Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/27/1992• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Ted Shepard, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, and Patti Schneeberger. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes of the March 23, 1992 meeting; Item 2 - Blevins Court PUD, Lot 9 - Final, Case #42-91B; Item 3 - New Creations Interiors PUD - Amended Final, Case #10-92; Item 4 - Warren Farms Subdivision, Filing 2 - Preliminary and Final, Case #53-84H was pulled for discussion; Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73- 82M; Item 6 - Oakridge PUD, 10th Filing - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-82AZ; Item • 7 - Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #11-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 8 - Kingston Woods PUD - Final, Case #58-91A; Item 9 - Quail Hollow Subdivision, 6th Filing - Final, Case #46-89G; Item 10 - Fort Collins Second and Harmony at the Villages at Harmony West PUD, Lot One - Final, Case #3-90F; Item 11 - Potts PUD - Preliminary, Case #6-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 12 - Granada Heights PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #7-92 was pulled for discussion; Item 13 - Laurie Subdivision PUD, 1st and 2nd Filings - Modification of Conditions of Approval, Case #44-89 E,F; Item 14 - Resolution PZ92-5 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 15 - Resolution PZ92-6 - Utility Easement Vacation; Item 16 - Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision Plat - Final, Case #28-8913 was pulled for discussion; Item 17 - Prospect Land Company Annexation and Zoning, Case #16-92; Item 18 - Webster Second Annexation and Zoning, Case #21-92; Item 19 - LaPorte Plaza Rezoning and PUD - County Referral, Case #22-92 was continued to the May meeting. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 20 - Pinecone PUD - Overall Development Plan, Case #60-91A and Pinecone PUD - Fort Collins High School - Advisory Review, Case #60-91B; Item 21 - Colorado State University Sign; Item 22 - Riverside Junction PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #13-92. Member Cottier pulled Item 5 - Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church) - Preliminary and Final, Case #73-82M. 40 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 2 Member Cottier moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 17 and 18. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 7-0. WARREN FARMS SUBDIVISION. FILING 2 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - Case #53-84H Mr. Steve Olt gave an abbreviated description of the proposed project recommending approval. Mr. Jeff Couch, Parsons and Associates, stated that the project was for a reapproval of an existing plat that was approved in 1986. The infrastructure was constructed at that time and the only area overlooked was street paving, curb radii, and water taps. Member Walker asked what the style and price range was of the houses, and how would the construction traffic be routed? Mr. Couch stated the construction traffic would be routed over the existing roadways since the infrastructure and approvements are complete. The streets of the subdivisions would be completed as part of Phase III. The lots are single family and would be built to a similar quality of the existing homes. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Glen Walberg, 3536 Dark Star Court, stated his main concern was traffic access on Riva Ridge Drive. He stated there was an access coming off of Horsetooth Road that could provide a temporary construction route for the first cul-de-sac. He did not want any construction traffic to occur on Riva Ridge Drive due to children in the area. He felt that with 19 additional homes, a temporary cut in the middle of Horsetooth Road, should be made to accommodate the persons traveling east from Warren Farms Subdivision 1st Filing and 2nd Filing. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the dirt road created off of Horsetooth Road was a construction access road or was it created for a quick access into Warren Farms Subdivision? Mr. Olt stated that he was not aware of a construction road in the area. Mr. Peterson asked that Mr. Herzig address that question. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Herzig stated the road in question has been barricaded. It was being used by the residents in the area, however it started to create a problem. No, there are no construction roads in the area. Chairman Strom asked what the schedule would be for continuing Meadowlark on down through the subdivision? Mr. Herzig replied that the Third Filing had come before the Board for a preliminary approval and would) be on the agenda for final approval next month. The Third Filing would complete Meadowlark to Horsetooth. Mr. Herzig stated that he did not know what the completion date would be. Chairman Strom asked if Meadowlark would connect at all with Manhattan? Mr. Herzig responded that the road would line-up with Manhattan Avenue. Chairman Strom asked if any left turns would occur at that point? • Mr. Herzig pointed out that there would be left turns and would be considered a full intersection. Member Clements -Cooney asked if it were possible to use the current blocked -off road as a construction road? Mr. Herzig stated that possibility would need to be reviewed. Mr. Couch stated that the current project was strictly the 19 single family lots. There was only one lot that was adjacent to the construction traffic for the southerly portion. It has been anticipated that the northerly traffic would travel up Riva Ridge into the subdivision, and there has been no access easement or connection between the two parcels at the present time. With the existing improvements already in place, there would be no utility equipment needed for these two phases; therefore, minor construction traffic would occur. The third phase would tie these phases down to Horsetooth. Member Walker asked if it would be possible to bring the construction traffic, for the northern portion of the subdivision, down Meadowlark? Mr. Couch stated that direction could be taken. 40 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Peterson felt the Board had a desire to have a condition placed on the construction traffic and suggested that a requirement on the final approval state that the development agreement contain a construction management plan. Member O'Dell stated there were quite a few people who live on Meadowlark and felt they may not be receptive to construction traffic traveling on their street. Member O'Dell moved to approve Warren Farms Subdivision, 2nd Filing, Preliminary and Final with the variance to the solar orientation requirement as cited in the staff report and also recommended that the developer come up with a construction management plan. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked Member O'Dell to be more explicit with the rationale for the variance. Member O'Dell added to the motion that because there was so much infrastructure already in place, there would be an undue burden to make changes to comply with the solar orientation ordinance. The motion to approve passed 7-0. PROVINCETOWNE PUD (REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH) - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, Case #73-82M Member Cottier asked what the school plans are for the facility (church school and preschool) and what the requirements are for parking at a church? Chairman Strom asked Mr. Olt to present a brief discussion on the item. Mr. Olt gave a brief description on the proposed project recommending approval. Mr. Gary Ellermann, Slack Ellermann Architects, stated there are to be two phases of schooling planned for the church. One being short-term/intermediate upon completion of the project that would be used for daycare type operations for the users of the church. The second portion of the school would be an actual day school which has been anticipated in subsequent phases in a long-term fashion. In order to generate requirements for the school, membership in the church must be in place. The school is"not a part of the original application. Member Cottier asked if it would be a preschool/daycare or all grade levels? Has the type of schooling impacted traffic evaluations of this project at the present time? • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Ellermann replied that traffic evaluations have been taken. The school is preschool only for daycare situations. In terms of traffic, the secondary access point would be off of Brittany. The outdoor play areas are protected away from the street on the downhill side of the structure. Member Cottier asked how the number of parking spaces was arrived at? Mr. Ellermann stated that 130 parking spaces are planned, which are above and beyond the minimum requirements for the zoning of that area. Approximately 150 to 200 people will occupy the building during a service. According to those ratios he felt that 130 parking spaces are more than adequate. Member O'Dell asked if this was a congregation that was currently meeting elsewhere, and what is the size? Mr. Ellermann professed that the congregation was currently meeting with a size of less than 100 members. Member Cottier moved to approve Provincetowne PUD (Redeemer Lutheran Church), • Preliminary and Final. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. FORT COLLINS TRUCK SALES PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Case #11 92 Mr. Ted Shepard gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Shepard to give a brief rationale on the approval of the variance. Mr. Shepard replied that the primary hardship was the project was constrained by the lake canal on the north and east, College Avenue and Vine Drive, and would not be able to assemble more than 2 acres, which was one of the criterion listed on the point chart. The project does not meet the requirement of not using College Avenue as an access point, due to only having one area of access into the business off College Avenue. Under the Brush Mobile Home PUD, a median and some consolidated curb cuts were made in order to provide one primary controlled access point by a median. Mr. Jeff Couch, Parsons and Associates, stated he would be glad to answer any questions the Board may have. He proceeded to inform the Board the project was primarily an existing site with two existing buildings and the only modifications are to a median island and a driveway. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 6 Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve the Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Preliminary and Final, with the variance requirement achieving the minimum score of 50 percent on the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial Point Chart. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked that an additional condition be attached regarding the development agreement. Member Clements -Cooney added to her motion to execute the development agreement as stated in the memorandum given to the Board. Member O'Dell accepted and seconded the addition. The motion to approve carried 7-0. POTTS PUD, PRELIMINARY, Case J/6-92 Mr. Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. Member O'Dell inquired if any signage was going to be placed on West Elizabeth Street indicating where the apartments are located. Mr. Olt stated that there was no intention of placing an identification sign for that development. Mr. John Freeman, Architectural One, pointed out that the property in the area was unique in only having 2.3 acres to work with and hemmed in by existing developments. One situation he felt needed work on was the access into the project. One concept reviewed was using an alternative route through the Matador Apartments, but those negotiations failed. A request by the owner of the property was made that these particular apartments suit a higher renters market. The design consists of 2 bedroom units with more floor area, fireplaces, vaulted ceilings, and garages. The owner planned to rent to young married couples, married students, or young faculty. There are 22 units proposed for the site which obligates the developer to provide 1-3/4 parking spaces per unit. Total number of required parking spaces for the development comes to 38-1/2 spaces. The developer has provided 39 parking spaces for the site, 10 of which are in garages with 24 foot free space in front of the garage to add one more parking space. A shared parking agreement has been established with C.B. and Potts Restaurant. The agreement adds 5 additional parking spaces in their lot which may constitute an overflow for the development. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 7 PUBLIC INPUT Ms. Nancy Deal, 1112 Lynnwood, expressed concern about the height of the structures. Ms. Deal spoke with Mr. Olt previously and was informed that the structures are to be two -stories in height with slanted roofs. Ms. Deal felt that the structures would look odd compared to the Matador Apartments which have flat roof tops. Ms. Deal wanted to know how much higher the base of the buildings would be compared to the Matador? Would this project be rentals or condominiums? What type of landscaping would occur around that area? Mr. Vic Meline, 1212 Southridge Drive, has been living in the area since 1967 and has seen a lot of pressure brought to the residential development for rentals to the student body that attend CSU. According to the developer, those apartments are going to be occupied by married couples, however, in the past he has seen 3 to 4 college students occupy one apartment which creates some problems. Mr. Meline objects to the project due to traffic problems and two-story multi -family housing backing up to an existing residential neighborhood. He felt that 2.5 parking spaces would not suffice the parking needs of the project. It was also anticipated that the structures would bring • more noise to the area. Mr. Meline noted that several residents attended the neighborhood compatibility meeting; and at that time 26 units were being proposed, since then the number has reduced to 22 units in order to allow for fire vehicle access. He inquired about the access which goes to the ditch and would like to know what the plan for the bike access was, other than running up and down the ditch. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Olt to address the question of how high the structures are in relation to the surrounding structures and also what is planned for the bike access. Mr. Olt stated that the City had indicated there was future consideration for the integrated bike/pedestrian trail system throughout the City. The applicant identified an access point at the Southend of the property off the cul-de-sac. This is a 20 foot wide trail easement access to the ditch company right-of-way. The details for the bike/pedestrian trail system would be worked out at a later date. Mr. Freeman stated that they are proposing a standard two-story arrangement with a pitched roof, not unlike many apartments in this town. He proposed that the pitch of the roof could be lowered in order to gain a little advantage in height. He felt that the structures may be shorter 40 than some of the surrounding residential homes. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page S Member Carroll questioned the grade from which the homes would come up in regards to the fill dirt on the property. Mr. Freeman agreed that there was fill dirt left over from previous developments which would be removed or spread around the area. He anticipated that the foundations would be about a foot above what we see as a natural grade on the land right now. Chairman Strom asked if natural grade meant street grade? Mr. Freeman replied that was correct and that there was an existing historic bank of the ditch which they anticipate the foundations not being much above the bank height. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the units are going to be owner occupied or rentals? Mr. Freeman contended that the units are owned by the same entity that owns C.B. and Potts and they would be rentals. Member Walker understood the canal right-of-way being 60 feet, does that basically mean the development's property line is 60 feet from the single family houses? Mr. Freeman replied that 60 feet was correct. Member Walker wanted to know how far back from that property line would the structures to the west be from the proposed project? Mr. Freeman stated that the 1 to 50' scale site plan shows the adjacent property owners homes to scale. That site plan was taken from an aerial photo. Member Walker asked if the developer was proposing significant landscaping along that canal in order to provide a buffer? Mr. Freeman answered that the landscaping was grouped in areas of sensitivity to sound. There are a few existing trees that will also help as a buffer. The shrubbery has been clustered in order to avoid headlights shining into adjacent neighborhoods and block some of the long vistas out of the development. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Olt to address the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Olt stated that, by code, the maximum length in a cul-de-sac is a single point of access that can be no more than 660 feet. That 660 feet falls just at the end of the cul-de-sac, in the same manner a fire truck would be able to park out in the drive lane which has to remain unobstructed. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 9 Chairman Strom asked Mr. Meline to come forward and clear up some inaccurate information regarding the trees around the ditch area. Mr. Meline stated that the trees along the ditch belong to the ditch company who can cut down or poison them in order not to interfere with the water way. The trees shown on the plan will be removed eventually, so they will no longer play a part in the landscape feature of the development. Mr. Meline was assured by the developer that the drainage would not go into the ditch, but would go to the north and into a drainage area that was set-up by the Matador. However, the low spot in the development is at the south end of the property and in order to drain that area the developer would need to build up the south end. Member Clements -Cooney commented that she was concerned about the traffic issues. She stated the developer expects the residents of these units to be family oriented; however, she envisions the units to consist of 3 or 4 students with the potential of one vehicle per tenant. She was also concerned that the cumulative traffic impacts at the site would create adverse conditions to the surrounding neighborhoods. She also noticed the density chart supports 22 units for the site, but would like that density to be reduced. • Member Walker stated that the LDGS allows for the proximity of two different uses with multi- family next to single family, however, the height of the buildings certainly would not be offset by the canal which provides a buffer strip. It occurred to him that the existing trees in the ditch right-of-way would eventually be removed, therefore not providing for landscape buffering. Member Walker would like to see more attention given to the landscaping due to the future loss of the existing trees. Chairman Strom commented that the project was just in its preliminary stage and that there was an option to recommend changes if need be. Member Carroll felt that multi -family housing units are the logical development for that area. He thought that it would be impossible to envision single family houses or commercial property in that location. Member Carroll was concerned with the traffic issues and that the road leading into the development was private and not being maintained by the City. Could it possibly cause some maintenance problems? He felt that the parking situation was also a concern and with that location and the demand for multi -family housing, one would be looking at 3 or 4 students each with a car. The mitigation for the single family dwellings was also his concern. The ditch provides some mitigation, but the ditch companies control that right-of-way. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 10 Member O'Dell referenced letters received from Marilyn Arnold which were in regards to there not being enough parking at Fort Ram Village and therefore would probably not be enough parking for this project. Did the developer use a different formula in determining the number of parking spaces that would be needed for this project as compared to Fort Ram Village? Mr. Olt stated that these units are two -bedroom and as the code states there is a requirement of 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit with two -bedrooms. Fort Ram Village's units vary from 2 to 4 bedrooms. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Olt's opinion on the parking at Fort Ram Village. Mr. Peterson replied that Mr. Shepard has been reviewing the matter of parking at multi -family housing units and he would be the best person to respond to that question. Mr. Shepard stated that Fort Ram Village has a total of 217 units in Phase I, which breaks down into 32 one -bedroom, 62 two -bedrooms, 61 three -bedrooms, and 62 four -bedrooms. Those 62 four -bedrooms were the first four -bedroom units approved in the City. Those four -bedroom units consist of 2 parking spaces per unit. The code requires 2.5 which was adopted after the units were approved. There is a total of 404 parking spaces in Phase I. According to the parking code, with the 2.5 ratio requirement, there should be 433. Mr. Shepard added that he has visited the site several times and noticed that parking was tight, but there was no overflow parking on any of the surrounding side streets. The problem that was occurring at Fort Ram Village consisted with the married student housing, located on the north side of Plum, which these people were parking in Fort Ram Village. Fort Ram Village has implemented a sticker system in order to avoid non -tenant parking. Member O'Dell clarified that the 2.5 parking spaces was added to the code for four -bedrooms, but did the code change for 2-3 bedroom units? Mr. Shepard stated that the code did not change for 2-3 bedroom units. Member O'Dell stated that in order to use an argument such as this, it would not necessarily be justified, but because Fort Ram Village is perceived to be overcrowded there would not be enough parking at this project. Member O'Dell stated that the developer could not tell people that they can't rent the unit, but she felt that the number of renters could be limited. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Freeman agreed that one can not discriminate based on family type, age, or number of children, however, he wished that the Board would not impose a number on how many people could occupy a two -bedroom unit. Member Cottier questioned if pedestrian circulation has been addressed? If the 39 parking spaces were to be filled, would there be a sidewalk from the development to C.B. and Potts parking lot? Mr. Freeman responded to that question in stating that a sidewalk system has been integrated to run the, length of the subdivision. Member O'Dell asked if the Matador Apartments were 2-story? Mr. Freeman replied the units at Matador are 2-story, but much denser then the proposed project. The particular parcel of land being used for this project was originally going to be used for Matador Apartments 4th filing. If that filing were built it would have held 30-34 Matador Apartments. • Member O'Dell moved to approve Potts PUD, Preliminary with the condition that the developer include additional landscaping to take the place of the trees which were removed along the ditch. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker felt that his main concern was the landscaping around the project. He stated that if the developer addressed that concern the problem of mitigation between single family residences and multi -family would be resolved. Member Carroll stated that he was persuaded by the discussion and will vote in favor of the motion, provided that the Board would be able to see a revised landscape plan at final. He still felt some concern about the parking, but any traffic or parking problems would impact the site itself and not the surrounding neighborhood. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not support the motion because she did not feel the proposal met the needs of the neighborhood compatibility criteria which states; " is the project designed so that the additional traffic generated does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development." She felt in dealing with neighborhood compatibility, one needs to take into consideration where the site is in relation to the City of Fort Collins and if the site was somewhere else besides around CSU there may not be a traffic concern, but where the site sets it does not meet that criteria. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 12 Member Cottier stated that she would support the motion and felt the project is the best use for that area; it is unfortunately a little tight but workable. She hoped the ownership would strictly enforce.no parking on the side streets. Chairman Strom shared the concerns about the traffic, however, he does not see that it would be a problem for the surrounding neighborhoods. He recalled raising concerns at the time Taco Bell and Diamond Shamrock were constructed that the site was awkward, but there wasn't really anything that could be done about that piece of land. He felt this was a better proposal for this site than he expected. He felt that with the additional landscape screening it should mesh reasonably well with the single family homes. The motion for approval passed 6-1. GRANADA HEIGHTS PUD, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, Case Jl7-92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with a variance to the Solar Orientation Ordinance for this project. The ordinance required that 65 percent of single family or duplex lots, less than 15,000 square feet, be oriented to meet the definition of a solar oriented lot. In this particular instance the project does not meet the 65 percent requirement. Staff does support that variance. There also was a condition of approval recommended that the development agreement, final utility plans, and the final site plans must be signed before the May 18th meeting. Member Walker asked for a clarification of the standard 6,000 square foot lot size, and since the standard is in place what is the rationale for going below it? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that 6,000 square feet was the minimum size in many of the City's single family districts, but recently some of the zoning districts were amended in the older parts of town. The reason for the reduction was due to existing homes on lots that did not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum. In some cases, the applicant could come in and develop single family lots at 6,000 square foot minimums without going through the PUD process. If that instance was to occur, one must also adhere to all of the strict requirements of the zoning district which includes setbacks. In going through the PUD process it often provides the flexibility in terms of lot size requirements, and lot setbacks. Chairman Strom stated that in relaxing straight zoning standards through a PUD, a developer usually trades something back for reduced standards. Is that occurring in this case? • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 13 Ms. Albertson -Clark believed that the City was receiving two things, one being the ability to have a modest owner occupied single family home and the other being a reduction in density. As a use by right, the applicant could come in and build fourplexes on lots 6-29 on the existing Granada Heights Subdivision which would account for higher density than what the applicant is proposing at this time. Chairman Strom asked if there were any existing fourplexes? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the units to the southwest are a combination of duplex's and fourplexes. Mr. Dick Rutherford, Stewart and Associates, felt that the decrease in density seems justified. He stated the construction of larger homes is not likely for that area, but starter homes seemed to be the logical choice. Mr. Klaus Gunther, developer for the applicant, stated that he specializes in affordable homes. The size of the homes that are being proposed will be 908-1174 square feet, which represent 2 to four -bedroom units. To keep the price range between $45,000-$55,000/per unit, the necessity • is to keep the lot size down. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. John Mann, 600 Hanna Street, wanted to know how the drainage problem was going to be resolved? He would also like to see the lot size larger. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Mann if there was a problem with the recent drainage in that area? Mr. Mann stated the amount of standing water in the area is a problem. He has heard in the past that there have been problems with building homes at the site due to the drainage problem. Mr. Allen Miller, 1136 Elm, felt that the lots were too small and for a lot that size, townhouses should be built there instead of the proposed project. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Mr. Rutherford addressed the drainage question by stating that there was an existing detention pond that was built with the rest of Granada Heights. The Natural Resources Department for the City requested that all of the existing detention pond, and the vegetation in the area not be destroyed. Originally the Arthur Ditch came through the subdivision, which was an irrigation ditch and now has been routed in another direction. Mr. Rutherford felt there was no existing • drainage problem. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 14 Member O'Dell asked if any thought was given to building duplexes, patio homes or something along those lines? She also wanted to know if there was anyway to make the proposed project look more interesting? Mr. Rutherford stated that the setback had been varied from the front so that there was not a straight line on the front of the project. All of the units are not going to look alike in respect to the sizes of the buildings, and different exterior looks on the single family housing. Member O'Dell asked if single family homes with regular size lots, were the type of structures for which the developer considered building? Mr. Rutherford stated the developer also considered fourplexes, but that type of development is very expensive. The developer also looked at paired housing and various other types of developments and it seemed that single family homes are the most logical use for the land. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Granada Heights PUD, Preliminary and Final with a condition regarding the execution of the development agreement plans and the variance of solar orientation. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBDIVISION PLAT, FINAL. Case #28-89B Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. John Messineo, 137 North Bryan, expressed that he wanted to be assured the wording in regards to not allowing any expansion of existing buildings, nor does it give approval for future or redevelopment of the site was put into effect. He felt that his concern was met. Mr. Paul Morris, 1720 West Mountain, stated that this property is also unique, like the Potts PUD, and felt that subdividing this lot on its current defacto use would not fit into the long term use of park land. This particular property was released into a sweetheart deal 15 or 20 years ago for a Quasi -Government Agency to get started. The Housing Authority is a part of such an entity and if it were to leave that site what would happen to the Westside Plan? Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 15 Ms. Whetstone stated that the City of Fort Collins has made it a policy to subdivide existing facilities, such as, fire stations, detention ponds, and other City buildings. In this case the Housing Authority occupies the building that belongs to the City of Fort Collins, and if the Housing Authority were to leave, the building would remain intact and the site would then be turned back over to the Parks and Recreation Department to be used for some other use. It is not untypical to have a City facility or structure sitting on a lot. Member Carroll commented that the project basically gives a legal description of the real estate, and that the site needs to be referred to by engineering standards. Hence, this site would just be referred to as a lot. Chairman ;Strom stated that this property is different than the Potts PUD in the sense that developments were encroached around property and isolated that piece in the back end. This lot fronts on a public street. Member Carroll moved to approve the Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision Plat, Final. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. • Chairman Strom recessed the meeting for five minutes and will reconvene the meeting with Item #20 Pinecone PUD Overall Development Plan. The Pinecone PUD Overall Development Plan addresses property that wraps around the Fort Collins High School site, and that both of these items would be addressed separately due to distinct ownership and authority on the projects. Member Klataske stated that he has submitted a declaration of conflict -of -interest due to owning property in the area and would be abstaining from the discussion. PINECONE PUD, OVERALL DEVEL PMENT PLANCase t760-91A Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated the staff report representing the project was put together very well. Mr. Ward felt that in planning the project, the unique mix of land uses, the high school site, coordinating with CSU, and various private development interests have come together to produce a very innovative approach to this site. Member Walker asked what the limitations are to the corner commercial property and is there a time limit on those restrictions? P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 16 Mr. Kirk Douglas, Representative to Poudre R-1 School District, explained that there was an article in the covenants that restricts the negative land uses and encourages positive land uses. Negative land uses are those that would detract from the educational purposes of the high school project; such as, arcades, paraphernalia shops, tobacco stores, and any store that would sell alcohol. The positive land uses are things that have educational orientation which would be considered as computer software stores, bookstores, and uses of that nature. The Board of Education has placed an umbrella on those covenants with a first right of refusal if in fact a land use was to be determined in their discretion to be detrimental to the educational purposes of the high school. Member Walker asked what the time limit to the covenants are? Mr. Douglas stated that no time limitation has been placed on the covenants. The covenants are initially for a 25 year period and then they automatically extend for 5 year increments for perpetuity until they are rescinded by then the current owners of the property, both Poudre R-1 and Timberline Partners. Chairman Strom clarified that in order to rescind the covenants both partners must agree. Mr. Douglas agreed with Chairman Strom's clarification. Member Walker asked what the status is of the city park? Mr. Ward stated that the development of the park was moving ahead and scheduled for closing in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Douglas stated that the Board of Education was acting upon an extension agreement which extends the option contract on the park from April 30 to May 15. The City of Fort Collins, Parks and Recreation Department has tendered a contract to purchase the property to the School District and is currently under review. Mr. Peterson stated that the contract is subject to the approval of City Council and that the action has not taken place at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked for an elaboration of the details in the covenants on the enforcement of school policy at the park and the proposed neighborhood commercial site. 0 • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 17 Mr. Douglas stated the current covenants recorded against the property provide rights of governments on the commercial property, the park, and school property; which allow the School District to enforce any of its policies or codes of student conduct on any of the surrounding properties regardless of ownership. It is currently pending and will be approved by the Board of Education prior to the closing on the park. It basically would allow the School District the privilege to enforce its rules and regulations. Specifically, if there continues to be a violation of the law, it is the Police Department's responsibility for enforcing the law. If it is a matter of school policy or rules that were violated, then the school has the option of enforcing them. Mr. Paul Eckman stated the rights of governments may only be enforced against persons who are enrolled in the school districts education program. The covenants continue for 20 years instead of 25 years, unless they have been changed since we received this copy. Chairman Strom asked if those covenants would also extend? Mr. Eckman stated the covenants renew every year automatically unless terminated by a unanimous vote of the then owners. • Chairman Strom asked the applicant to address the bicycle/pedestrian access in the Overall Development Plan area. Mr. Ward stated that the accesses have been planned on the Timberline Partnership property which consists of a combination of on -street bike lanes, a detached bike trail along Timberline, in the drainage areas, and into the pedestrian system, which is a part of the school concept and surrounding neighborhoods. One of the areas the Transportation Department reviewed, was how the existing school population arrived and departed from the current school, what are the means of getting them to the proposed high school, and how does this dovetail into the current master plans, the bikeway and open space master plan? Generally, because of the obstruction of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks there are limits in getting trail connections over to Timberline. There is an underpass at Spring Creek near Edora Park that is in the planning process and at grade crossing at Drake/Horsetooth looking at a possibility of building another underpass that would connect Stover, Swallow, Centennial, and drainage ways under the railroad track and come out at Vermont which is the center of the Pinecone frontage on Timberline. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 18 PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Tom Harding, resident of Sunstone, wanted to congratulate Staff and the Board in taking into account what kids tend to do in stores. Mr. Harding stated that he managed a 7-eleven across the street from Lincoln High School in Denver. He felt that the amount of rip-off that would occur in the store was one of the highest in that City and that was only mitigated by the fact that the store had the highest take from the pinball machines than any other store in the area. The only way one could handle that type of situation would be in taking into account the kinds of businesses one places in the area. He felt that was achieved in this project, but that the only thing better would be not to build a commercial area right there and that is not possible. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney wanted to know why the 68 acres high school site was shown for informational purposes only and not part of the Overall Development Plan? Mr. Shepard felt the best reason was at the request of the Applicant, that 68 acres under separate ownership to Poudre R-1 would not become a signature party to the Overall Development Plan Document. For the past several months both parties were involved in planning in order to achieve good, comprehensive planning on this piece of ground. Member Cottier felt it was a little awkward to consider an Overall Development Plan with a big hole in the middle of the project, but needed to know what the different phasing of parcels in the Overall Development Plan were going to be? Mr. Ward explained that phasing would be coming from two different directions. There is a preliminary plan for the apartment/convenience center site that is in process right now and scheduled for the May meeting. A first phase single family project, that is parcel G and extends part way into parcel H, is being put together for preliminary submittal for the June meeting. The high school is on a 1995 opening schedule and the best estimate at this time for the development of the commercial comer is within 3-5 years from now. Chairman Strom wanted a clarification on whether the uses of the covenants apply to the small commercial piece located north the project? Mr. Ward stated that the covenants currently in place do not cover that piece. The proposal to extend to the entire 238 acres would give the school district the authority but not the complete obligation. Member O'Dell asked that with the number of potential housing units in that area, has the school district looked into putting a elementary school in that areal • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Ward stated that the school district is always thinking of new school sites, but there was no specific discussion related to an elementary school site in that area. Mr. Keith Dixon stated that there was not an elementary school planned for that site. Linton Elementary is directly south of this location and would be used for residents of the area. Member O'Dell stated that 500 plus housing units were planned for this area and it seemed to her that Linton was fairly full and how does one accommodate this many more homes and students? Mr. Dixon explained that a new elementary school site was being reviewed to take place sometime after 1995, but it will be farther south and east. Member O'Dell wanted to know if any other signals or other restrictions on turning movements along Timberline or Horsetooth Road were planned other than the one on Vermont? Mr. Ward replied that the restrictions were not so much the result of single family, but that most of the restrictions were due to the proposed future of Timberline as a major arterial. An access • point sets directly opposite Danfield which is not proposed to be signalized. This access would allow for left turns in and as Timberline is increased to a major arterial, that access would probably no longer be practical. Access into the northerly part of the commercial site would have a left -in, right -in, and right -out with raised medians. The access from Horsetooth into the commercial area would be strictly right-in/right-out. Full movement would occur into the main high school parking lot and onto the main street serving the residential area. In the future, Mr. Ward anticipates one other full movement access point into the northerly part of the site; however, the exact location of it has not received as much attention as the other access points. Mr. Ward stated he did not know of any other signals proposed for that area. Member O'Dell felt that those types of things should be phased in with the development of the high school and residential areas. Member Walker asked if the convenience center in parcel D was going to be a standard 50,000 square foot center? Mr. Ward explained that a convenience store and a small amount of retail lease space is proposed for that site. The total non-residential square footage would be about 6,000 square feet. Member Walker asked that if the covenants that apply to parcel A, did not apply to the retail space and parcel D? 40 P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 20 Mr. Ward stated that was correct. Member Walker did not understand why they do not apply, because eventually that would be the place where the arcades and liquor stores would go. Mr. Ward replied they had reviewed the area and asked themselves how far does one go in restricting or penalizing common ownership. There are convenience uses approved on the property to the south and numerous other opportunities for convenience type usage along Timberline Road. Chairman Strom stated that the traffic report indicated that there would be some E and F levels of services, at certain intersections and was anything being done to mitigate those levels of service? Mr. Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Department, asked if there was a specific location he had in mind? Chairman Strom stated that Intersection Al was the particular one he had in mind. Mr. Ensdorff stated that most left turns in Fort Collins off of arterial streets are going to experience high levels of delay. Right turns would operate reasonably well with an acceptable level of traffic. The Transportation Department is trying to limit the number of left turns or have fewer non -controlled intersections on arterial streets. It is expected that left turns off of an arterial street would occur, but that the department was trying to limit the opportunities in those situations. Chairman Strom asked if the traffic input studies are an accumulative analysis of what the Transportation Department expects to happen from the development? Mr. Ensdorff stated that was an accurate assumption and that the department provides a traffic consultant with background data in both existing and future projections in order to determine the short and long-term outcome of traffic in that area. Chairman Strom replied that essentially the levels of service for the peak hours are acceptable to the Staff? Mr. Ensdorff stated that they are acceptable. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 21 Member Walker moved to approve Pinecone PUD, Overall Development Plan. He felt that there were several innovative ideas with respect to this project and was very pleased with the cooperation between the Developers and the School District; which presents unique opportunities to provide this type of project that would meet a variety of needs in a creative way. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Carroll commented on the Overall Development Plan fitting the mixed nature of the area. He felt that people like to cluster as close as possible to an elementary school verses a high school and by locating the high school in this particular area toward the southwest comer of this development it allows for the buffering of the athletic fields and the city park to the east. He felt that the roads were innovatively designed, so as not to have straight collector streets. He also encourage the Board and the Administration to extending the covenants to the surrounding areas. Chairman Strom replied that he was looking forward to seeing the development of the pedestrian/bikeway system in that area and was encouraged to see that planning of that nature was occurring at this early stage. • The motion to approve carried 6-0. PINECONE PUD, FORT COLLINS HIGH SCHOOL, Advisory Review, a #60-91B Chairman Strom asked that a brief summary be presented to the Board in regard to what type of authority they might have on this issue. Mr. Eckman stated the authority of the Board was limited to state statutes regarding this type of issue. The reason this project was not listed in the Overall Development Plan was because the School District wanted to make clear that there was not any implication this project would come through as a Planned Unit Development or subject to the City's zoning ordinances. The Planning and Zoning Board's authority is based on statute 22-32-124, which requires the Board of Education to submit a site development plan for review and comment to the Planning and "Zoning Board prior to construction of any structure or building. The Planning and Zoning Board may also request a public hearing before the Board of Education relating to the proposed site development plan, but nothing in the statute shall be construed to limit the authority of the Board of Education to finally determine the location of public schools within the district and erect any necessary buildings and structures. Basically, the statute authorizes you to review the site development plan and make comments on it. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. n LJ P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 22 Mr. Eckman stated that statute 31-23-209 that provides non-public buildings or structures shall not be constructed or authorized in the City until the location character and extent there of has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Peterson commented on the partnership which the City and the School District have entered into over the past couple of years and introduced Mr. Knobloch, Vice President of the School Board, who addressed the Board on this issue. Mr. Knobloch, Vice President of the School Board, felt that the improvement of the working relationship was commendable between the City and the School District. He stated the School District had regular discussions with City Council, Planning & Zoning Board, and Staff in planning the new High School and felt a lot of innovative ideas had from those discussions. Not only has the School District worked through the discussions, but they have already put in place a master plan that has been available for review and discussion. He presented that the School District was also working towards a joint government agreement that would really guide the kind of relationships and put a little more form and format between the District and the City. Mr. Knobloch pointed out that the District would continue to be involved in working with the City to make sure that the plans are jointly agreed upon. Mr. Knobloch stated a second reason for his being at the meeting was to present to the Board the importance of their vote to the School District. He felt the District had been lacking this in the past and letting the process go on without the involvement of the District. Mr. Bob Sutter, Architectural Horizons, stated that the high school sits on approximately 68 acres of property, when netted out after the dedications of right-of-ways, the site will end up with about 64 usable acres for the school. The project was broken up into 3 or 4 major segments, the school building, the parking lot, the commercial area, and the city park. Basically, the site was set up and organized around a central circulation spine, which pulls the 3 major elements of a PUD process together. He introduced the basic access points as being a major parking lot on the north, that purposely had brought the major traffic to a lighted/controlled intersection; a main visitor/bus access point, with the idea that busses would make a circular route; and the third access point which is off of Horsetooth Road. There had been some significant circulation paths designed to cross the school's property to encourage access to the site by pedestrians as well as bicycles. Naturally, there will be the normal arterial connection points that will tie into the bike/pedestrian systems that develop along the arterials. The arterial streets will be designed for the long term future of a six lane road, although four lanes will be built at the same time the high school is constructed. Major bicycle parking areas have been designed as well. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 23 Mr. Sutter stated that depending on the school population projection in 1995, the 1105 stalls of parking may not be needed. On the other hand, for special event parking the school does have the capacity to provide or to need that kind of on -site parking to provide for any events that may occur at the school. The play fields consist of soccer fields, a regulation high school baseball diamond, football practice field with a track around the field, eight tennis courts, softball/baseball field and that there would be one field built in the park that would meet both little league and regulation softball standards. All of the park and play fields will be accessible to the City. Member Carroll asked if the estimated 1800 student population was correct? Mr. Sutter stated that was a correct figure. Member Carroll pointed out that the school would not be phased in according to school population. Mr. Sutter replied that the school would be built at that capacity from day 1. • Member Carroll asked if the initial population was around 1100? Mr. Sutter stated that the projected student population for 1995 would be 1500. Member Carroll then clarified that the school would have some initial empty space. Mr. Sutter agreed. Member O'Dell asked how many bicycle parking spaces are proposed? Mr. Sutter stated that the space which was allocated for the bicycles was around 150-200 stalls. However, there would be the ability to build more stalls as the need is developed. Member Walker felt that alternative modes of transportation was the main concern and should be encouraged. He wanted to know if any program was being developed between the School District and Transfort? Mr. Sutter felt that at this point in time there are discussions taking place to address driving and parking at all of the high schools and looked at alternative means of transportation. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 24 Mr. Dixon stated that transportation was a major concern and issue with the School District as well as with the City, and that alternative modes of transportation have been seriously considered. The District recognizes the values of the students and society to encourage those types of alternatives to take place. The committees which are in place now have noticed that several students are concerned about transportation, environment, and recycling. As this issue is approached by the District it is seen as a long-term issue. The district has looked into constructing a similar system like the system at CSU. The students have expressed views on the old yellow school bus as a single dimensional form of transportation and do not hold the same views on Transfort. Mr. Knobloch stated that joint participation between the City and the District in regard to the transportation issue is beneficial in how Transfort can be integrated transporting students/faculty to and from school. PUBLIC INPUT Gina Janette, Citizen Planners/City Air Quality Task Force, stated that one noticeable point when near a high school is the amount of students in one car. It would be conceivable to call that type of transportation carpooling, however students do not view it as such. She felt that in designing the parking lots, a reserved parking system should be constructed for those people who carpool. She felt that students are good enforcers of rules and would demand that the rules be followed. The other concept is a carpool drop off area. Has the District anticipated parents dropping off students or carpool drop offs in the same bus circulation area? This area would also benefit for handicapped people. The concept of having a one way exit from that loop to divert traffic over to the traffic signal would be very desirable. The City has a carpool matching service and CSU is looking at placing a system*of that caliber also. She felt that there was no reason why that type of service could not occur at the high schools. Parking historically has been a way that City's and other places get people out of their cars and into alternative modes. The highest amount of walking and alternative mode use are places where parking is at a premium or very expansive. The Air Quality Task Force is encouraging the School District to have some sort of permit system for parking in order to try to limit the amount of cars generating into the parking lots. One way to do that is to provide more carpool parking permits than single occupant permits. She felt that the phasing of the parking lot into the site as parking is needed is more favorable. Ms. Janette felt that the closed/covered walkway would present a problem for people riding their bikes into that area if the building was closed it would create quite a detour to reach the other side. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 25 She appreciated that the school is working with the City in regard to transportation issues and hopes that participation with each other will continue well after the school opens. Mr. Scott Mason, Citizen Planners, felt that Poudre R-1 was trying to be futuristic and forward looking in the implementation of some technologies and land use issues in regard to the new high school. Citizen Planners feels that Poudre R-1 should also be forward looking when addressing transportation issues. One of the major environmental issue facing Fort Collins is air quality. Over 80 percent of the carbon monoxide in the Fort Collins air is caused from automobiles. Yet, Poudre R-1 is counting on the expansion of Timberline and Horsetooth Roads; and a site design that includes over 1100 parking spaces to address the Fort Collins High School transportation needs. Citizen Planners recommends a more futuristic and forward looking design. He felt that we are not addressing transportation problems when the tax payers build our young people more parking spaces. Poudre R-l's core business is education and the questions we need to ask are; what lessons are we teaching our young people when we spend tax dollars on widening roads around their high school and then to accommodate them with parking spaces. Rocky Mountain High School parking facility should not be used as our baseline. This high school was built in the • 70's and he felt a new design was needed for the year 2000 and beyond. The City of Fort Collins has a good plan for bicycle/pedestrian access to the new high school; however, more emphasis needs to be placed on Poudre R-1 busing and Transfort. He stated that he understands funding for these alternative modes is scarce and currently under attack. He felt that spending money on large parking lot is the cheap and easy solution. The parking lot solution to transportation, shifts the burden of cost to the students and their parents, but lacks the commitment to the Fort Collins environment. Citizen Planners suggests a two part solution to the transportation problem at the new Fort Collins High School as well as Rocky Mountain and Poudre. First, provide alternative modes of transportation including safe bike/pedestrian access, Poudre R-1/Transfort bus service, and carpooling/ride sharing programs. Second, restrict single occupant vehicle parking spaces to students holding jobs or those students with special needs. Use of a permit system would also be a positive factor. He stated that the current Land Use Policies Plan states that the City will promote alternative modes of transportation. The City's plan shall be directed toward minimizing the use of private automobiles, and towards alleviating and mitigating the air quality impacts of concentrated use of automobiles. Mr. Mason stated that the Citizen Planners Organization will be working with a Task Force from the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce to review those transportation and air quality issues regarding the Fort Collins High School. n U P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 26 He concluded in asking the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend and ,advise the Poudre R-1 Board to reduce the size and number of parking lots on the existing site plan. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney suggested that parking spaces should be allocated through a permit system, seniority, academic achievement, disability, or priority for those who carpool. She felt that parking should be phased in and should not be developed all at once. In the 1990's we are trying to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and building over 1100 parking spaces doesn't send that message. She felt that education information should be provided and would like the School Board to take a look at the comments which were prepared by the Air Quality Task Force, because they deal with parking, providing information, carpooling, Transfort/sehool buses, bicycles and pedestrians. Member Cottier felt that parking was the chief way of being responsive to some environmental concerns. She agrees that phasing parking into the site is essential and that the number of spaces which are built would be the number of spaces that are filled. If the School Board is truly interested and committed to developing and stimulating alternative transportation modes, she felt that they should start -off with smaller number of parking spaces and create alternative uses for the additional space. She also hoped that no student parking would be allowed on the neighborhood residential streets. Other than the transportation issue, she felt that it is very exciting school concept and is very interested in the philosophical tie to the commercial area and what it brings to the school and commercial area. Member Walker felt that traffic and parking are the major concerns in regard to the new high school site. He stated that the open campus concept with several facilities in the school plan, the layout with the City park, the ball fields, and the commercial development was designed very well. However, he suggests that unnecessary trips off of the campus be discouraged somehow. For example, just because it is lunch time, doesn't mean the students/faculty have to leave campus. He hopes that through the integrated concept between the school and park encourages the students to realize that all of their activities could take place on site and minimize the need leaving campus. Chairman Strom asked how much of this is conceptual and how close is this project to getting an actual building footprint? What are some energy conservation issues and environmental issues that have been looked at? Mr. Sutter stated that the footprint of the building should change very little between now and the time the building is actually under construction. He pointed out that there are 750 se4ts in the theater not only to accommodate the school but to accommodate the community as well. Mr. Sutter went onto point out the different areas of the building on the plan. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 27 There are two facets in energy conservation that relate to economics in regard to the new High School. The spine area is a fully sky lighted area that creates potential to reclaim heat in the winter; and to dispel heat in the spring/summer through the ventilation system and pull natural ventilation through the school. The District is working with the Police Department at this time in regards to security of the school. Mr. Sutter presented that lighting the school up at night is not energy efficient. Other alternatives are being reviewed in terms of lower wattage and motion detector lights in order to conserve energy. Motion detector lights also serve the purpose of being a good security device. The light turns on when there is motion in the area which alerts a patrol car or passerby that there is unwanted motion in the area. At that time the police department should be notified. There are some problems though that come with motion detector lights, such as, they may be set off by high winds, blowing snow, or bunny rabbits. The District is also looking at potential partnerships with industry, in terms of the school becoming a Beta site. This allows for some testing of energy types of things. Those kinds of concepts are more on the wish list through, but hopefully in the future would become a reality. • He stated that during school hours, indirect lighting would be used. Indirect lighting basically requires a little more wattage in terms of per fixture, but on the other hand it requires less lamps. All of those items are being considered in the overall package for the school. He felt that ensuing those areas in the future there would be economy cycles placed on mechanical units, night setback features, and computer controlled systems that set temperature levels within the building. He pointed out that the building itself would have a lot of mass built into it, which is considered to be a benefit. There is no way to analyze the direct benefit due to it being built with the building. Day lighting is considered to be a big issue with the District. He stated that some day light techniques could present positive psychological effects on the teaching environment. The District is looking at photocell control that automatically dims lights down based on the amount of light coming into the building or teacher control. There are ways to conserve energy between the lighting and the heating/cooling of the building. For example, when the heating/cooling system is activated all of the lighting in the building would drop 10 footcandles. There would not be any visual effect if all the lights were to be dimmed at the same time. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 28 Member Carroll stated that the transportation issues are becoming the one negative about the plan. He felt that the all development criteria requires the Board to look at adverse traffic impact, air quality, and noise. Several things vary between the current school and the new school such as, population of the new school when it opens would be in the area of 1500 hundred students which is bigger than the current high school. The location of the new school puts the destination of the students much further away from central areas, as the current high school has that benefit. He felt disappointed that the District did not address the issue about controlling the transportation issue other than educating students on driving habits. The first issue he felt the District should address is if there any particular reasons why students should have to leave the campus in a car during the day except of course to work, doctor appointments, etc. The students who would be leaving during lunch would be traveling quite a bit further to Taco Bell, Burger King, and McDonald's. This situation can be controlled by closing the parking lots. He felt that would eliminate all of the day trips, would address air quality and the amount of traffic in the area. With a permit situation he felt that method would be fairly easy to accomplish. If a permit system could not be done, then he suggested that the parking be used as some sort of motivation to influence people to used alternate transportation. One suggestion is simply that sophomores can't drive and make the parking lots available for juniors and seniors. Member O'Dell asked if the tower is made of an unscaleable material? Mr. Sutter stated that is certainly a requirement in the construction of the tower so that the kids could not get up there. Mr. Sutter pointed out that all the major elements of the building are oriented in an east/west access. Those accesses are considered the most efficient for a commercial building because that presents the best control of sunlight. Chairman Strom felt when approaching the school building there needs to be a sense of entry and felt that the tower created that sense. He felt encouraged that the relationship between the School Board and the City has been one of a sense of cooperativeness. He also stated that the interaction between the school site and the commercial site would work very effectively with the mixed uses for that area. The overall approach to this design for Fort Collins High School is tremendous and has a great deal of potential for being just as much of a landmark for Fort Collins as the old high school has been. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 29 Mr. Peterson stated that the Planning and Zoning Board should make a resolution to advise the Board of Education on the location and character of the new facility which is being proposed, and whether or not this project conforms with the element of the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan. Member Carroll noted CRS 31-23-209 which indicates that the Planning and Zoning Board make a finding as to the location and character in extent of the public buildings and structures relative to the adopted master plan of the City. Member Carroll moved to adopt a resolution stating the facts which were presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on the location and character of the structure which meets the requirements of the City's Master Plan and conforms to the adopted plan of the Community; and that the School Board consider the comments for which were presented at this meeting. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to adopt carried 6-0. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SIGN • Member Walker abstained from the discussion of the sign due to conflict of interest. Chairman Strom also announced that Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman abstained from the discussion of the sign due to conflict of interest. Mr. Peterson stated that a report on the CSU sign was given to the Board with the items and elements that were requested in terms of the compliance or non-compliance of the sign to the City Sign Code. He presented Mr. Baker, Representative of CSU, that would answer any questions the Board may have in regard to the sign. Member Carroll asked if there was any discussion between CSU and staffas to how the effects ts of the sign could be mitigated? Mr. Peterson replied that there have been several discussions in terms of the message board, the locational attributes of the sign, and what types of mitigation could occur to make the sign less noticeable. Member Carroll asked if the City has made any suggestions? Mr. Peterson stated that the major suggestion was to slow down the message board considerably and the second suggestion was to create some landscaping features around the sign to eliminate the starkness of the sign. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 30 Mr. Ron Baker, Director of Facilities Planning at CSU, stated that CSU was not subject to many of the regulatory ordinances, such as the sign code. CSU does believe that they must be sensitive to such regulations that the community has chosen to govern its activity. CSU must consider the effect of their project on the surrounding community and in the case of this sign appropriate steps to evaluate the potential impacts of this sign were not taken effectively and for that CSU apologizes. CSU has modified the composition and process of the University's Physical Development Committee. One of the steps which has been taken is to include ex-offrcio membership and representatives from the City planning staff to sit on the Physical Development Committee. CSU plans to better evaluate proposed physical development at CSU as well as to more appropriately assess the impact of such development on the community as a whole. This process will include opportunity for public input on those projects considered to have that need. Specifically, CSU will take steps to modify the programming for the message board and the landscaping needs at the sign on Shields Street. Mr. Peterson pointed out to the Board that CSU is exempt from meeting local codes. Member Carroll asked if there was any reason why the messages on the message board could not be frozen and changed every 10-15 seconds? For example, the time and temperature boards are displayed at a slower rate of speed. Mr. Baker stated he did not see any reason why that couldn't occur. Member Carroll stated that the first desire of the Board would be to have the sign come into conformance with the code, which he felt was practically impossible. If the sign is going to stay erect, at least that portion of the sign code that is being violated about the prohibition against flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or animation effects be remedied. He felt that the landscaping around the sign was also a good deterrent of the height of the sign. Mr. Baker replied that President Yates committed that those types of changes would occur. Member Carroll noted that President Yates did state that the speed of the message has been slowed, however, that slow speed only occurred for a couple of days and at this point the messages have sped back up to the original speed of the sign. Member Carroll suggested that some overall control be used on the verbiage that appears on the sign. A letter that he received compared the sign to Las Vegas and noted that the word girls flashes on the sign several times. • • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 31 Member Clements -Cooney stated that the best situation she could perceive would be an apology from CSU and to take down the sign, however she noted that suggestion would probably not take place. She appreciates that the City and CSU are pursuing slowing the sign down, maybe doing away with the flashing lights and that the landscaping really does make a difference where height concerns are. Are the trees that are depicted in the plan going to be planted that large or are they going to be 2 feet tall? Mr. Baker responded that the landscaping will be as close to the concept as reasonable. Member O'Dell appreciated that CSU asked Mr. Tom Peterson to serve on the Physical Development Committee, and felt that the increased cooperation between the City and CSU is very much commendable. Mr. Baker stated that the compliments are somewhat in the class of "at -a -boys" which seem to come in spurts, and if one mistake is noticeably made then all of the compliments are gone, but there really has been a lot of cooperation between the City and CSU. The Transfort effort is an indication of the type of cooperation that has been occurring with CSU and the City. • Chairman Strom appreciated Mr. Baker's appearance at the meeting and the cooperation he has presented in regards to the relationship between CSU and the City. He agreed with Mr. Baker that there are a lot of good things occurring between the City and CSU, however it just happens that when CSU stumbled it was quite visible. Chairman Strom stated that there was no formal action to be taken and appreciates Mr. Baker's appearance at the meeting. He hoped that CSU would consider some of the suggestions and comments made from the Board. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. John Walker, Scenic Colorado, felt it is easier to apologize than to take action to correct the wrong. In his opinion CSU feels they are exempt rather than taking steps to correct the problem. He feels that the Planning and Zoning Board should pass a resolution requesting CSU bring this sign into conformance with the City's sign code. Mr. Walker stated that the City has spent 20 years trying to upgrade the visual attractiveness of the City and would like to know why the City and the community has to tolerate this type of behavior from CSU. He understands that the City has no authority to require CSU to conform, but if the local School District can work with the City on their planning why can't CSU. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 32 Mr. Walker stated that no indication has been made by the CSU representative whether more signs would be built around the campus. He wondered if other major financial supporters of CSU would construct bill boards or other types of signage around the oval or entryways onto the campus. He stated that he has not heard CSU or Mr. Baker commit themselves in anyway of not continuing to place signs of this sort around campus. He felt that before the citizens spoke out about this sign, CSU was preparing to place another sign of that caliber over by Pitkin and College. He urged the Board to urge CSU to bring this sign into substantial compliance with the City sign code. Mr. Rex Rehnburg, 1185 Westward Drive and President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the sign was not completely in place when he started receiving criticizing calls about the sign. He was extremely disturbed that CSU did not comply with the City sign code. He was also concerned with the blatant commercialism. He was employed by CSU for thirty-three years and was a part of several name changes. He recalled when the name Colorado State University was adopted. The University name was highlighted, however, when viewing the message board at the right time the biggest name is "UH HUH" and then the word Pepsi - Cola. He felt those names were insignificant to the school and that the sign was somewhat disrespectful. Another issue that needs to be considered is the issue of safety. There can never be an accurate count taken of how many accidents were caused by the sign. He didn't feel people would state that they were reading the sign when they rear -ended the car stopped in front of them. He stated that he has witnessed three accidents since the sign was turned on. Mr. Rehnburg appreciated the letter that President Yates sent to him on the action that is being taken to mitigate the sign. He also recognized the indication of change in procedures which now are underway between CSU and the City to avoid future confrontation. Chairman Strom closed public input portion of the meeting atbthis time. Member Klataske felt that CSU is determined to leave the sign in place and design landscaping to mitigate the height and surrounding area of the sign, however he suggested that landscaping does not encroach upon the ROW. Chairman Strom proceeded to thank Mr. Baker and other participants in regard to the sign • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 33 RIVERSIDE JUNCTION PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Case #13 92 Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with the condition that the development agreement and final plans be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Gunther Seligmann, Representative of Poudre Valley Hospital, stated that the hospital is making the effort to alleviate the congestion of traffic on the main hospital campus. He felt that part of that relief would be to move Outpatient Services from the main campus and relocate those to various locations. Those services generate a considerable amount of traffic around the campus. The current parking situation does meet the required code of the City. He felt that as various needs for the hospital grow so will the parking needs, and therefore, identified the piece of land to the west of the Riverside Junction complex. Since that identification of that area, the hospital has entered into a long-term land lease agreement with the owner. Approximately at the same time, the hospital became aware of the School District plans for the rebuilding of the Laurel • School. At that point both entities identified each other's needs and have developed a plan that benefits both parties. He stated that the hospital's parking lot may be used for future use when the public park in that area is developed. Mr. George Brelig, Robb, Brenner and Brelig, felt that the piece of land for the parking lot is considered to be a benefit to both the district and the hospital. This site entitles the school to have an assemblage of land to provide a better playground layout. It also allowed the hospital to take the parking further away from the residents. He pointed out that 54 percent of the land is dedicated to parking and drives, and 46 percent is dedicated to walks, islands, and landscaping. He felt that one of the areas in which they focused on was that if any development occurs south of that lot the parking area would be appealing. He discussed what type of landscaping would be planted and that the proposed 15 foot high light poles would not detract from surrounding properties. He stated that the landscaping would be more appealing to the surrounding area than to the users of the parking lot. Mr. Brelig stated that one specific comment came from the neighbors and that was to have the hospital, the City and the School District bring only one master plan to them and not various plans from each. He stated that in order to accommodate the neighbors one master plan has been designed to show what the objectives were for that site and the surrounding area. n L J P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 34 The secondary function of the parking lot is that it will provide parking for the proposed park in order not to create another black asphalt area in the neighborhood. The traffic study that was done indicated the actual trip generation for this project would be less than what has been formally approved (retail space) for that site. He felt this project is in harmony with Laurel School, a future park, and would complement any adjacent development that may occur on the eastside. Chairman Strom indicated his concern with having a six foot solid privacy fence between the parking lot and the landscaping to provide screening from the ditch and felt that if the landscaping was out -of -sight then it would be out -of -mind. He wanted to know what type of maintenance would occur? Mr. Brelig responded that the ditch is mildly maintained at best, and the proposed landscaping would start about a foot away from the ditch and create a cultured ground cover. He stated that two and three foot high Juniper landscaping would occur on the northside of the fence. The fence was created in order to give the neighbors an all year round screen. The hospital has committed to maintain the parking lot and the surrounding areas. Chairman Strom asked if the length of the fence goes directly all the way to the west property line? Mr. Brelig replied that the fence goes to the west property line and stops as a wood fence, and then proceeds north with a chain link fence, which is provided by the School District. Chairman Strom asked if the grade was flat from the properties to the south across from the site? Mr. Brelig stated that the slope of the grade is from south to north and that a slight slope occurs in the east/west direction. Chairman Strom asked if it would be possible to do something with berming instead of fencing? Mr. Brelig answered that there was somewhat of a natural berm that is about 2 to 3 feet in height, however he was not sure if there would be enough to do a total berm to keep the headlights out of the residential area. He felt the headlights were the biggest concern and that is why they planned for a fence. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that staff also had concerns with accessing the landscaping and if one takes note to the site plan rather than the landscape plan there is a note regarding a 3 foot gate opening to access the area between the fence and the ditch. She also was concerned about the placement of landscaping in there as well as the existing Elm trees and the need for maintenance in that area. • P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 35 Chairman Strom was concerned that you can not see that area very well and it would be easy to become an area where blowing trash and debris accumulates. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Sanford Kern, 804 East Elizabeth Street, felt that this project should be examined carefully in regards to past Planning and Zoning Board and City Council decisions specifically in the planning that has or has not gone on for this area. He stated that approximately 15 years ago that there was some rezoning proposed in the area and at that point the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council reaffirmed that they wished to keep this end of East Elizabeth Street as intact as possible and maintain the residential nature of the area. The Eastside Neighborhood Plan also places a great emphasis on maintaining the residential character of an area such as this. He felt that the PUD in these cases is considered to be a trade-off and a way of getting a variance to the underlying zoning, in this case being RL. He stated that the Eastside Neighborhood Plan states that viability of the Eastside Neighborhood, that the existing land use mix of these preservation areas be maintained. One trade-off listed in the plan is that the use would facilitate the future street linkage, in this case being Pennock Place, so that finally the • Eastside Neighborhood will be able to access Albertson and the Riverside Junction. He felt that now the potential could be there to realize that a neighborhood park is essential. He felt that if this project were to be passed that there would be future pressures placed on this area. He felt that this project prevents access from the south properties to the commercial area by going straight through Elizabeth Street, which the neighborhood vigorously opposes that type of access. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked if there is enough available land to do berming instead of the fence? Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that there is some space in the area and that two considerations have come into play. One being to maintain the existing Elm trees. There are approximately six Elm trees which occupy the space directly north of the Emigh Ditch. The second consideration is whether there is enough space to construct a berm with acceptable side slopes high enough to screen headlights. The height of the berm would need to be around 42 to 48 inches to be able to screen the lights. She felt the berm would be desirable but the question is can that berm be high enough to hold some ground cover in order to screen the headlights of the cars parked in that area. P&Z Meeting Minutes April 27, 1992 Page 36 Chairman Strom stated that the area could possibly support a small retaining wall on the parking lot side and dropped the parking down that it could support a berm. Member Carroll felt that the fence is for the benefit for 2 to 4 neighbors along that area, and would encourage the hospital to talk with those neighbors in regard to the screening of the lights. He felt he would support a decision to recommend the construction of a berm, so as not to create a six foot fence. Member Carroll moved to approve Riverside Junction PUD, Preliminary and Final with the comment that the project is an excellent idea and that the Eastside Park now has the potential of being constructed. He felt that the site would not only work well for the Hospital, but Laurel School and the proposed park. He opposed any development on East Elizabeth Street that would be other than residential. Member Clements -Cooney second the motion. She strongly suggested that the Hospital work with the residents and that six foot fences should not be the answer for screening headlights etc. and would like to see some other form of buffering done to that area. The motion to approve passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. • C� kN ^\ a be ram`. , WR9 OQTM " :.. . . SPEIGNTS PUD SSING MOUNTAIN RIDGE FARM PUD*f D �--�", ^•• '> CENTER-C.R. CO RD S *t •*F L. City Limits: BRITTANY KNOLLS PUD, Ph 2 rk