HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/24/1991• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
JUNE 24, 1991 MEETING
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council
Chamber of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members
present included Chairman Jim Klataske, Vice -Chair Bernie Strom, Joseph Carroll, Jr., Laurie
O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, and Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Ted
Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, City Attorney Steve Roy, and Kayla Ballard.
Mr. Peterson gave a description of the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item
1 - #52-79E, Rossborough Subdivision 5th Filing Final; Item 2 - #50-85B, Fort Collins Salad
Company PUD at The Pavilion Final; Item 3- #30-83D, Helmshire House I1 PUD Preliminary
and Final; Item 4-#27-91,Flutterby Preschool PUD Preliminary and Final; Item 5-#15-91A,
Sun Disk Village Subdivision Final Replat; Item 6 - #23-90C, Burns Ranch at Quail Ridge RF
Review Final; Item 7- #26-9 1, Pedersen Toyota Volvo Saab PUD Preliminary and Final, which
was pulled from Consent for discussion; Item 8 - #38-90B, Overland Hills Subdivision, First
Filing Final which was continued to the July meeting; Item 9-#99-79C,Medical Center of Fort
Collins PUD Final; Item 10 - #3-90C, Villages at Harmony West PUD Amended Master Plan;
Item 11-#3-90B,The Platt Property PUD Preliminary; Item 12- #25-91A, Service Center 5th
Annexation and Zoning; Item 13-#78-88C,Horsetooth East Business Park Rezoning; Item 14 -
Resolution #PZ91-9 Vacation of Emergency Access Easement at Creekside at The Landings;
Item 15 -Resolution #PZ91-10 Vacation of Utility Easement at the Replat of Fairway 5 Estates
PUD at Southridge Greens which was continued to the July meeting; and Item 16 -Resolution
PZ91-11 Vacation of Utility Easement at Foothills Apartments PUD which was continued to
14 the July meeting. The Discussion Agenda consisted of: Item 17-#37-90,East Side/West Side
Rezonings; Item 18 - #28-91, Amendments to Chapter 29 of the City Code Relating to the
Hazardous Materials Risk Reduction Program; Item 19- #23-83C, Toys "It" Us/Western Auto
PUD Final; Item 20 - #112-79N, Four Seasons Subdivision 8th Filing Preliminary and Final;
Item 21-#4-83M,Hickory Hill Village at Cunningham Corners PUD Tract G Final; Item 22 -
#55-87C, The Gates at Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD Final, and; Item 23 - #55-87D, The
Overlook at Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD Final.
Mr. Peterson stated that Item #19, Toys "R" Us, would be moved to the bottom of the agenda
due to Items 20, 21, 22 and 23 having staff issues resolved.
Mr. Peterson gave a description of the administrative change request for Builders Square at
Harmony Market PUD, which was under Other Business.
Chairman Klataske asked if there was any Board member that wished to pull an item from the
Consent Agenda.
Member O'Dell asked that Item #2, Fort Collins Salad Company PUD at The Pavilion Final be
pulled for discussion.
Chairman Klataske asked if there was any of from the audience that wished to pull an item
from the Consent Agenda for additional discussion.
Mr. R.D. Laken requested that Item #12, Service Center 5th Annexation and Zoning be pulled
for further discussion.
1
Ms. Dinkelman also requested that Item #12 be pulled for discussion.
Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0.
FORT COLLINS SALAD COMPANY PUD AT THE PAVILION -FINAL -Case #50-85B
Member O'Dell stated that she had concerns with development of the pads and facing the back
of the building into the Center. She stated that in this case, as was with the Black Eye Pea
Restaurant, she understood why the applicant wanted it that way when most of the traffic is
access from College Avenue and that they would want the signs and the entrance in the interest
of the building on College Avenue. But in this case, when JFK Parkway is built, a lot of people
will access the Center from the east side, where no signs for this building would be seen. She
asked if any consideration had been given to adding some interest and moving one of the signs
further back onto the building so it would be part of the Center rather than just a strip of
restaurants on College Avenue.
Ted Shepard, project planner, asked Member O'Dell if she had concerns with the view from
Troutman.
Member O'Dell stated that she had concerns with the view from Lionel PlayWorld.
Mr. Shepard stated that staff had struggled with this. He stated that when there is a pad site,
a building is basically designed with four fronts. The service side has to be on one of the
fronts. What the applicant tried to accomplish was screening the trash enclosure, the
transformer, and minimize the impact as much as possible. He stated that Member O'Dell was
correct in that there does have to be one service side and that was the least objectionable
alternative with putting it on the east side. He stated that they assumed there was more traffic
on College Avenue than on the internal circulation drive for the shopping center.
Member O'Dell stated that it appeared the landscaping was adequate in the back and it would
be screened but she believed there could be innovative ways to deal with this so a lot of backs
of buildings would be seen.
Mr. Shepard stated that pad sites were very popular and would be coming in in the future. He
stated that staff should take a good look on how to design the four fronts.
Member Walker moved to approve Fort Collins Salad Company PUD at The Pavilion Final.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0.
PEDERSEN TOYOTA VOLVO SAAB PUD -PRELIMINARY AND FINAL -Case #26-91
Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that the project scored
58% on the Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial point chart. She stated that there was no
neighborhood meeting for this project because South College Avenue to Prospect Road has been
defined as a community regional shopping center and an auto use had been deemed compatible
with the surrounding area. She briefly discussed the proposed landscaping, building materials,
signage package.
2
Member Carroll asked if the display areas that was parallel to College Avenue in front of the
planted islands would be elevated and if there would be additional landscaping in front of
those display areas.
Ms. Whetstone replied that they would not be elevated and that there would be spirea planted
in front of the display areas.
Dana Lockwood, architect/planner for this project, stated that Pedersen Toyota Volvo was
currently doing business as Colorado Import Motors but have outgrown their current facility.
He discussed the history of this business, their current and proposed location, how this new
facility will be constructed and maintained, accesses in and out of this site, customer and
employee parking, signage, lighting, and the landscape plan. He stated that there was some
confusion as to whether the landscape strip along the parking area on College and Kensington
would buffer the cars. He stated that part of that confusion was that there was one plant
material which was a ground cover. That particular plant material was located in one area
which would be in front of one of the display areas along College Avenue but would be backed
up by additional plant material that grows to a maximum of two feet in height. He briefly
discussed the exterior building materials and colors. He stated that staff had recommended
approval for the project and hoped that the Board would do the same.
Member Strom commented that with his experience with Blue Mist Spirea is that it rarely gets
above three feet high and would be surprised if they reached five feet as the landscape plan
indicated. He stated that he was concerned about placing a car between landscaped islands
which provide the break-up of a row of cars along the frontage and College. He stated that the
landscaping was done very well but was concerned about the constant row of cars from the
north side of the site to the south side.
Member Cottier stated that she had concerns about the landscaping of the interior of the north
parking lot and no landscaping breaking up the expansion of cars. She asked if there was a
possibility of adding an island in that area.
Ms. Whetstone stated that staff reviewed this area and concluded that it was a low -interest area.
Discussions were held regarding this and more trees could be placed where the applicant
wouldn't lose parking spaces.
Member Cottier stated that she had the same concerns as Member Strom in regards to the long,
unbroken row of cars.
Mr. Lockwood explained that a typical landscaped island would be 8 feet wide by 19 feet long.
This would represent about 152 square feet of landscaped area. He stated that they tried to
increase some of the interior landscape, as well as break up the repetition of cars along College
Avenue, and still display some vehicles. He stated that by turning the island parallel to the
curb, an island could be installed that was 10 feet by 20 feet and increase the overall
landscaping that would break up the row of cars. This proposal would expose the island to the
street and break up the row of vehicles. He added that there would be no potential for the
owner of this site to park vehicles in the landscaped area.
Member Walker asked what would happen if the car and landscaped island were reversed.
Mr. Lockwood stated that this was discussed with staff and it was decided that if this concept
was not acceptable, then the applicant would go to the typical `island situation, which, he
believed, would not be as aesthetic as the proposed plan.
0 3
Member Gorman asked what the applicant would do with an excess of inventory.
Mr. Lockwood replied that he called the Poudre Fire Authority to see if there would be a
problem with parallel parking the excess cars along the building on the west side. He stated
that the Fire Marshall replied that there would be no problem with this. A copy of the letter
has been sent to Ms. Whetstone.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Pedersen Toyota Volvo Saab Preliminary and Final. She
commented that it was well landscaped and believed that it was an attractive site. Member
Strom seconded the motion.
Member Cottier commented that the landscaping plan was far superior to a lot that the Board
has reviewed. She believed that a few trees added to the north part of the lot would add to the
overall image given off by the asphalt to the north.
Member Strom commented that he was still a little concerned with the frontage but was
interested to see how it turns out because it is different than anything that the Board has
reviewed before. He stated that the overall landscaping was very well done.
The motion to approve passed 7-0.
SERVICE CENTER STH -ANNEXATION AND ZONING-#25-91A
Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed annexation and zoning. She stated that
the City was the owner of the property and that this was a 100% voluntary annexation. The
property was commonly known as the Milligan Lumber yard. The City purchased this property
in 1991 for future expansion of the Wood Street Service Center. The property was currently
zoned I -Industrial in the County. The requested zoning RC, River Corridor, was in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there were no current plans
for the existing structure that was on the property. She added that the Service Center will, in
the long term, be expanding their services to this property. Currently, this property meets the
1/6 contiguity for state requirements for an annexation.
Member Carroll asked if annexing this property would influence the use of the property.
Mr. Peterson replied that this would not influence the use of the property.
Ms. Dinkelman, 620 Park Street, stated that, on numerous occasions, she has called the Police
Department during the night because there would be trucks running their engines for a long
period of time. She stated that this was a noise pollution and dust pollution issue. She stated
that two weeks ago she was told that a lilac catch for the dust would be planted. She stated
that a lilac hedge would not catch the dust the enters the adjacent neighborhood. She stated
that the lights from the trucks would shine into the house's windows. She stated that when she
bought the property in 1958, it was zoned Industrial but the lumber yard across the street
conformed to operating hours of 7 am to 7 pm. On the other side of the property, she had an
orchard and a meadow. She had a nice view. She asked if the buildings were going to be kept.
She believed that there was drug trafficking in the empty buildings and people sleeping in the
buildings. She stated that the week of June 4, the Police Department practiced shooting that
was very loud. She stated that she has written letters to the mayor and the Police Chief
complaining about this property.
4
Chairman Klataske asked Ms. Whetstone what was the current use of this property.
Ms. Whetstone stated that the property was zoned Industrial in the County which would allow
truck parking. She stated that the Light and Power Department would move into this area in
the long term but presently they use the property for parking and possibly a few other
purposes. This annexation will be going to City Council for First Reading on July 2 with the
Second Reading going on July 9. She added that since it is 100% voluntary annexation of City
owned property, the City may annex without a public hearing. As far as she knew, the City
Clerk's office has not sent notification of the hearing because there is no development planned
for the property.
Ms. Dinkelman asked that if an area was zoned Industrial and was next to residential zoning,
shouldn't there be a buffer zone?
Mr. Peterson stated that the appropriate form for comment would be at the City Council
meeting on July 2. He stated that this was not the first annexation that has come before the
Board on the Service Center where a number of citizens complained about the lighting of the
back building and how it was operated. Some changes were made because of these complaints.
However, the questions of operation and the long term future of that tract are policy related
questions that City Council should answer. The Streets Department is currently going through
the public process as directed by City Council to move the entire operation to the old sugar beet
factory on Vine Drive. The Streets Department would eventually move off -site to the sugar
beet factory and the Utilities Department would remain and expand in this proposed site. The
department has not seen any development plans. The planning could be done through a PUD
review process so the neighborhood would have the opportunity to examine what would be
proposed. Otherwise, there would be limited opportunities for any type of public review.
• Member Walker asked that since this was being annexed into the RC zone, would certain uses
such as the parking of trucks be allowed.
Mr. Peterson stated that under the RC zone, both parking lots and parking garages were
permitted uses. Normally, a typical applicant would have to go through a planning review
process. There were also light industrial uses that were appropriate in that zone and the PUD
process was available.
Member Walker asked if the City would have to go through that review process also.
Mr. Peterson stated that the City has done both. Most recently City Council had directed the
Streets Department to go through the review process with the sugar beet factory. In other
instances in the past, such as the parking expansion next to the service center, applicants have
gone through the review process. Historically, there have been other city facilities that have
not gone through a review process.
Member Walker stated that the City has, as a planning tool, preached mixed use development
with buffering to mitigate between different uses and he believed that this was a good case in
point. If this were a PUD and had a development on it, the Board would be concerned about
these two different land uses and how they could be mitigated.
Mr. Peterson suggested that the Board consider attaching a comment such as Member Walker's
to any recommendation they make to City Council.
5
Mr. R.D. Laken, 405 Scott Street, stated that he was a landlord in the area and that he has tried
to make nice arrangements for tenants for 13 years. He concurred with Member Walker in that
there was a difference in the use of the land in that area. He believed that the project planner
should be given more time to discuss issues with the property owners. He stated that there were
a lot of uses with that land that are being utilized now that won't be available once it is a
parking lot for city equipment. He believed that those kind of problems needed to be respected
as well as the need to place equipment and to drive trucks through. He believed that the Board
was being sensitive to this issue but he believed that they needed to come to terms with what
it means to be put out. The environment that you thought was your home was something
different. He believed that these problems need to be reviewed carefully and still take all those
issues into balance. The citizens concerned need to feel that they have participated in the
process. He recommended that they extend their planning far enough so that the project
planner can place into the context of her decisions, her recommendations, what would be done
with the whole corridor all the way to Shields Street. He added that everyone should get
together as people, not as an argumentation and a legal hassle, to see if it can be resolved and
keep a perimeter on how the discussion would be handled.
Mr. Charles Nauter, 832 Wood Street, stated that the last two properties that the City purchased
on Wood Street both have hazardous materials stored on them. He asked if these properties
were zoned RC.
Mr. Peterson stated that he was not aware of the situation that went into the land purchase for
the Bowman property. He stated that he was aware that with the proposed annexation, there
was a question of hazardous materials that had to be worked out before the purchase was
consummated. He understood that this was resolved.
Mr. Nauter asked if, under RC zoning, can the City put hazardous material on the proposed
property.
Mr. Peterson stated that they can not. The City is required to meet certain standards for
storage of hazardous materials.
Mr. Roy stated that this was not a question of whether it was a permitted use within the zone
but what regulation has been adopted recently by ordinance with regard to the storage of
hazardous materials in any zone with regard to any permitted use where those kinds of
materials might be handled.
Mr. Peterson asked Warren Jones, Poudre Fire Authority Fire Marshall, to elaborate on the
status of hazardous materials in terms of regulation under the fire code.
Warren Jones stated that the only city regulations dealing with the storage of any kind of
hazardous materials are in the fire code which has specific requirements about how far from
property line, quantity, the height of piles, etc. They are somewhat related to different kinds
of industrial uses which would be allowed in a particular zone. For instance, storage of
hazardous materials, flammable liquids, are not a use of a residential area. In an area such as
this where there are mixed, older existing commercial industrial type of uses that exist in this
area, is a little more difficult to get a hold of. He stated that he was not aware of anything on
the proposed site that would be considered hazardous materials such as toxics.
Chairman Klataske asked if the City would be exempt from any requirements for storing
hazardous materials.
R
Mr. Jones stated that the City would not be exempt.
Mr. Roy stated that there have been a couple of recent cases on this point but stated that he
would have to get back with the Board as to whether the City was required to follow its own
zoning ordinances, irrespective of whether its acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity
and whether its bound to follow all of its police power kinds of regulations. He stated that
they would advise City Council of all the issues that have been raised tonight since they are
likely to be raised again on the July 2 Council meeting.
Member Walker commented that what has been discussed tonight was a good case of the City
being more sensitive of the development that they pursue. There are certain reasons why
government entities can not follow their own rules and at times may be practical. He stated
that with a situation such as this, he would recommend that the City proceed with this as if it
were any other industrial user and recognize the fact that they are adjacent to existing
residential areas. By the City's owned code, while promoting mixed use, the City was also
stating that differences in adjacent land uses have to be mitigated. Member Walker made a
motion to approve the Service Center 5th Annexation and Zoning with the recommendation that
the City go through the processes of mitigating the differences in land uses between this
property and the adjacent properties. Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Gorman asked Mr. Peterson if this is zoned to RC, would the City have to come before
the Board under the PUD process for any future use.
Mr. Peterson stated that if City Council required a future service center expansion to go
through the same procedure as the new Streets Department relocation, then that would be a
PUD review through the Planning and Zoning Board. The RC zone has options. One is the
administrative review track which has standards for certain types of uses, such as parks and
Is playgrounds that have to meet certain performance standards.
Member Carroll stated that he would support the annexation but in supporting it, that doesn't,
in any way, signify that he would support any type of activity that goes on be it good or bad.
The only question that is being presented tonight is should this land, which is owned by the
City, be annexed into the City of Fort Collins or should it remain in Larimer County. He stated
that he could not determine any reason why the Board would not want the property within the
City limits. He believed that annexing this property into the city limits would only be good
because the City would have more control over it. If the Board were approving or disapproving
a certain use for this property, there would be more discussion.
The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0.
Mr. Roy stated that in Estes Park there was a proposed parking lot and the question was did
the city have to follow its own zoning ordinances. The Supreme Court, in 1984, said that unless
the city took action to exempt itself, then it would be obligated to follow its own zoning
ordinances. But like other public entities, state statute provides that municipalities and other
public entities can be exempted, and should be exempted, from zoning ordinances if the local
board of adjustment makes a finding that the present or proposed situation of the building or
the structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. If that
showing is made, then and only then, does the proposed municipal use become exempt from the
application of local zoning ordinances. Otherwise, they do apply.
•
EAST SIDE/WEST SIDE REZONINGS -Case 037-
Member Cottier abstained from discussion and voting of this proposed rezoning due to a
potential conflict.
Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed rezonings as stated in the Staff Report. He
stated that the Riverside Avenue area should be zoned B-L,Limited Business, Zoning District.
He stated that the property owners were against a change to the C-Commercial zoning, however,
something needed to be done to "clean up" the area. He cited eight options available for
consideration by the Board regarding the rezoning of Riverside Avenue Area with the staff
recommendation of Option 7 which stated that rezoning the area to a new C-L, Limited
Commercial zone. He stated that the purpose of the zone was to provide for areas of
commercial uses, automobile -oriented businesses which usually contain outdoor display or
storage of vehicles and service uses. He stated that the landscape requirements were same as
contained in the B-Lzone. He added that the site plan requirements would be allowed in the
zone provided the Planning Director approved the site plan. He continued that on Page 9 of
the Staff Report, paragraph 3, third sentence, it should read "to All Development Criteria
Activity A Sec. 29-526, and any.... "
Mr. Waido stated that staff had received a letter from Mr. John Huijsen, an attorney who was
representing several property owners and business operators on Riverside Avenue. The letter
presented three proposals to the C-L zone which consisted of the following:
1. That all existing uses shall continue to be the types of permitted uses which are
permitted throughout the district.
2. Commercial uses shall be separated from abutting residential land uses by a solid
fence or wall at least six feet in height, complying with the requirements of Section 29-
511 and such use shall comply with the landscaping requirements set forth in Section
29-493. Such fencing and landscaping requirements shall be accomplished in
conjunction with any change in use.
3. Additional permitted uses shall include those permitted at 426-428 Maple Street.
(A copy of the letter is attached to the minutes.)
Mr. Waido suggested that, in regards to proposal 02,specific standards for landscaping not be
reviewed, such as are in the Parking Code. He recommended that it remain the way it operates
in the B-L zone. He believed that since there are some odd geometrically shaped properties
along Riverside, standards would create a problem and would create another "hoop" that the
properties would have to go through in order to have a use approved.
Mr. John Huijsen, 318 Canyon, stated that there was a number of property owners who were
interested in what the proposed C-L zone means. He stated that concerns of the property
owners was the issue about Riverside and protecting a surrounding residential neighborhood
from an encroachment or uses which are commercial. He stated that there were no surrounding
commercial uses by residences. In the proposed B-L zone of the East Side Plan, there would not
be residential in that zone. In the C-L zone, there were residential uses which are being
provided which were not provided in the East Side Plan. There was a mixing of residential
uses and interests within the C-L zone which were not anticipated and the idea seemed to be
that they were surrounding the various businesses and, for some reason, there has to be extra
care and protection provided so these two activities may exist. This would also cause small
• businesses to suffer in some respect when the laws are very irregular. He stated that there is
no criteria which described what had to be placed in a landscape plan to make it acceptable
unless there was a parking lot. He stated that there was some uncertainty about landscaping
and fencing which was because when you try to follow it through and figure out what it means,
then there would be a conclusion that it means that if you need a parking lot, and if you need
landscaping, and if you need a fence, and if you don't need a parking lot, then you still do need
a six foot high fence.
Mr. Huisjen continued by stating that the property owners that have a C-commercial use now
would be giving up 42% of their existing C-Commercial uses. Some of those were being replace
by other uses such as sororities and fraternities. The exchange of what was being given up by
those property owners and what was anticipated by the East Side Plan was not a clean
exchange. The property owners have made a proposal in regards to the uses -by -right which
would be acceptable. The question now has to do with landscaping. In conclusion, he
recommended that the Board approve this with the C-Lzone with the deletion of the ambiguous
requirement regarding landscaping and clarify it by providing that the landscaping
requirement will be required when there is a parking lot.
Tom Myland, owner of Import Auto Sales & Service at 407 Riverside, stated that he would like
this area left as it was. He stated that the fencing requirement states that a fence should be
at a 75 foot radius from the center line to the street and some of the properties in this area are
not 75 feet deep. He added that when he did his property on Riverside, they did not have any
conflict with Mr. Buchannan of the City Forestry Department as far as landscaping was
concerned. The character of the neighborhood has changed but has changed for the better and
has changed on its own, not because of rules and regulations and restrictions placed on the
properties. Some property owners would be burdened with some of these requirements and it
• would create a hardship on them. He suggested that the neighborhood be left as it is but if not,
follow the proposals that Mr. Huisjen presented.
Gerald Bensen, owner of AA Auto Wash at 835 Riverside, stated that there have been numerous
property owners that have come forth stating that they do not want these changes. He stated
that there were places in the residential area that were run down with three foot high weeds,
not being lived. He asked what was the commercial area suppose to be "protecting?" He stated
that they do not want to see the area torn up but there can not be a lot of landscaping imposed
upon an area that doesn't have the room to do it. He asked why there was no landscaping
requirements on the Kennedy property when he is surrounded by residential and the business
operators on Riverside have residential on one side. He stated that he did not want to see
neither the residential or business areas run down but he believed that the way it was being
proposed was not the right way. He believed that there were too many restrictions imposed on
the businesses.
Chris Zell, 3665 JFK Parkway, had concerns about the way the planning process was set up.
This plan was finally brought forth and adopted in 1986 and now the precepts of that plan
were trying to be adopted as though it were written in stone. There was a lot of input from the
people who lives would be significantly impacted. He believed that the C-L zone was a good
attempt at trying to come up with things that wouldn't impact the area. He encouraged the
Board to search their hearts and minds before placing this into force of law.
Dennis Houska, owner of Houska Garage at 899 Riverside, did not believe that the landscaping
requirements were needed and was an unnecessary point. He stated that he was disappointed
0 9
in the procedure where the City Planner presented a plan that the area people had thought had
gone through worksessions. The neighborhood was unprepared to contest a change. After the
discussion was over and the plan rejected, there was no discussion from the property owners.
Member Carroll stated that the landscape requirements have been deliberately left
unstructured. He stated that, by the same token, the buffering where the residential and
commercial were separated, was basically requiring that this would be a six foot fence. He
asked why that was not left, in some form, stating buffering or fencing as appropriate.
Mr. Waido stated that the six foot fence requirement was derived directly from the B-L zone
in the code. He stated that whoever devised the code in 1965 believed that a six foot fence
created compatibility between a commercial and abutting residential properties. He understood
that there were alternative ways to review buffering and screening uses from each other but
they were trying to make this extremely simple.
Member Strom commented that the landscape requirements have no effect whatsoever on the
existing uses. There was no requirement that an existing use submit a landscape plan. This was
only if the use would change. He was inclined to favor the existing language which would
allow flexibility to design the landscape to suit the particular situation.
Member Klataske concurred with Member Strom. He asked if there would be the flexibility
where it would not exceed 42 inches where the fencing may extend into the area of a vision
triangle.
Mr. Waido stated that Section 29-511-3states that in g)f districts fences should not exceed 42
inches in height when located within 75 feet of a centerline intersection of two streets. He
believed that this particular cause would apply for those properties would circumvent the six
foot requirement for those fences that fall in that particular area. This would apply only
between residential and commercial properties.
Member O'Dell commented that, in regards to the uninhabited homes adjacent to Mr. Benson's
business, if there had been better buffering and fencing would people still want to live there.
She believed that this was the kind of situation the Board was trying to avoid in the future.
She also believed that what staff came up with in this zoning proposal might have protected
those homes enough so people would still have wanted to reside there.
Member Walker commented that what has been demonstrated over the past few months was that
they were moving from the strict interpretation of the East Side zone to try and meet the spirit
of it through this process. He believed that the process that they have gone through in
developing this C-L zone had added that flexibility and worked for both sides.
Mr. Waido stated that if there was still concern about ambiguity in fencing requirements, the
wording could be changed to say "solid wall or fence at least six feet in height" referencing 29-
511. This would clarify the issue and it could be changed in the B-L zone that has the similar
wording.
Member Strom asked Mr. Waido what would be the interpretation of a site that the owner
believed a six foot fence was not appropriate for the property.
Mr. Waido stated that, since this was a zoning requirement in the code, any variance to that
requirement would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The property owner would have
10
. to prove a hardship case as to why that particular property, through whatever circumstances
exist on that property, were above and beyond the call of duty for the property to have a six
foot fence along the property line.
Mr. Roy stated that there was some criteria under the LDGS where the responsibility for
granting the variance was with this Board but when dealing with a zoning district and a use -
by -right or a condition opposed that is not under the LDGS, then the request for the variance
would be placed before the ZBA. The kinds of hardships that the ZBA reviews are often
topographical and with the reference to the irregular shape of lots in this area, those are the
kinds of things that could be presented on a case -by -case basis to the ZBA.
Member Carroll commented that City procedures require that decisions be made in open public
meetings where everyone has an opportunity to speak. The Board could, if City procedures
permitted, meet in a worksession with staff and make their decisions then which would then
be published. But this was not appropriate. He believed that the meeting that Mr. Waido had
with the neighborhood showed that the Board doesn't prejudge these issues and, in this
particular case, the Board believed that this plan needed additional work. The City's
procedures are set in the operating by-laws and is not set up to deprive the public the
opportunity to speak.
Member Walker moved to approve the rezoning request to zone a portion of Riverside from C-
Commercial to C-L,Limited Commercial Zoning District and added auto rentals to the list of
uses -by -right. Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell asked Member Walker if it was his desire to leave in the phrase about auto
repair being conducted inside of a building.
• Member Walker stated that he desired to leave in that phrase.
The motion to approve passed 6-0.
Member Cottier rejoined the Board at this time.
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this was a culmination of over a year's
worth of work. He stated that this request was for the amendment of the LDGS and the I-L
and I-P performance standards to include requirements for the review of hazardous materials
in development proposals.
Warren Jones, Poudre Fire Authority Fire Marshal, stated that there have been many public
meetings and hearings on this issue and had discussed this with the Board on two separate
occasions. He stated that the issue he was concerned about was the issue of dealing with
hazardous materials from a land use planning perspective.
Member Klataske asked how changes in use of an existing property are monitored.
Mr. Jones stated that there were several different ways in dealing with changes of use of
different kinds of buildings and facilities. One of the ways was when a building needed to
have a building permit issued for renovation or a change, it would be caught at that point.
There was also a long standing fire prevention program where the firefighters enter all the
different businesses in their jurisdiction periodically.
Member Strom moved to approve the revisions/amendments to Chapter 29-1,29-368,29-526as
proposed. Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Member Strom commented that this was a step forward and that the public and public agencies
have come a long way in the last few years in terms of hazardous materials management. He
was pleased to see the Fire Authority and the City working in that direction.
The motion to approve passed 7-0.
Mr. Peterson stated that this project was found in the LDGS Audit that was adopted November
1990. He added that this represents another milestone in completing this project.
FOUR SEASONS SUBDIVISION 8TH FILING. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL -Case *I 12-79N
Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. He added that he received a letter
from the Four Seasons Master Homeowners' Association which gave points of conflict that
existed at the beginning of the process. He stated that the letter was a letter of endorsement
pointing out to the Board that the issues have been resolved and that the association was on
record of supporting the project.
Larry O'Dau, developer of the project, stated that the 8.1 acres would become part of the
Masters Homeowners' Association upon platting and they have agreed with the homeowners as
to the landscaping of the water retention area and of adding the bike path.
Member Strom asked if the drainage people and the parks people were in agreement with the
landscaping proposals.
Mr. Shepard stated that this was correct.
Ruth Burrier, homeowners' association board member, stated that their concerns were resolved
and that they were satisfied with the proposal.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Four Seasons Sth Filing Subdivision. Member Strom seconded
the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
HICKORY HILL VILLAGE AT CUNNINGHAM CORNER PUD, TRACT G. FINAL -Case
*4-83M
Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. She stated that there were
conditions on preliminary approval which have been met with the final. There was a condition
concerning site distance easement on Windmill Drive which has been reviewed and has been
met. There were also conditions concerning storm drainage which have also been addressed.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects and representative of Shields Street Corporation, stated
that all four conditions placed on the preliminary have been met. He stated that he would be
happy to answer any questions that the Board may have.
12
• Member Strom asked for a brief discussion of how the maintenance was being handled.
Mr. Peterson replied that the First Interstate Bank would maintain the storm water detention
ponds since it is on their property. He stated that it would not be a city facility.
Member Cottier asked if there was assurance from First Interstate that they would maintain
the pond because they have not maintained it in the past.
Mr. Peterson stated that they have not maintained it in the past because they did not own it in
the past.
Member Cotner made a motion to approve Hickory Hill Village PUD Final. She commented
that she was glad to see that it was worked out and she believed that, with no neighborhood
residents to speak tonight, that the neighborhood would be satisfied with the maintenance of
the pond. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD -FINAL -Case 455-87C
THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD -FINAL -Case #55-87D
Ted Shepard gave descriptions of both proposed projects. He stated that at preliminary, the
Board placed two conditions which, at that time, was one PUD that covered both filings. The
conditions related to the viability of the common areas and the ability of the homeowners'
association to maintain those areas. Staff examined the final, the assurances of the developer,
the site and landscape covenants have been modified to address the medians in Harmony Road,
and the enforcement mechanisms in the city code give staff the assurance that the conditions
have been met. He presented, for the record, a letter that was received from the water district.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design and representative of WoodCraft Homes, stated that the
conditions of the preliminary have been met and other issues that came up through Final
Review have all been resolved.
Mr. Shepard cited a letter that was received from the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District and
signed by Michael Ditullio which read:
"The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District submits the following comments for the
abovementioned project for the public record.
The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District owns and operates and maintains an existing
water line in private easement located in the abovementioned project. The water line
is the main distribution loop in the district's water transmission system. The district
respectfully requests that all planning, zoning and design elements design accommodate
the existing easement and water line with regard to access, ease of maintenance and
repair, and potential damage should the line break. The district is willing to allow
relocation of the water line where the existing location is not conducive to the
development provided all district requirements are satisfied, coordinated appropriately,
and at the developer's expense.
The district will require that any relocation be installed in accordance with the district
standards specifications for water distribution systems."
(A copy of the letter is attached to the minutes.)
13
Chairman Klataske asked if it would be necessary at any point throughout the line's present
location to be relocated.
Mr. Shepard stated that there would a slight relocation that would occur toward the northern
end of the Gates project.
Member O'Dell asked for clarification of where the water line was located throughout the site.
Mr. Ward stated that the water line ran north/south through the site where the street alignment
and the future greenbelt will be. He stated that rather than rigidly designing the subdivision
around the water line, the water line would jog between certain lots and back to the existing
alignment or, if it had to stay under streets the entire length, it would wrap around. They have
had on -going discussions with the water district and it was agreed that it would stay in the
street and that the district would participate. But Mr. Ditullio's letter indicated that the
relocation would be at the developer's expense.
Member O'Dell asked what would happen if, after this area is developed in the greenbelt area,
there was a problem or leak with the water line. Who would be responsible for repairing the
line and replacing the landscaping?
Mr. Ward stated that the water district standards states that the district would be responsible
for repairing it unless the leak was a result of someone else's negligence. There would be some
limits for replacement of trees and large shrubs within that 15 foot corridor.
Member Walker asked if, given the water line situation, the Board needed to put in some
language to the effect that the water line issue needs to be clarified in the motion.
Mr. Shepard stated that the Board would be taking action on the land use. He stated that to
mandate an agreement between two parties would be difficult. He stated that he would
discourage the Board to put language into their decision to address this issue.
Mr. Peterson stated that before this development could proceed, the district would have to
execute the utility plans so the issue would have to be resolved again before the plats could be
filed. This is the standard operating procedure.
Member Strom moved to approve The Gates at Woodridge PUD Final. Member O'Dell seconded
the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
Member Cottier moved to approve The Overlook at Woodridge PUD Final. Member Strom
seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
TOYS "R" US/WESTERN AUTO PUD -FINAL -Case #23-C
Steve Olt gave a description of the request stating that this was a request for two separate uses,
one being auto related and the other general retail, which was located on 10.33 acres. The two
acres. The two buildings totaled 60,863 square feet with Toys "R" Us being 45,487 square feet
and Western Auto being 15,376 square feet. He stated that the property was located 1/3 mile
south of Horsetooth Road, on the east side of South College Avenue and was zoned H-B
Highway Business. He stated that the Toys "R" Us/Western Auto PUD Preliminary was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 20, 1991 with the following condition that
14
the staff work with the applicant to increase the site sizes to allow for more intensity for
screening, better setbacks along Bockman Drive, and possibly change the garage door along
College to face inward to the site. Overall the proposed land uses, site design to include
parking, buffering, landscaping, do appear to be more than sufficient. The basis for the
condition centered around the following four primary concerns of the Board: 1) That Mitchell
Drive should be located further to the east than shown, possibly continuing on a straighter
alignment; 2) that the setback of Toys "R" Us from Bockman Drive, should be increased; 3) that
the service bays on Western Auto should be reoriented from South College Avenue to Mitchell
Drive, and; 4) the orientation of Toys "R" Us building creates a service entrance appearance
to future JFK Parkway. The setback distance and screening and landscaping should be
reconsidered. He stated that the applicant had responded to these concerns and modifications
have been made on the final PUD plan.
Mr. Olt continued by stating that Western Auto had been reoriented and since the preliminary
PUD was approved, the six auto service bays with the twelve foot high overhead door will face
Mitchell Drive instead of South College Avenue. He showed on the site plan how the
modifications to the service bays have been made. In accordance with this reorientation of
Western Auto, Mitchell Drive has been shifted fifteen feet to the east. The south building wall
of Toys "R" Us facing Bockman Drive will now be 34 feet from the curb line of the street. The
setback distance has been increased by 16 feet over what was proposed on the preliminary PUD.
He stated that street trees have been added to the landscape buffer in accordance with this
additional setback. The width of the landscape buffer along JFK Parkway to the east behind
Toys "R" Us has been increased by 5 feet with additional plant materials and berming in that
area. A ten foot high masonry screen wall has been proposed with base planting and additional
landscaping to mitigate the truck loading area.
Mr. Olt stated that both uses have submitted their plans to the City for review and they both
exceed the Energy Conservation criteria required by City Code. This request conformed to the
approved Toys "R" Us/Western Auto Preliminary PUD with the one condition that the staff
work with the applicant to increase the site sizes to allow for more intensity for screening,
better setbacks along Bockman, and possibly changing of the garage doors along College to face
inward to the site. This condition has been met, therefore, staff was recommending approval
of Toys "R" Us/Western Auto PUD Final.
Member Carroll stated that, along College Avenue, the applicant had originally proposed a more
intense landscape screening because the garage doors were facing on College. He stated that
on his landscape plan there was a two foot high earth berm running along College. He asked
what other changes, if any, have been made on the landscaping on College.
Mr. Olt replied that the only changes to the landscaping itself has been the height of that berm
that is in the center of the building facade. He stated that there were berms proposed, three
foot high in all cases, initially. Now the center berm had been decreased because of the width
of that parkway has been decreased due to the overall setback from College Avenue for the
building. However, the plant materials still were in compliance with what was reviewed at
preliminary.
Member Carroll asked if a little room was gained between Mitchell Drive and the south access
of Western Auto.
Mr. Olt stated that it was a little broader by ten feet and berming had been added. The width
of that had been expanded and it has allowed not only some increased landscaping but there
was berming there that was not there previously.
15
Member Carroll asked if it was subtracted, by necessity, from Toys "R" Us parking and overall
area.
Mr. Olt replied that this was correct. He stated that the applicant responded in terms of how
many spaces have been lost but, in fact, there are an insignificant number of spaces increased
on Toys "R" Us.
Jay Rosenbaum, of Rosenbaum/Dean, stated that Gene Yergensen of YOW Architects was
present to address any of the four conditions in greater details if the Board has any questions.
He stated that the Board already heard from Mr. Olt regarding the changes made to the PUD
plan based on the direction received from the Board at the preliminary PUD hearing as well
as the worksession that took place after that. He stated that they appreciated the comments and
felt that the plan before the Board tonight was greatly improved based on the changes that
have been made. He stated that he was especially grateful to the City of Fort Collins staff for
working on a very tight schedule so the changes could be made and be ready to present them
to the Board. He stated that he hoped that all the concerns had been met that came up at the
preliminary PUD hearing as well as the worksession. He asked the Board to approve their final
PUD. He stated that one concern did come up in the audience regarding the truck traffic in
the area and, more specifically, potentially on Boardwalk Drive. He did talk to Western Auto
representative and the Toys "R" Us representative and they stated that they were willing to
limit the trucks that go onto Boardwalk once they are able to get there. Until JFK is built and
put in, they would limit the trucks to College Avenue as the arrangements made with the Post
Office.
Member Carroll stated that he never had the privilege to drive a semi but wondered if the
loading dock for Toys "R" Us has its open end to the south. He asked how a truck would
normally access that loading dock, would it come around in front of the building, go around
the north side, and point its front end out in Bockman and back in or would it attempt that off
of Bockman, which would be a little awkward.
Bill Pyle, project manager for Toys "R" Us, stated that in most instances, they like to try to
encourage their truck drivers to stay away from the front of the buildings. However, there are
two access drives. One is off Mitchell Drive from Bockman, which has been designed to allow
for direct access to the back of the site and where they can reach a certain point and back into
the loading spaces. At that point, they can also return the same way. In the event they are
unaware, and they do use the same truck drivers, they might come in through the front of the
building. However, for safety reasons, they try to discourage that.
Member Carroll asked if they would ever come down Bockman and then try to back in or is
that really very difficult.
Mr. Pyle stated that it could be done but he didn't believe that they would want to do that
because that is a hard movement. In the event any came up the future JFK, it would be a blind
reverse. Any truck driver would try to take any alternative rather than make that movement.
The other one going down Bockman east and make the return drive into the service area would
also be an awkward movement. It could be done but they would take the easiest way. As you
can see in the direction, the way the circulation works on site would put them straight in -line
to the receiving area which means they would be able to back right in.
Member Carroll stated that it seemed easier to himbut he didn't want the situation of trucks
out on Bockman going back and forth, back and forth, working their way in.
16
. Chairman Klataske asked if there were any individuals present to address the Board on this
project this evening.
Wayne Schrader, one of the partners in the ownership of the property in question, stated that
he wanted to encourage the Board to look favorably upon this project. He stated that this
property was one that he and his partners have been involved with for eight years. This will
be the fourth time that it has been before the Board with a proposal. It is a difficult property
to find an appropriate use for but the property goes way back when the City did the
Superblock Plan. This site was an integral part of that plan and has been a key portion of
getting that plan underway from the standpoint of the interior streets. When the South College
Street Access Plan was done, there was a lot of temporary left turns for Wendy's which was set
up until Mitchell Drive gets put in. He believed that the people that currently use the
temporary left turn are anxious to get Mitchell Drive in because it would service their
customers much better so they can get back out of those stores and go south. The future of
getting JFK in pretty well hangs on this property eventually getting developed because until
this property and Bockman's gets something going on it, he didn't believe that JFK, short of
condemnation, would ever get put in. He believed that for helping the traffic patterns off of
College Avenue for north/south arterial streets and the future of that development and not
leaving it just an island out there of undeveloped ground, that this is probably the best use that
has come along for this in the eight years that he has been involved with it. He believed that
the developers have done a good job in their working well with the Board. He believed that
Toys "R" Us and Western Auto are good uses for the property and he encouraged the Board to
look upon it favorably.
Ward Luthi, Citizen Planner, stated that he believed that it was important that whenever there
was a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board that the presentation be done so that it
. at least looks like it was without any pressure from the people making that presentation. He
stated that regardless of the pros and cons of the project and how well it has been done, he
believed that the final approval tonight should not be granted. He stated that the reason for
that was that he believed they cannot and should not approve a project when the applicant
suggests that they will not locate in our community if we fail to approve their project at a
preliminary hearing. He stated that he understood well that sometimes that may not be the
intent but he believed that this was a bad precedence. If those words come out in a hearing and
are published then people may perceive, especially the citizens of the community, that they
were voting positively for a preliminary hearing because it was suggested that if they don't do
that, that business would not locate in our community. He believed that it was important that
the appointed representatives safeguard the interests of city residents by assuring that all
applicants clearly understand that they must play by "our" rules and not try to dictate the
decisions because of their economic standing. He believed that this reason out -shadowed
anything else. He didn't believe that a precedence could be set for them. Other than that, there
were concerns that he believed should be addressed before granting approval. First, he didn't
believe the project met the requirements of the auto -related roadside commercial category. The
first criteria under that asked if the project gains its primary vehicular access from a street
other than South College Avenue. He believed the answer was no. The traffic would be coming
directly from South College Avenue because a local street is built does not negate the fact that
this vehicular access is directly off College Avenue. Without Bockman Drive, the project
definitely could not meet that criteria. The City Planning staff required that Bockman Drive
be built so that the applicants could meet that criteria. Bockman Drive would be a publicly
dedicated street and it would be the residents of Fort Collins that pay for the maintenance of
that street as long as it exists. I didn't believe that the residents should have to pay for the
0 17
maintenance of the street that is being built so that two businesses can meet the criteria on the
auto -related and roadside commercial category. Meeting the requirements of the LDGS is the
responsibility of the applicants and not of the residents of Fort Collins.
Mr. Luthi stated that secondly, he would have to question the notification process. He stated
that he had the staff report for the Planning and Zoning Board meeting dated May 29, 1991,
and a listing of the people who were notified. He stated that as he reviewed the list, there were
very few homeowners included on the list. He stated that it didn't include hundreds of people
who would be directly affected if the project is built. Two years ago, when the PACE project
was going through, one of the major concerns expressed, both to Planning and Zoning Board,
the Planning staff and to the City, was that if PACE was built and a right turn was taken onto
College Avenue or a left turn depending on where you were going, that a majority of people
would start cutting off College Avenue and taking Boardwalk through a residential area to get
to PACE. They were assured at the time that the traffic projections by the PACE traffic
planner and the City and the city staff, that this would not happen. Now the Builders Square,
another 100,000 square foot building, is there and if it were monitored, there is a tremendous
amount of traffic that cuts off College Avenue and uses Boardwalk and goes to those
businesses. Located in fronting on Boardwalk Avenue there is a playground, ball diamond, and
a lot of multi -family houses. He believed that it didn't make sense from a safety standpoint to
increase the number of semis already using Boardwalk. He did not believe that it was a good
precedence to start building on delivery trucks going down Boardwalk even though it is a
collector street. He stated that he has driven a truck in that area for UPS. He stated that one
of the best thing to do was to take the cut off from Harmony Road using Boardwalk to avoid
the stop lights and the traffic that generates going on Harmony and College to cut over to that
retail section. With Bockman being built, until JFK is finished, it appeared to him that if he
were a truck driver, to cut his time he would take that route. He does question the safety
concern there.
Mr. Luthi stated that another point on process was that written minutes of the preliminary
hearing for this project were not available to the public as of the meeting tonight. The video
tape was available but was unacceptable for citizens to have to run through a whole video tape
to find out information that happened in a pubic hearing. Some people may not have a VCR
nor do they have the time to go to the Planning office and view the video.
Mr. Luthi continued by stating that under question 4G in the LDGS asked if the activity
reduces non-renewable energy usage to the application of alternative energy systems use of
existing buildings and through energy conservation measures beyond that normally required
by city Code. He stated that when he asked the project planner to document figures for this,
where the reductions and how the reductions in non-renewable energy would occur and what
the overall reduction would be, he stated that he could not provide that. When he asked the
project planner how he came to the process to decide to grant the points and say that they
would meet it, the planner could not answer that either. I didn't believe points should be
awarded for energy conservation if the overall reduction and non-renewable energy resource
use cannot be documented. If those points were taken away, you would lose one of the projects.
Mr. Luthi stated that a minor point was that the sidewalk design for the project were approved
to meet the guidelines of the developer. He stated he did not have a problem with that. But
he would like to talk to the project planner to know whether there were sidewalks to the north
or the south or to the other direction and if they were planned to connect. That information
was not available at the time.
18
Mr. Luthi stated that what he was concerned a lot about on this project was with the process.
He stated he didn't personally have any problems with Toys "R" Us or Western Auto. He stated
that one thing that he has worked on very strongly over the last few years was to have
maximum and adequate citizen participation and to make sure the process was adequately
followed and that, as a citizen, was able to go to the people who make the decisions and
recommendations to P&Z and get those answers before he goes to a hearing. He stated that
questions weren't answered prior to this meeting and he didn't believe that this project should
be approved at this time. However, he did say that, as he saw it, with creative solutions it
could be worked out and could be advanced. He talked to some of the developers tonight and
they seemed very reasonable but the main point was that he didn't think that something in this
position should be okayed when it was publicly stated that if it wasn't okayed, then they
wouldn't come to this community in the future.
Spiro Palmer, owner of Palmer House Florist and owner of property east of Palmer House and
behind Wendy's, stated that he supported this project and believed that it was the best thing
that could happen between Horsetooth and Boardwalk at this time. He stated that he has been
waiting for Mitchell Drive to go through for the past eight years and this is the closest that it
has come. He stated that he would full support the project.
Jim Mucklow, owner of South College property just south of the proposed project, within 100
feet of the proposed Bockman Drive, stated that he has owned his property since 1984 and
operates Choice Travel and Cruise. He also operates the property at 3836•South College and
3842 South College. He stated that he has attended many Planning and Zoning meetings since
1984 when he first acquired his property but especially in this year, he has attended meetings,
such as citizen meetings and input meetings, since January concerning this development. He
stated he has watched the proposed Bockman Drive very closely because he was anxious to keep
the traffic signal as proposed on the South College Access Plan. He stated that he hoped the
Board would act favorably tonight and make this a final approval. He stated that currently
they receive all of the traffic off of College with no other access to his properties and
eventually he would tie their properties with the proposed Mitchell Drive and with the
proposed JFK Parkway. He believed that this was a unique piece of land because there were
so many property owners in it. He felt lonesome standing there, as an area that he was in and
hoped the Board would act quite favorably.
Willard Anderson, 134 East Boardwalk Drive, stated that he had been around longer than most.
He was here in the early 1980s when they were doing the zoning, the annexation, the
superblock planning, the roads, and there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears back then but
nothing has happened in about ten years. He believed that this was an excellent opportunity
to get rid of the Canadian thistles, the logs, the rabbits, skunks, this is not Country Club Estates
out there. He believed that this was an excellent opportunity to upgrade the area with the
super people that would be coming into the area.
Larry Stroud, Miscio and Stroud, stated that, after listening to Ward Luthi, he thought that if
he could pause and perhaps offer a respectful apology if any of the Board felt that either his
comments or Jay Rosenbaum's comments at the last meeting were in any way what Mr. Luthi
may have felt were economic arm twisting. He stated that it was not intended that way and if
it was received that way, they do apologize. He stated that as the Board remembers, their
appeal was more one of a begging rather than threatening and he wanted to clarify that and
apologize. They have tried to take all of the major concerns that the Board had and deal with
those constructively. He commented that there were several other neighborhood meetings from
people from Horsetooth all the way to Boardwalk. There, perhaps, weren't as many residential
but residential will be yet divided by Landings Drive and JFK. They were exceeding the 500
9 19
foot limit. He added that the primary access of College Avenue, there will never be any other
secondary access unless they can get this transportation system off the ground, which is
Mitchell and Bockman. Bockman doesn't just serve the two units, it ties into JFK which is
absolutely integral to getting some of that traffic off of South College. He appreciated the
opportunity to hopefully clarify their comments at the last meeting. He believed that the Board
did not receive it has economic arm twisting but if you did, he apologized.
Dwight Ghent, owner of the one of the properties being considered, stated that the property
that is currently out there now, the Bockman Lumber Company, certainly creates a lot of truck
traffic. Not only bringing the logs in, but after they are sawed up and the logs go out. He
stated that he was not sure if they go down Boardwalk but certainly do go down College and
create a terrible problem. If you ever go out there when one is turning in or coming out, you
would know what he was talking about. He believed that there would be less truck traffic
after this project was built than they have with Bockman Lumber Company so he hoped that
the Board would give it their best consideration.
Chairman Klataske closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Member O'Dell stated that she was glad that Mr. Luthi and Mr. Stroud mentioned the economic
arm twisting or begging. She had already made a motion and, at that time, she felt like there
was a lot of pleading going on. She believed that it was inappropriate and did not help the
Board's decision but she chose to believe that it was her persuasive argument that convinced
the other members of the Board that this was something that deserved preliminary approval
and that the Board's concerns could be addressed in conditions. She stated that she believed
this has taken place. She stated that even though she was tempted to withdraw her motion, that
would have been equally inappropriate to the economic arm twisting or pleading. She believed
that what the Board has come up with was a project that will work and has met the conditions
that was placed on the preliminary.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Olt to indicate what the condition was about the trucks coming down
Boardwalk or going up College.
Mr. Olt stated that there was no condition that related to that.
Member Carroll stated that he understood Mr. Rosenbaum to say that the trucks would come
up South College until such time as JFK's build.
Mr. Olt stated that Mr. Rosenbaum indicated that both corporations have been approached to
encourage their truck drivers to use the Harmony Road to College Avenue means of
approaching the sites until JFK were to be built and then it would move north on JFK to
Bockman to the sites.
Mr. Rosenbaum stated that this was correct and in response to some of the audience members
made tonight.
Member Walker asked Mr. Olt to address the issue of energy conservation, or perhaps the
developer, and clarification on what exactly merit the points given for that.
Mr. Olt replied that at the preliminary submittal, they had indicated that in their planning
objectives, they had related to energy conservation. There was a paragraph indicating that they
understood the criteria that the City normally reviews for energy conservation measures. They
did not have anything specific at that time that was really prior to the plans for the buildings
20
• being submitted. At the time that Mr. Luthi and he met, he was aware that the building plans
for Toys "R" Us were, in fact, had been submitted and were in the process of review but no
determination had been made. At that time, Western Auto had not been submitted. Letters
from both corporations indicated that they would meet or exceed the City's energy conservation
criteria. He stated that he had substantiation from a representative of the City Building
Department who has reviewed the Toys "R" Us plan, that the applicant exceeded the measures.
Now both sets of plans are in the city for inspection and assurance that they will meet the
criteria that is set forth in the LDGS for energy conservation.
Member Walker stated that he would a more specific response as to what those measures were
Bill Pyle stated that some of the measures that they take include rigid insulation for the
roofing systems of corefill, which are rigid, styrofoam core inserts for the masonry block, and
they go to the measure where they put perimeter insulation around the foundations. He stated
that they were also looking at an alternative for skylighting, integrating daylighting to the
lighting systems, which was another conservation measure. He stated that it has been done in
Europe and thought they would try it in the states. However, this was not set in stone yet. They
are trying to work out the bugs in the system.
Member Walker asked Mr. Olt if the City Building Department has reviewed the measures that
were mentioned and do they believe that this was an upgrade over the standard energy
requirements.
Mr. Olt stated that specifically on Toys "R" Us, that was correct. Western Auto, as of last week
when he discussed this with the Building Department, they had not yet completed their review.
He stated that he did not have a reply from the Building Department. He proceeded to read
a letter from Western Auto which was addressed to him and stated.
"This letter confirms our telephone conversation this day requesting a letter to the City
of Fort Collins that the Western Auto building is designed to meet or exceed the
minimum City of Fort Collins standards for energy conservation. Chapter 53 of the
1991 Uniform Building Code, Energy Conservation and New Building Construction, will
be complied with. As of this date, plans and specifications have been submitted to the
City of Fort Collins for review and comment. A copy of the model energy code has
been ordered. Upon receipt of same plans and specifications as submitted will be
reviewed to comply with the code. Should there be any discrepancies, there will be an
addendum issued to accomplish compliance. Should you need additional information
in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Olt stated that the letter was signed Duane McQueen, AIA, Sunwest Construction/
Architects for Western Auto.
Member Cottier asked if the signal would be placed on Bockman Drive after the traffic
warrants it.
Mr. Olt stated that Eric Bracke, City Transportation Planner, would answer her question.
Eric Bracke, City Transportation Planner, stated that the traffic signal that has been proposed
at Bockman Drive was in conformance with the South College Access Plan. The City and the
developer have agreed that the City will build the signal from the conduit, put up the
controllers, put up the arms, but would not put up the mastheads or arms until warrants are
0 21
met, with the exception of a peak hour warrant. If signals were put up for every peak hour
warrant in town, there would be signals everywhere. It has been agreed with the State
Highway Department that a signal would not be in operation until other warrants are met.
Member Cottier asked if a signal was planned there and, obviously, an access point plan there
with the South College Access Plan.
Mr. Bracke stated that this was correct.
Member Strom stated that he understood that the left turn into Wendy's was a temporary. He
asked if this would trigger the closing of the temporary turn and, if so, what was the
mechanism for that happening.
Mr. Bracke stated that the left turn that goes into Mr. Palmer's establishment and into the
Wendy's and Pay-n-Pak development was negotiated out during the South College Access Plan
process. The trigger that would close that would be a re-evaluation of that left turn and its
operation once Mitchell Drive was completed all the way to Horsetooth Road. This would not
trigger it. He stated that there was one other thing, in front of the Western Wardrobe there is
currently a right -in right -out. That would not go away. It is small and not a lot,of people use
that but it is there. That would not go away either until those recirculation roads are
constructed.
Chairman Klataske asked what was the sidewalk design through this site and what was
proposed on the adjacent sites.
Mr. Olt replied that the detached sidewalk was part of this request for Western Auto
specifically. With no development at this point planned for the south, we don't know what the
eventual plans will be for a sidewalk there. At this time, there was no existing sidewalk. The
uses to the north, being Western Auto, Wendy's, Palmer House, the connection for a sidewalk
was, as of yet, undetermined to the north.
Mr. Peterson clarified that City Street standards requires that sidewalks are to be built as
streets are built so there would be a sidewalk network placed in this area, in both JFK and
Mitchell Drive, which is a local, both to the north and south as the plans evolve.
Chairman Klataske responded about the feeling that the Board was having guns held to their
heads, having arms twisted, begging, pleading, whatever it might have been. He stated that he
ended up being the deciding vote on that particular item which, in his term as chairman, was
a rather unusual situation. He stated that if he had felt that it was a threat, that was one thing
that he would not have taken kindly to. If anything, it would have caused him to vote
completely the other way. He believed that this was an appropriate land use and he still
believes that. He stated he thought there was some bugs in it but the developers have worked
hard, staff has worked hard, and those problems have been overcome. He stated that if at any
time he would have felt that the Board was being coerced or threatened that, if they did not
approve this preliminarily, they wouldn't locate here, he would have voted against it. The fact
that they might not have located here this year, if anything was being compromised for the
overall good of the city, in voting for it prematurely, he certainly would not have voted for it.
He stated that he could not answer for the other members of the Board and how they voted but
that was how he felt about it. He stated that as far as the notification area, there is a lot of
vacant land in the area or businesses. He believed that the requirements were met, the 500 foot
notification area, and there was probably also meetings with the neighborhood on Boardwalk
and some of the surrounding property. This has been going on for the last month or two. He
22
• stated that the notification of neighborhood meetings have been adequate and have more than
met the requirements. He stated that there has been publication in the newspaper so anyone
that had any concerns or questions about this have had adequate notice.
Member Walker commented that there was a concern about what was going to be the situation
on Boardwalk relative to truck traffic. It appeared to him that there was fairly
straightforward solution and that was for the City Traffic Department to look at this and sign
the street appropriately. If the City determines that semis should not be on Boardwalk, then
it should be so posted and he believed that this would resolve the issue and would become an
issue of enforcement and he was sure that, by -in -large, truck drivers would understand where
they can and cannot go. He stated that if this was to be an issue, he would suggest that the City
Traffic Department look at this and resolve it by just deciding what kind of vehicles can or
cannot travel that street. He believed that if that is an issue of concern in this area, then let's
resolve it that way because he didn't think that Boardwalk was ever meant to handle that kind
of traffic given the nature of the development along the street.
Member Carroll stated that he would support the project. As the third "aye" for last month, he
wasn't sure as they, as Board members, can be coerced. They are appointed by Council to this
Board and, frankly, unless they personalty have a great desire for some business to locate in
Fort Collins for some ulterior motive, he did see how they could be personally coerced. He
stated that from a personal standpoint, it was immaterial to him whether either one of these
businesses locate in Fort Collins, as it was with many other projects. He added that his concern
at that time was more a question of process as to whether the matter could be resolved on final
or whether the conditions they were concerned about should have been redone at preliminary,
not the viability of the project. He stated that he was pleased that the conditions have been
addressed and was concerned at the time that the two businesses were being shoe -horned into
the property that was really too small for them. He stated that this has been seen in the past
in Fort Collins. He added that he was particularly pleased that the applicant moved Boardwalk
slightly to the south, which was hardly perceptible, but would create 16 additional foot buffer
on the south side of Toys "R" Us, also permitting street trees to be put in. He was pleased with
the sheltering of the truck entrance on the back. He believed that moving the entrance bay of
Western Auto to the east was a good move. He was pleased with Mitchell Drive being shifted
slightly to the north gives a little more room on Western Auto. He believed that their
conditions have been met and that this property, being on South College, was only susceptible
for some type of commercial development. Any other type of development here, and this
project seems to be one of the best that one can put in there. He also noted that northeast of
the property was an extremely large irrigation ditch that cuts into it which could not be
worked around and would limit Toys "R" Us and makes him happy that Bockman was shifted
to the south. He believed that if this project were turned down, in another three or four years
a relatively similar project would come back in which could be slightly better, may be a lot
worse. For those reasons, he believed that the conditions that were set at the preliminary have
been met.
Member Strom moved approval of Toys "It" Us/Western Auto Final PUD. Member Collier
seconded the motion.
Member Cottier commented that she was pleased with the changes that were made and believed
that the applicant was quite responsive to the Board's concerns. She believed that it was an
example of really accomplishing something when they hold out for something a little better.
Moving Mitchell, slightly realigning Bockman, the only thing that she thought she heard that
0 23
might be a detriment to the applicant, was the loss of a few parking spaces at Toys "R" Us. She
stated that the end result derived was worth that loss to the applicant, if there was any loss at
all. She stated that she appreciated the applicant's willingness to work on it.
Member Strom commented that anyone that thought he had any interest in Toys "R" Us coming
to Fort Collins, or Western Auto, that he cared personally one way or the other, doesn't know
him or hasn't bothered to talk to him about such issues. He stated that the fact that he has two
kids with more than enough places to spend their money means that he doesn't care if there is
a Toys "R." Us in town or not. He stated that he had qualms about the project at the last meeting
which had nothing to do with the uses or with the ultimate traffic pattern of the area. The
qualms he had had to do with process in how best to deal with resolving the concerns that the
Board had in terms of setbacks, landscaping, screening, and a number of things like that. He
believed that, with no personal offense to the developer or the consultants, given the state of
this part of town in terms of property ownership patterns and access, this was an excellent
development and use of this land. He believed that most importantly of all, beyond the fact
that they have met the standards that were set in the LDGS, this was a first step towards what
ultimately would be a much improved traffic situation on the east side of College Avenue. He
stated that it has taken awhile to get here and they have resisted other proposals that didn't
meet the standards that they didn't feel were appropriate and didn't go far enough for
whatever reasons. They have now held out to the point of where they have gotten something
which would ultimately improve that area of town.
The motion to approve passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
BUILDERS SQUARE AT HARMONY MARKET PUD - #54-87D
Ted Shepard stated that this item was a referral of administrative change to the Planning and
Zoning Board. He stated that this was a request to increase the size of the Builders Square wall
sign on the north elevation from a 3 foot high letter to a 4 foot high letter for an overall
increase of 86 square feet.
Ben Drews, Builders Square store manager, stated that he was present if the Board wished to
ask him any questions.
Member Walker asked if this issue came up because of concern at the corporation headquarters
of the size of the sign.
Mr. Drews stated that this was correct.
Member Walker stated that he had concerns with what was initially proposed has been built and
there was not adequate review at the corporation level.
Mr. Drews indicated that this may be possible but the developer had the opportunity to submit
the plan with four foot high letters and somehow that was missed.
24
• Mr. Shepard cited a letter that was received from Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80525:
"I am writing as a private citizen and neighbor of the Builders Square development site.
I am requesting the P&Z Board deny the proposed sign size change.
As many of you know, I have been involved in the Harmony Market Master Plan since
the original PACE Warehouse application. As a member of Citizen Planners, I
understand the LDGS application and approval process. I agree with the Planning
Department that the original application was considered s a whole package. At that
time, the Planning staff considered the Builders Square sign in the context of
neighborhood compatibility and other important land use concerns. It was in this
context that the project was originally approved. I do not believe the increase sign size
meets those original criteria. The sign change is not compatible with the existing
development at Harmony Market and will set lower sign standards for future
development in the center.
Please consider the Planning Department's request to deny this administrative review
change and deny this sign size change.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter."
Member Walker commented that the PUD process was involved where the project was reviewed
and the 3 foot letters were what was proposed on the PUD and it can be assumed that this was
the original proposal. He added that he had concerns that this was an "after the fact" change,
particularly when he reviewed the letter from the sign company and he believed that there was
. no basis for granting this request. He did not believe that there was any particular hardship.
Member Strom stated that he concurred with Member Walker.
Member Cottier stated that she couldn't support this change. She believed that the monument
sign on Harmony Road was the prime identifier which was clearly visible. She commented that
the style and colors of the lettering lends itself to be less readable than other styles.
Member Carroll commented that he viewed this as excusable neglect from corporation
headquarters and if it could be justified that it was extremely important that the letters be
there, he might consider it. He stated that he concurred with Members Cottier and Walker.
Member O'Dell stated that she wouldn't support a change. She stated that staff had put
together a packet which cites the All Development Criteria in the LDGS which basically refer
to the scale of buildings and signs and whether they were compatible with the neighborhood.
She believed that this package was appropriate and still seems this way.
Chairman Klataske commented that he would not support this change.
Member Strom moved to deny the request for the sign size change of Builders Square based on
the LDGS criteria stated in the Staff Report. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The
motion to deny carried 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
0 25
1OHN H. HUISJEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
A Professional Corporation
June 18, 1991
Tom Peterson, Planning Director
Kenneth G. Waido, Chief Planner
Development Services - Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Downzoning of Riverside Avenue
Gentlemen:
318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 201
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Telephone (303) 493-2550
On April 22 the Planning and Zoning Board of the city of Fort Collins met to consider
the downzoning of Riverside Avenue properties. At that time the Board rejected a proposal
which met the approval of the property owners and according to the letter May 23, 1991,
"directed staff to develop a zoning approach that would place some limitations as to the types
of uses which could locate in the area without public review."
The first problem for the property owners is to figure out which types of uses are
satisfactory. Your letter indicates that "there is no concern with existing uses." Given that
starting point the owners propose that:
1. All existing uses shall continue to be types of permitted uses which
are permitted throughout the district.
2. Commercial uses shall be separated from abutting residential land
uses by a solid fence or wall at least six feet in height, complying with the requirements
of Section 29-511 and such use shall comply with the landscaping requirements set forth
in Section 29-493. Such fencing and landscaping requirements shall be accomplished in
conjunction with any change in use.
3. Additional permitted uses shall include those permitted at 426-428
Maple Street.
This proposal is consistent with and in fact exceeds the requirements of your letter
dated May 29, 1991. The proposal reduces the "wide-open nature of the C zone." It permits
existing uses with consistency throughout the district. It refines the fencing and landscaping
requirements by adding specifications which have been tested by the city and applied to the
property in the district.
Tom Peterson, Planning Director
Kenneth G. Waido, Chief Planner
June 18, 1991
Page 2
The proposal would accomplish the other purpose of your letter to place some
limitations on the 'types of uses which could locate within the district..." If, as you previously
stated, existing uses are of no particular concern, and the uses approved at 426-428 Maple
Street are compatible in a residential neighborhood, then any other use which is not included
would have restrictions placed upon them for site plan staff review or PUD approval.
The importance of uniformity and consistency deserve emphasis, because these
concepts are tenants of good planning as well as requirements of law. The point is that
everyone similarly situated should be treated alike. Arbitrary distinctions, footnotes, and non-
conforming uses all create problems that are beyond the imagination of most, but are
manifest in their application when uniformity and consistency cannot be fairly achieved.
This plan deserves serious consideration. It addresses your concerns expressed
earlier. The plan achieves a uniformity of permitted uses throughout the district. It is
consistent with the decision reached for 426-428 Maple Street. The property owners agree
with this concept.
Please advise me if you have any questions about this proposal. I and interested
. property owners will attend the meeting on June 24 to express our views and to answer any
questions.
JHWamj
Enclosures
cc: Paul Eckman
r
L...J
Very truly yours,
ohn H. Huisjen
June 20, 1991
Ilk,
2 1 1991
Planning and Zoning Board _
City of Fort Collins
(Hand Deliver)
RE: Woodridge (Arapahoe Farms)
To: The Planning and Zoning Board
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District submits the following
comments for the above mentioned project for public record.
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District (District) owns,
operates and maintains an existing waterline, in private
easement, located on the above mentioned project. The
waterline is a major distribution loop in the District's water
transmission system.
The District respectfully requests that all planning, zoning
and design accommodate the existing easement and waterline
with regard to access, ease of maintenance and repair, and
potential damage should the line break.
The District is willing to allow relocation of the waterline
where the existing location is not conducive to the
development, provided all District requirements are satisfied,
coordinated appropriately and at the developer's expense. The
District will require that any relocation be installed in
accordance with the District's Standard Specification for
Water Distribution Systems.
Sincerely,
Mi gel DiTullio
District Manager r7
cc: Terry Farrill
4700 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Telephone 226-3104 -- 669-4321