on to protect their views and their quality of life, the noise issues and property values. Another issue was the prairie dog population and what would happen to them. It was fairly populated there now and they were encroaching on their greenbelts in the area. He thought it had to be built into the plan and it was mentioned and needed to be addressed. The major concern on the changes to the Master Plan was to change it. As it was now, the maintenance yards were a real shock to them and it was encouraging to hear about putting in some buffering. They would like to see some changes to the architecture of the building. They felt it would make a more compatible neighbor if a building similar to Transfort was planned for a bus bam. They had some concerns about the orientation of the garage doors because of the buses going in and out to the east. One other issue that he had not heard was their intention to park the busses there before this fall and a building was provided. CLOSE OF PUBLIC INPUT Member Carroll asked about 2-A where it said Southside Service Center outdoor services and storage yard. Below that was, in 2-B, the Southside Service Center outdoor buildings and parking. What would be allowed in outdoor services and storage yard and also in 2-B. Mr. Shepard replied the Master Plan was ten years old and he thought what he would do would be to refer that question to Mr. Frazier, Director of the General Services Department. Mr. Frazier replied when the Master Plan was done previously, it was set up for street operations, Light and Power and Police. The intent was to have all the operations from the different service areas have satellite centers. The types of uses would be for snow plows, salt and sand storage on the site. There would be repairs done in the shop adjacent. The police would have a place to go to do paperwork. Light and Power would have trucks there along with storage of the transformers and some of the piping. Member Cottier asked if the land had been sold to Poudre R-1. Mr. Shepard replied it was presently under contract. • 0 P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 26 Member Cottier asked if there were specific plans for a barricade at the end of Portner on the school site. Mr. Shepard stated that this is a standard requirement. Chairman Strom asked if there will be use of this facility for bus parking before landscaping and structural development. Mr. Hayworth replied that it was the school district's intention to park school buses off -site until this process gets further along. Chairman Strom asked what the plans were for lighting the site. Mr. Hayworth stated that the site would be lit to prevent vandalism and would be low cut-off angle lighting. Member Carroll moved to approve Southside Service Cuter Amended Overall Development Plan with the two conditions as stated by staff with the second condition to state "on parcels 1b, 2a and 2b in order to promote neighborhood compatibility." Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented that he agreed with staff that things should be reviewed in this area especially on Parcels 2A and 2B. Mr. Peterson stated that staff had a concern with parcel lb in that it would not be particularly germane to amend the master plan to include Parcel 1B. Mr. Shepard stated that this has been discussed at the neighborhood meeting. He stated that staff believed that Parcel IB sits on different terrain and is closer to Trilby and when it does come through, it will go through the same process as did the Transfort facility. He stated that staff intended to use the expansion of Transfort or the adoption of a habitat management plan as a trigger mechanism to review the critical Parcels 2A and 2B which are directly adjacent to the existing homes and not burden the condition to inhibit the future planning of Parcel iB. He stated that the needs of the Southside Service Center on Parcels 2A and 2B have clearly changed over the last ten years by decisions that have been made by other service departments. This is not true with Parcel 1B; this remains a valid Transfort facility that plans on developing out as it was originally master planned. Member Carroll amended his motion by deleting the reference to Parcel 1B as an area that bears a special burden to provide buffering treatment. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Member O'Dell moved to advise the Poudre R-1 Board of Education that the location, character, and extent of the satellite bus storage and maintenance facility is appropriate and conforms to the elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins. She suggested that some thought be given to including some additional landscaping within the area where the buses will be parked P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 27 so as to break up the sea of gravel and yellow buses. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Member Clements -Cooney advised Poudre R-1 to have the future bus facility similar to Transfort so there would be some continuity in structures. Member Carroll commented to the neighborhood that the only ability the P&Z Board has was to recommend approval or denial and could not place conditions on the proposal. If they recommended denial, Poudre R-1 would hold a public meeting and could pass the project over the P&Z recommendation. In other words, the decision is now up to Poudre R-1. Chairman Strom suggested that in the process of reviewing the landscaping and the parking lot that the district consider the site lines and site distances and carefully analyze the visual aspect of the site. The motion to recommend approval passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Peterson stated that staff proposed that the Board modify the conditions of approval for the Provincetowne PUD Preliminary and Final, Redeemer Lutheran Church, The Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD Preliminary and Final, the Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Village at Harmony West PUD Lot 1 Final, the Granada Heights PUD Preliminary and Final, the Riverside Junction PUD Preliminary and Final, the Speights PUD Preliminary and Final, to grant an extension meeting all the terms of the development agreement in the final plans and final plats prior to the July 27, 1992 P&Z Board meeting. He added that the Kingston Wood PUD, at the request of the developer because of some unanticipated difficulty in meeting off -site conditions for storm drainage, requests that the execution of the development agreement final plans and final plats be delayed six months or until the December 14, 1992 P&Z Board meeting. Member Klataske moved to approve the modification of the conditions and the request to delay the development agreement plans and plats for Provincetowne PUD Preliminary and Final, Redeemer Lutheran Church, The Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD Preliminary and Final; the Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Village at Harmony West PUD Lot 1 Final, the Granada Heights PUD Preliminary and Final, the Riverside Junction PUD Preliminary and Final, the Speights PUD Preliminary and Final, until July 27, 1992, and until December 14, 1992 for Kingston Wood PUD. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. Mr. Peterson stated that there would be a special P&Z worksession July 8, 1992 to discuss the Prospect Corridor study. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. to June 29, 1992.