Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/28/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 28, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 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, Jan Collier, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. 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, Mike Herzig, Peter Barnes and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Member O'Dell nominated Chairman Strom for the Chairman of the Board. Member Collier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Member Collier nominated Vice -Chairman Walker for Vice Chairman of the Board. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Election of Officers; Item 2 - Minutes of the August 24 and August 31, 1992 Meetings; Item 3 - The Village at Southridge PUD - Final, #9-82AI; Item 4 - Kingston Woods PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #58-91C; Item 5 - PZ92-12 Utility and Drainage Easement Vacation; Item 6 - PZ92-13 Utility and Drainage Easement Vacation (Continued until October 19, 1992 meeting); Item 7 - Timberline Court Apartments PUD - Preliminary, #32-83D (Continued until November 16, 1992 meeting); Item 8 - Timnath Pit Special Review - County Referral (Continued until October 19, 1992 meeting); Discussion Agenda - Item 9 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas, 038-92; Item 10 - PZ92-14 Natural Areas Policy Plan; Item 11 - Amigos at Shields PUD - Preliminary, #47-90A; Item 12 - Little Caesars PUD - Final, #28- 92A (Continued until October 19, 1992 meeting). Mr. Peterson stated those here for items, Solar Orientation Ordinance, Northeast Area Transportation Study, Glenmoor PUD, or Silver Oaks PUD, that these items would be continued until October 5, 1992 at 6:30 p.m. Item 4, Kingston Woods PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, #58-91C was pulled for discussion by Member Cottier. Member Carroll moved for approval of consent items 2, 5, 3. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 2 KINGSTON WOODS PUD. 2ND_FILLING - FINAL. #58-91 Member Cottier asked for an update with respect to the commercial properties willing to place a sign that they would be commercial. Ms. Whetstone, Project Planner, replied the three owners of the properties had been notified and that there was nothing new to report from them. There had been an agreement to put a note on the plat. Leo Schuester, Progressive Living Structures, owner of the property, stated as much as they had tried to work with the Planning Staff as far as designating that on the plat, as far as going out and posting the ground, he felt that it was not his responsibility to post someone else's land to it designate future uses. Member Cottier replied that the point of their condition last month was that they believed it was his responsibility to notify the purchasers of his lots that across the street would be commercial and would see if the Board felt that having that noted on the plat as well as the site plan and landscape plan was adequate. Mr. Schuester replied that he had no objection about it being posted, his objection was for this Planning Commission to tell him that he had to spend the money to do that. If the City or the Planning Commission wanted to do that, that was fine, but they were putting a restriction on this piece of property that he felt legally could not be put on it. Member O'Dell asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman for clarification on the issue. Mr. Eckman replied that he did think it would be legally impermissible for the Board to require this developer to post property that he does not own because he would have to trespass in order to do that and he did not recommend that the Board impose that kind of requirement. Their requirement needed to be based on some criteria of the Guidance System. Member O'Dell asked about noting it on the plat. Mr. Eckman replied apparently thatavas acceptable to the developer and it would give at least legal notice to all the property owners in the subdivision. From a legal perspective the notation on the plat was sufficient. Chairman Strom asked for public comment. There was none. Member Cotner moved for approval of Kingston Woods, Second Filing, Final. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Cottier hoped that having notice on the plat would safeguard them from alot of people complaining that they did not know what was across the street. The intent was that the single family project as proposed did not adequately buffer what might possibly happen across the street. She would prefer signs if the commercial property was willing. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 3 The motion passed 6-1 with Member Walker voting in the negative. Deputy City Attorney Eckman left the meeting at 6:50 due to a conflict of interest on the next item and City Attorney Roy joined the meeting. AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN CODE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS. #38-92 Joe Frank gave the staff report, reviewed background and the process that lead up to the recommended ordinance. Chairman Strom asked for Board questions of Staff. There were none. Chairman Strom asked for public input. No one responded. Chairman Strom asked about the notation in their packets of the changes that had been made since the last review, one of which was logos on individual tenant spaces exceeding 45,000 s.f. in floor area would be allowed to be as large as 54" in height and asked what it had been changed from. • Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator replied the original proposal that came before the Planning and Zoning Board in June had a section in there that would have had the logo height being the same size as the letter height. After further evaluation it was determined that in looking at what was up around the community and determining what looked best, in many cases, the signs with more aesthetic value are where the logo was actually taller than the individual letters. What this did was allow the logo to be slightly larger than the individual letter sign itself. Chairman Strom asked for any examples of how large a 54" logo would be Mr. Barnes showed some slides of the Safeway Store on Drake and showed the letters to be 4' in height, there was no logo with that sign, but the logos would be just slightly larger than the letters. Member Carroll moved to recommend approval to City Council adoption of the Amendments to the Sign Code for non-residential uses in residential neighborhood sign districts. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member O'Dell commented that she did not want it to appear that they did not care about this or have any comments, they did have a worksession and an extensive public hearing in June and at that time they made comments and the changes have been incorporated into this revised plan. Member Walker commended the staff work on this and the fact that no one was here to argue the point indicated that they had gone through a pretty thorough process and so tonight was • a logical conclusion to a process of hearing a variety of opinions, and incorporating them. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 4 Member O'Dell asked if there would be some follow upon this in terms of how successful this is and any steps to change the sign code within the entire City besides just the neighborhood districts. Mr. Barnes replied they would be keeping track of existing developments and those new signs that go up. They could come back to the Board with a slide presentation showing the previous sign and what went up in its place. With respect to the entire sign code, City Council has on the 1993 work plan a sign code audit and they would be starting that shortly after the first of the year. Member O'Dell stated that as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, she appreciated getting out of the sign business in this area and thought it would be advantageous to move in that direction and tighten up the sign code. Mr. Peterson stated there was some public participation. Chairman Strom stated he had already asked for public comment. Chairman Strom asked for Mr. Shaw's input. Mr. Shaw, of Shaw Signs, representing the sign companies, asked Mr. Barnes or the Board if the adoption of this additional sign code meant that the PUD process as far as signs would be directly referred to the new code and would not go through the more or less arbitrary process that they had done in the past for this particular neighborhood sign district. Mr. Barnes replied that this would apply only to developments in residential neighborhood sign districts. Beyond that, what this was hoping to do was to get the Planning and Zoning Board out of the sign business with respect to the residential neighborhood sign district. This would be the code they would be referring to for PUD's that are developed in that area. Mr. Shaw asked if the Board could impose any stricter regulations than were in the proposed code already. Mr. Barnes replied that they could not. Mr. Shaw apologized for not coming in sooner, he wanted to hear the feedback a little bit. Initially they were in support of this amendment to the sign code and had worked very closely with staff in drafting this. As they see it, maybe they got some misinformation or maybe they misunderstood the original intent in writing this. They were under the impression that the Planning and Zoning Board would be out of the sign code business all together including the commercial areas. They very heartedly jumped into this thinking this was a very good compromise. In this code they were drastically reducing the size of most signs, he did not think it was going to affect alot of what was there now. At the same time they were under the impression that if a business was to move into the commercial area on South College Avenue that the Planning and Zoning Board would not have any regulatory power there other than what the normal sign code was. They came to find out toward the very end of this process that indeed was not the case, it was just for this area. The main problem that they see getting a sign permit in a PUD was still a major problem for builders, architects and sign companies to try and decide what size sign, what kind of sign since they are not using the present sign code in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 5 those areas. He would like to go on record, speaking for the sign industry, that they were not in support of the adoption of this code for the reasons that it did not address the PUD's and the Planning and Zoning Board's authority for placing more restrictive guidelines on commercial businesses outside of the residential sign district. Chairman Strom asked for discussion or comments on the motion before them. Chairman Strom commented that the Board had been working with the map and had understood pretty clearly all along which areas of town they were dealing with. He thought it was a step forward in terms of dealing with those areas and this set an example for them in their review of the rest of the sign code coming up at the first of the year. The motion passed 7-0. PZ92-14 NATURAL AREAS POLICY PLAN Mr. Tom Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources gave the staff report, explaining the two action steps, highlighted the purpose of the plan, the evolution of the plan and made comments on what the plan means to the community. Chairman Strom asked for Board questions for Mr. Shoemaker. Member Collier asked about acquiring conservation easements from private landowners and would that be something that would be done by purchase or donation and once the City did have a conservation easement, did that mean the land would be open to the public. Mr. Shoemaker replied the nature of the conservation easement agreement could vary among the parties and a conservation easement could include a public access easement, although that might not be the thrust of that particular easement. He would expect they would attempt to acquire easements by donation and there would also be instances that the City might purchase easements. Chairman Strom noticed in the strategies and work plan regarding modifications to the LDGS regulations, that it was listed under 92 and 93, was the process underway. Mr. Shoemaker replied that in some ways yes, they have an ongoing project with a consultant to develop a "tool box", a design and mitigation manual. Their intent was to initiate as soon as they have a policy document to support it, a public process that would involve this Board and several other Board's and a wide variety of the public in looking at the tool box itself and also looking at the regulations themselves. Chairman Strom asked when they would ask for involvement from this Board in that process. Mr. Shoemaker replied later this year. Chairman Strom asked about the feasibility study to define the potential for establishing a world class environmental learning center in cooperation with CSU. L.J Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Shoemaker replied there was an existing effort that has been called the Landscape Opportunity Study in which the City and the University has been exploring some very general concepts for the river from roughly the interstate to Lemay, looking at futures there. The main point being how they could best cooperate in future planning in that area and expansion of the ELC. The notion of what a world class environmental learning center was still needed to be defined. The reason the feasibility study was defined was the Landscape Opportunity Study provided some general direction for that which they hoped would be sufficient for the preparation for a grant application for a full blown feasibility study. He thought they would be anticipating additional open space in either state or local ownership. Chairman Strom asked about the concept of the term world class learning center. Was he talking about developing something that brought people in from around the world to see what was going on in Colorado and what was there that was attractive in that corridor that would attract those people. Mr. Shoemaker replied that it tied in closely with the ongoing effort of the National Water Area. They thought there was a very important linkage there in terms of water use and water management and how the concept of the working river ties into the natural environment as well. There was no specific plans for a "world class environmental learning center", it was a phrase that the Natural Resources Advisory Board had coined and the intent was to say there were some special resources here, some special opportunities in terms of the mix of factors that come together and we should set our sights higher rather than lower. Member Cottier asked Mr. Shoemaker to address how they intended to coordinate with the County in dealing with the numerous areas that were outside City limits. Mr. Shoemaker replied the City might consider acquisition of areas that were not inside the City Limits but were within the Urban Growth Area. Second, they might work cooperatively with private land owners in those areas. They also would take the policies to the County and try to have them worked into the Urban Growth Area Agreement. PUBLIC INPUT Will Smith, Chairman of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, spoke on the letter from the Board recommending adoption of the Action Plan for the Natural Areas Plan. He also spoke on the work done by the Natural Resources Division, an extensive inventory of the geological, hydrological, botanical and biological properties that reside within the City of Fort Collins within the Urban Growth Area and have looked somewhat beyond some of the boundaries. From that and with the efforts going on, what was needed now was an effort to centrally codify this and begin to put in place the policy basis that allows the City to begin to operate to save those properties. Many of the things in the action plan address that directly. The first consideration was to look at the public and private land issue. Approximately 75% of the valuable lands were under private ownership. Mr. Smith went on to say there were a couple of issues that they raised just as a question. One of them concerned funding and they did talk about the fact that it was not mentioned in the report, that there were several outside efforts that were taking place and that may substantially impact this. They definitely laud the division for looking at all the available funding and laying it out clearly for people to understand just what needed to be done with that in terms • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 7 of financial considerations. The other was some consideration around legislation. Alot of the acquisition of the lands could take place within the City and the City's policies. There were alot of external agencies which may have some control over legislative acts. Which could endanger some acquisition and maintenance of these properties. Mr. Smith asked for them to unanimously support the Action Plan, again because it is an opportunity for Fort Collins to pioneer in its own natural heritage once more. CLOSED PUBLIC INPUT Member Collier commented on the potential problems with how they deal with land inside the city boundaries versus outside the city boundaries and public versus private land. She thought working with the County would do alot to strengthen the plan in terms of outside city limits and get more cooperation from the County on accomplishing something there too. Chairman Strom agreed that we did not want to create unreasonable expectations, but did think it was important to point out how much of this they could accomplish and how fast would depend really on how much support it could generate from the public at large both in terms of policy support and obviously in terms of financial support. Member Walker stated the important part of this document was the fact that they would have a Natural Areas Plan. He thought it was an important value to this community. • Member Walker moved to recommend adoption to City Council Resolution PZ92-14. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Chairman Strom commended the Natural Resources Department that the document was extremely well done. He hoped it would serve as a document that could be implemented. AMIGOS AT SHIELDS PUD - PRELIMINARY #47-90A Ted Shepard, Senior Planner, gave the Staff report recommending approval with conditions relating to street trees, signage and two transportation conditions. Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects introduced Mike Henninger from Amigos. Mike Henninger, Amigos Restaurant, gave history of Amigos and their concept. Of their 54 stores, 25 were mall stores, the rest were free standing stores, many of which are proto type buildings which they had designed and built over the past few years. They target communities like Fort Collins mainly because of the community and the fact that there is a college here. They hire college students and put them on a program. If they stay with them for a period of time and work for them, they pay their wages as well as a good portion of their college tuition. Last year they paid out over $100,000 in college tuition. Mr. Henninger stated they started out trying to create a restaurant site near Elizabeth and Shields. They tried to purchase Dr. Carson's office on University and Shields and they were istold in a neighborhood meeting that they needed to get across the street over with the other Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 8 commercial property. They had reached an agreement to purchase the current Texaco site. They had originally planned on constructing their large proto type there. They were told by the Planning Staff they were pushing things a little, they switched and have decided to construct a smaller of the proto type buildings. In doing so, they have run into other problems like Choices 95, such as curb cuts of their neighbors. Some of the issues you are aware of and arc dealt with in some of the conditions. Mr. Henninger stated their plan was to try and fit into the Choices 95 as well as the traffic problem on Shields as kind of a piece of the puzzle that they felt was better than the current situation and they felt could lend itself to an improved situation in the long run. There will always be traffic problems on Shields Street the way they see it and they think they were offering as good a solution as they could given the constraints under which they could operate. Mr. Henninger went on to say the access situation centered around left turns off of Shields as well as the number of curb cuts that exist and would exist along Shields Street. They feel the right -in right -out situation they were trying to create was a better condition than currently exists. They believe it was what they could do to make things better. The curb cut that exists at Campus West had also become an issue and was dealt with under one of the conditions listed by Staff. They have tried to work with Campus West on various solutions on what had been perceived by staff as a problem with the curb cut there. He had talked with a representative from Campus West who had generally agreed according to Staff, to close her curb cut there and basically someway incorporate with them. They had not been able to reach an agreement with her because there had not been many questions answered, many of which center around Choices 95. She is unable to commit to any type of a plan. They wanted to work with her on a joint curb cut or some other plan that Choices 95 might come up with at an appropriate time. They were willing to do that, but as of now they were not able to do that and not make it part of their plan. They would agree to any sort of easement or anything that might help facilitate that. Mr. Henninger spoke on the sign and the height of the sign. They had originally wanted a 12 foot free-standing sign. Their allowable signage was not very much on this site due to the frontage. They agreed to put some of it up on the building to take away from the mass of the free standing sign. They originally submitted it as 12 ft high, it has been recommended that it be shorter than that, they agreed to go to 10 ft. If they went to 8 ft, the readerboard would be on the ground, they would like to keep it at 10 ft. All the other signs in the area were more than 10 foot. Mr. Henninger spoke on the issue of window signs. They were not seeking permission to go out and do this but they were also not wanting to be restricted from doing this if it is a common practice in Fort Collins. Mr. Henninger stated Choices 95 was a big unknown, they were waiting for an answer from the City on which design they wanted to use on Choices 95. What they had done in their design was to allow enough room for any of the choices that the City was considering being implemented. They were willing to dedicate enough land to do any of those choices and they had basically just designed their site plan such so any of them would work. He felt that what they were offering was a better situation than what exists there and was urging them to approve this. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 9 Mr. Vaught handed out some graphic representations of the curb cut design and the free standing sign. Mr. Vaught stated they thought there were many benefits to this proposal and it replaced an existing non -conforming, unsightly gas station that has the ability to expand by another 1200 square feet and add two more automotive bays on the west side. Secondly, it obviously improved the existing curb -cut condition at the Texaco station. There were two 35 foot wide curb cuts that were full turn access points into the site. Visually it looks like a continuous curb cut. It also preserves the perimeter landscaping around the site in the way of hedges and large trees. This site was preserving the existing trees and shrubs. They were willing to comply with the final design improvements imposed by Choices 95. They would be doing those improvements in lieu of them having to come out of the Choices 95 budget, assuming the final design was approved prior to the final construction of this project. They would be installed at no cost to the City as well as the dedication of the additional right of way along their frontage. Mr. Vaught stated Amigos was willing to work with the adjoining property owner, he thought it was more of a timing issue as to what they would commit to based on the final design recommendation of Choices 95. Amigos had no problem agreeing to a shared curb cut at the property line with joint access easements on each side or the curb cut being all on their side of the line with an access easement for the Campus West people. He stated 35% of the total trips • on the site would be pedestrian and bicycle. The neighborhood generally supported the change in use from a gas station to a restaurant. Mr. Vaught stated the five conditions the staff placed on the project, they could live with all three of them that relate to the Choices 95 decisions. He stated Mike had touched on the ground sign height, staff was recommending 8 feet instead of 10 feet. The diagram they have shown them was 10 feet to the top of the curve on the highest point of the sign. That puts the readerboard right at eye level when you are driving past the site. They think from a safety standpoint, that was a good location for the information to be displayed. The sign was 7 feet deep, 12 inches wide and 10 feet high. The building was 21 feet high, 38 feet wide and 75 feet deep, they did not feel it had any negative impact on the building, they felt it was very compatible with the building. He thought it was important to consider the existing use on this site and the existing uses adjacent to the site. Great improvements would be made, once the final design has been agreed upon with Choices 95. There would be many compromises that would have to be agreed to within the final design due to existing conditions. They felt they had made every effort to take a bad condition and improve it. Member Carroll asked about the two or three different proposals in regard to the north curb line with Choices 95, which meant moving the curb line to the west. He was wondering what his thoughts were about design and waiting to see what Choices 95 would come up with. He was looking at the future curb cut design and where it says proposed right of way that slices right through the sign and gets within a few feet of the patio. His second question was, would they be waiting for final design of this site until they know where the curb line would be. Mr. Vaught replied that what they had understood from Staff was that the three design alternatives on Choices 95 were going to be presented to Council October 13th. There would be a direction from that to begin to firm up Campus West's attitude toward what would be . involved with their particular piece of ground. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 10 Member Carroll stated he was more interested in the front of their building. They have a building and a site plan designed, did they not have to wait for Choices 95 before they could locate their building. If they come in 15 or 20 feet west, would that not impact the building. Mr. Vaught replied their options to them were, if they could provide 15 feet of additional right of way, that would accommodate any of the three designs they were considering. Mr. Shepard added that under all three alternatives Council would be asked to consider, the worst case scenario would be under alternative three, which would require 15 feet behind the curb at Shields. Under the other two, there was a maximum of 9 and a maximum of 10. They have designed for the worst case scenario. Member Carroll asked assuming the City would take 15 feet, was the site cross section accurate or would the sign and the patio be jammed up against the building. Mr. Shepard replied the only variable at this time was the location of the street trees. Member O'Dell asked about the existing underground gasoline storage tanks. Mr. Henninger replied under the agreement with the current owner, when the PUD is approved, he would cease operation, empty and remove the storage tanks and have it tested and have a clean site delivered to them. Member O'Dell asked if it was found at the time they remove the tanks, they had been leaking for 10 years, would Texaco be responsible for cleaning them up. Mr. Henninger replied yes. Member O'Dell asked about the store in Lincoln, Nebraska that was across from the University and they found 35-40% was pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Did that particular store have a drive thru facility. Mr. Henninger replied that store was located on two, one-way streets, it did have a drive-thru facility and it was a larger building than the one they were proposing here. They anticipate it would attract a similar customer. Member O'Dell asked if most of the other stores have drive thrus. Mr. Henninger replied all of their free-standing stores have drive thru lanes Member O'Dell asked, depending on where they were located, if they may have a larger percentage of their business than they anticipated here or was that not the case. Mr. Henninger replied the percent of the customers that were drive thru varies from 20-25% on the low end, to 40% which was unusual on the high end. He thought that most stores would be somewhere between 25% and 30% drive thru. This store would be similar to the one mentioned in Lincoln and that %of drive thru was slightly smaller than the other stores, it was in the 25% range, maximum would be about 30%. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 11 Member O'Dell asked if the drive thru lane accommodated bicycles. Mr. Henninger replied yes. Member Cottier asked about the sign and would it fall under the proposed neighborhood residential sign code. Mr. Shepard replied this property would be excluded from the residential sign district. We were considering this to be part of the Campus West Community Shopping District which is exempt and excluded from the residential sign district. Member Cottier asked what is the surface area of the proposed sign. Mr. Shepard replied we estimated it to be in the low 40's per face. That would be a total of the mid-80's in square footage. Member Cottier asked about the cross-section that was given to them and was it to scale. The height of the sign did not seem to be higher than the wall. Mr. Shepard replied that he was referring to where the solarium meets the vertical wall of the permanent building. Where the sloping solarium roof comes to its tallest point, he believed was lower in height than the sign. PUBLIC INPUT Emily Smith, Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association, spoke on the protection of the residential character of Shields Street. They appreciated the developer proposing his site north of University Avenue rather than south. They did have concerns that the plan they had seen did not yet adequately address the increased traffic that this proposed usage would generate. One, it was clear that both north bound lanes of traffic on Shields would be congested and if cars did turn left, that was still unclear. Southbound traffic turning right into Amigos would have substantial congestion on the curb cut into Campus West. It was unclear whether there would be a curb cut going into the Amigos from Campus West, if the traffic comes out of Amigos back into Campus West and was unclear what happens to the bank facility within Campus Wcst. If traffic was routed in from Elizabeth when going east on Elizabeth and turned into Campus West, you must turn in and go all the way around one way. Ms. Smith went on to say there were many things they did not know because of Choices 95, the decisions they don't have. Their feeling was that Campus West was sitting tight until they find out, which was understandable. They were doing what they could to make it a safe situation. For travelers that want to go north from Amigos, a right turn only exit to the south would increase traffic, which must then turn right, on University Avenue, then right on City Park Avenue, come back right on Elizabeth, then left back on Shields to go north. This was the only safe route unless something could be worked out in the interior of Campus West. They would urge continued cooperative efforts between the developer, the staff and Campus West toward a safe solution to the traffic concerns. This use was a more intense auto traffic use, there would be many people using it, however, the peak hours for people to drive thru Amigos would be very close to 5:00-6:00 when they would be driving thru and turning right at two exits onto • Shields Street to the current commuting traffic that would be going south on Shields. They have patterns generated by this that she thought should be looked at very seriously. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 12 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Walker asked about Choices 95 decisions for Shields and at the minimum there would be 9 feet of right of way taken. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct, minimum 9, maximum 15. Member Walker asked if it would be used for pedestrian and bike walkways. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct, of the 9 feet, there was a 3 foot splash drip and a 6 foot wide sidewalk. Member Walker stated his concern was all the parking lots abutting Shields in Campus West, they would be gone, they would not exist anymore. It also raised a question of circulation around the mini -bank. Mr. Shepard replied the scenario would involve a right-of-way acquisition from the Campus West Shops such that the parking lot spaces would be deleted. If that happened, the Campus West representative stated they might be willing to block off the circulation flow so inside Campus West internal circulation would be one way north only. If you were to make a right in from a south bound movement on Shields, turning right into the joint curb cut, you could enter Campus West via a north bound movement inside their parking lot, north bound only and they would not have a two way circulation pattern. Member Walker asked if that suggested they would not be exiting out of the Amigos right out. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. Member Walker asked about the connection between Amigos and Campus West and if the alignment between the Amigos opening and Campus West was adequate. Mr. Shepard replied that the initial review was that there was enough hard surface in the Campus West parking lot presently to accommodate any of the scenarios whether or not the Amigos internal circulation drive shifts into a east or west direction there was an ability for Campus West area to accommodate that. Member Clements -Cooney stated her understanding was that there would be no median construction on Shields Street. In her staff report, the curb cuts they had been talking about would remove left turns into the site was not accurate because there was no guarantee that all north bound vehicles northbound wanting to turn left would not turn left and alleviate the stacking. Mr. Shepard replied there was no guarantee. Member Cottier asked about the alley between Campus West and the Amigos site and it said it was a 20 foot alley. Mr. Shepard replied in reality it was a 12 foot wide drive lane. It was not 20 feet in actual pavement width. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 13 Member Cottier asked if it saw two directional traffic. Mr. Shepard replied it is usually used for two directional traffic and the delivery truck usually blocks the alley so that it becomes a one way. Member Cottier asked if it ran the full length behind Campus West. Mr. Shepard replied yes, you could circulate back to the west end of the shopping center between the two buildings. Member Walker asked about pedestrian traffic and crosswalks. Mr. Shepard replied there was alot of pedestrian movement at University and Shields and that was a striped crosswalk although it was not protected by a traffic signal. Member O'Dell stated on the site plan in Campus West it showed a dotted line that she assumed would be the new right-of-way, right inside the parking spaces facing east. Mr. Shepard replied that was a likely scenario for right-of-way acquisition by any three of the scenarios given the fact that anywhere from 9 to 15 feet was needed to accommodate any of the three scenarios. • Member O'Dell asked if there would be a sidewalk built along Shields also. Mr. Shepard replied yes, under all three scenarios, on the west side of Shields, there was going to be a pedestrian sidewalk. Member O'Dell asked if it would be attached to the street. Mr. Shepard replied separated either by a splash strip or by an onstreet bike lane. Member O'Dell asked how wide the on street bike lanes were. Mr. Shepard replied 6 feet. Member O'Dell stated Mr. Vaught referred to moving the right in further north, approximately where would it be on the site plan. Mr. Shepard replied if she could envision putting the pork chop island right on the property line, that would allow the vehicles to make a right turn to not only access Amigos and Campus West but also to make a straight shot down the alley. Member O'Dell asked in his opinion, how would someone heading north on Shields get into Amigos. Mr. Shepard replied they would not be able to legally. Member O'Dell asked if it was a concern that there was a certain clientele that was passing • them by that could not get into their site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Henninger replied it was a concern from the standpoint that from their point of view it would be better to have a left turn in, from the traffic and the City's point of view it did not seem to be better to have that. They have been asked to compromise their access by eliminating the left turn which they had agreed to do. Member O'Dell stated she understood the joint access into the Campus West would be north bound only. Mr. Henninger replied they would not like that to happen. That would not be their choice Member O'Dell stated physically it looked like the only way they could do it if they wanted to keep their same parking. Mr. Henninger replied it was a trade off, if you were to eliminate the left turns, there had to be a negative impact of doing that and he saw this as the negative impact of doing that. It was difficult for people to turn left and get in there. Chairman Strom asked considering the difficulty in getting in and out of this site, did they investigate the possibility of sliding the restaurant back and getting recirculation back to the north within their site. Mr. Henninger replied they had, it tended to sacrifice some green space and bicycle racks that they needed to put somewhere. Chairman Strom stated from a functional standpoint and the effect it had on the street system and to some extent the neighborhood to the south, he had some concern about when you force people to go south when they really want to go north. Mr. Henninger replied they were weighing that against the opportunity to go ahead and make the left turn or to block the left turn lane onto Elizabeth. The situations that exist now seem to be negative and you have to weigh that against the one they were creating here and they felt this was a better situation. Chairman Strom asked about the graphic handed out and it showed a proposed right-of-way line that ran through the ID sign. Mr. Vaught replied the first dotted line was the existing right-of-way and yes, in that case, the ID sign would have to be adjusted back to the west to stay outside of the right-of-way. That was if the worst case scenario were taken. Chairman Strom asked if that was the 15 foot line Mr. Vaught replied that is what the Engineering Staff presented to them and that an additional 15 feet from the existing curb would be the worst case scenario. Mr. Shepard added that there was a requirement by Engineering that along an arterial street that we get a standard dedication for the full arterial width, although it may not be needed for any of the Choices 95 scenarios, it may be needed in the future if another project comes down the line. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 15 Mr. Vaught replied if the right-of-way line was back there, they would have to adjust the sign to the west. Member Klataske stated that in looking at the site plan, the pork chop where there was right in, right out, whatever the width of the site was to the south, there was also the double right but, why did they need a right out at the location where it was a right in? Mr. Vaught replied it was primarily for the Campus West people. It was felt that, from a standpoint of the best way their alley served this area, was for traffic to come from the west and exit to the east. It would give their trash trucks and service people a way to exit the site without having to make a U-turn and go back out to Elizabeth. Member Klataske asked if they would be crossing traffic turning right off of Shields. Mr. Vaught replied that was correct, if you were looking at the trip generation for service vehicles, he did not think you were looking at a dangerous condition. Member O'Dell asked what was down University Avenue. Mr. Shepard replied on the corner was the dental clinic, west of that was Columbine Cablevision and their parking lot, west of that was a vacant field, west of that were two apartment projects on the south side of University. On the north side of University was a . vacant lot, John the XXIII parking, then a large home which had been divided into several units. Then you get to City Park Avenue and then the Community Horticulture garden was in that area. No single family homes of a neighborhood character front directly on University. Member O'Dell asked if someone would take the route down University it would not be disruptive to a neighborhood. Mr. Shepard stated he would agree with that. Member O'Dell stated Emily Smith mentioned a grave concern, and asked Ms. Smith to clarify her concern. Ms. Smith replied that it was mostly apartment buildings that were student rentals and that there were alot of students out there throwing balls and having a good time and they use City Park Avenue as a recreation area. So there would be traffic from their cars and it was very busy at times with human activities and cars. They were part of their neighborhood too, it was not that they were not single family homes, but there are residents there. Member Carroll commented that it seemed to him this was a good project and coming to them on preliminary and not final. Because of the questions in their minds about the ultimate impact of Choices 95 on the traffic, and secondly, perhaps the impact that it might have on the Campus West Shopping Center on the corner by the mini -bank which he envisioned several possibilities, a straight north bound going through there. He envisioned some difficulty with people who would exit through that parking lot, circle around the mini -bank and try to exit on West Elizabeth on the curb cut so close to Shields. It seemed to him that the preliminary project did score 52% on auto-related/roadside chart and it definitely appeared to be more • beneficial use in all respects of the property. His inclination was that the use fits the area and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 16 his inclination was to approve it on preliminary and was not sure that he wanted the conditions to be as specific as proposed by staff. Chairman Strom asked how this related to the new sign code standards Mt. Shepard replied it depended if the use was a free standing auto -related use. Under the proposed amendments to the sign code, if this was a free standing, auto -related use in this district, it would be a maximum area per face of 32 square feet, maximum height would be 5 feet. If you were considered a neighborhood convenience shopping center, your primary sign could be 40 square feet and primary height could be 8 feet. The question becomes how to classify this. It did not neatly fall into these categories, you could see the range. What was being proposed falls in between and it was difficult to give a clear answer on that. Chairman Strom asked about this sign relating to other signs in the area. Mr. Shepard replied the approach staff took was this was not a use -by -right, it was a PUD, as such it needed to be reviewed through the LDGS which was designed to upgrade the projects one at a time as they come in on a site -by -site basis. Campus West had evolved as a commercial site since the 60's. There was a real variety of signs in Campus West mainly because they had come in different eras, pre-LDGS. Member Cottier asked about Sonic Burger's sign. Mr. Shepard replied he did not recall, he was not the project planner on that project Member Cotner asked Mr. Henninger Mr. Henninger stated the signs he looked at were Taco Bell at 15 feet, McDonald's at 12 feet, and the new post office facility there, which was approximately 15 feet and the current Texaco sign, which was 12 feet. He felt that they were all higher than 10 feet and to them theirs would be modest. Member Clements -Cooney asked if this proposal came through without the drive-thru would it be a use -by -right. Mr. Shepard replied yes Member O'Dell stated she was concerned about the drive thru and some inconsistencies. This project took points for being contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing community and regional shopping center and yet there was some dispute about what the access would be from Campus West. She had a hard time giving them the points until the questions about access were answered and for reasons of the intensity of the use. She thought that demanding cars enter and exit through Campus West in an already difficult congested situation was adding to the problem. She was not ready to support this at this point, there needed to be some changes made, one being getting rid of the drive-thru lane and that would allow a little bit more space and the circulation would be better instead of forcing people to the south side of the building. Mr. Henninger stated they had one restaurant that did not have a drive thru and they were forced to close the restaurant because of lack of sales. The drive thru was an integral part of their operation and was a necessity as far as they were concerned. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1 92 Page 17 f ,1 Member Walker'�tated they had talked about the existing situation and this certainly went along way to straighten up alot of it, but on the other hand, it intensifies the traffic use on the site. He had mixed signals, on one hand they were making improvements but also intensifying the use on the site! He was not sure if they were coming up with something that was a better situation. The nature of drive-thrus suggest more traffic on that site. Member Cottier stated that the idea of eliminating the drive-thru was a guarantee of improving circulation and she thought this was an improvement over what did exist there now. She felt comfortable supporting a preliminary approval with the condition that the right -in, right -out had to be worked out with Campus West. Obviously if that did not work out, this thing does not fly. Chairman Strom stated the key point in eliminating the drive-thru was that it allowed all the traffic some alternatives in terms of getting off the site. He thought that you see a point chart that takes points for being part of a planned center and points for joint parking and that was a big chunk of the points they need for their approval and we arc dealing with a situation where they have no idea if this was going to work after the Choices 95 decision was made. Member O'Dell asked Deputy City Attorney if a decision could be put off legally until the Choices 95 decision was made. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the applicant had come to them with a plan and • they needed to rule on it and he was troubled by conditioning it on something that you did not know about in the future. He would recommend that they look at this plan based on what was there today and not speculate on what would happen in the future. Member Carroll moved for approval of Amigos at Shields preliminary PUD with the first condition as stated by staff, the second condition he would state that at the time of consideration of the final PUD, the overall height of the free standing ground sign shall be approved at final and condition number three as it reads, condition four would state that at the time of consideration of the final PUD, the design of access and egress to the site must be resolved and affirmed which resolution and affirmation includes the form of a written agreement between Amigos and Campus West Shops to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division and this board, condition five would be amended slightly to say at the time of consideration of final PUD, the design of all access and egress must conform to the selected design criteria of Choices 95 capitol improvement project. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Chairman Strom asked Deputy City Attorney if what they were doing was conditioning this to a degree on Choices 95, what happens if Choices 95 decision got delayed and they come back in a month to two months before Choices 95 was done. Mr. Eckman replied his interpretation was that if a Choices 95 selection has been made, then it would comply with that. The design would conform to that selection, if made. He did not know what Member Carroll's intention was if a decision has not been made. Member Carroll replied if there never was any selected design criteria, if the City never • adopted any, then quite obviously the shared access and ingress would never conform to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page IS something that never exists. Assuming that the City did adopt this, it would have to conform. That was the intent of his motion. Member Walker stated that his concern was that irrespective of what happens with Choices 95, they want this kind of a situation, with the right in and right out, shared access and he did not care if there was 9 or 15 feet, he wants to see that kind of shared access. Member Carroll stated his motion included the form of the written agreement, but not just the form. That was part of the motion that they needed to see with Campus West. Mr. Vaught stated they agreed with that condition. Member O'Dell stated she would not be supporting the motion and cited the LDGS All Development Criteria 4, 27, and 35. Member Clements -Cooney added she would also not be supporting the motion and in addition to what Membcr O'Dell cited, she also added that this project should not have taken points for joint parking or being part of a planned center. She has grave concerns about the traffic in this area and there are stacking problems. Perhaps she would have been more inclined to consider this proposal if there were a median or something to alleviate some of the traffic concerns. Member Walker added that Criterion 4 talks about 50% of the points and there was some contention that being part of a planned center and joint parking and it was his interpretation that they do not meet 50% of the point chart. Member Carroll stated he would support the proposal because it is a preliminary and it seemed to him that some of the concerns he has heard would be more properly addressed to the approval or disapproval of a final of which this was not. By approving it on preliminary, with the condition about the access and egress condition that he put in the motion, did not guarantee approval to the applicant on final. If they do find out that the access and egress plan presented did create a bad traffic situation on Shields, they could disapprove it. If the traffic plan did not include Campus West, they could disapprove it. Member Collier commented that it was legitimate that they get points for being part of a planned center and joint parking based on the way the criterion is defined in the Guidance System. On other projects they had raised the same question, just by virtue of having an access point connecting two parking lots, they get credit for joint parking. She questioned whether practically there would be much joint parking but the way the Guidance System is written and the way it had been interpreted for other projects, this was legitimate. The other thing she wanted to comment on was on temporary window signage and we have placed similar conditions on projects in the past. This was something they were moving toward and she thought they would see temporary window signage decreasing. Chairman Strom stated he was not supporting the motion for the reasons of the Criteria mentioned. He thought it was a reasonable use for the property, but has too many problems with circulation and access to meet his idea of what the criteria and guidelines say. He thought that given the problems with it, it was best to deal with it now and not give the false impression that they thought it was going to be resolved easily going into final. He might be • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 28, 1992 Page 19 inclined to entertaining a tabling motion, but if faced with this particular motion, he would not support it. Motion for approval failed 4-3 with Members O'Dell, Strom, Walker and Clements -Cooney in the negative. Other Business Mr. Peterson stated that they had one more item, the request to extend development agreements until the regular October 19th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the following applications, that for a variety of reasons, have not been executed to date, although staff was making substantial progress in the backlog. The application were: 1.Fort Collins Second and the Villages at Harmony West, Lot One, Final. 2.Fort Collins Truck Sales PUD, Preliminary and Final. 3.The Upper Meadows at Miramont PUD, Preliminary and Final. 4.The Park South Replat, Final 5.The Potts PUD, Final. In addition, the applicant for Huntington Hills has requested an additional two months to complete the standard condition and suggested the wording for that be changed to require execution of the development agreement, final plans and final plat prior to the November 16th • regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Carroll moved approval of the modifications of conditions for approval as presented. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. RECONSIDERATION OF AMIGOS AT SHIELDS PRELIMINARY P.U.D. Mr. Vaught stated that they were unaware that the failed motion for approval, constituted denial and would certainly rather that they table this, which at the next meeting would be after Choices 95 would be presented to Council and maybe there would be a more clear cut direction they could have. They would certainly prefer a tabling over denial. They would urge them to reconsider. Member Strom moved to reconsider the Amigos at Shields PUD. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative. Member Carroll moved to table indefinitely. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with Members Walker and Clements -Cooney voting in the negative. The meeting was adjourned until October 5th (at 6:30 p.m.) at 9:13 p.m. •