Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/20/1991PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES • May 20, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:40 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll. Members Gorman and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, and Georgians, Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the April 22, 1991 meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow Subdivision, 5th Filing - Final, 046-89D; Item 3 - Continued until June 24, 1991 Meeting; Item 4 - Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD, Phase 1, Preliminary - #35-87B; Item 5 - Small World Preschool PUD - Preliminary and Final - #19-91; Item 6 - Arbor Plaza, Backyard Burgers (Pad 3), PUD Final - #137-80G; Item 7 - Sun Disk Village, Replat - Preliminary Subdivision - #15-91; Item 8 - Larimer County Detention Facility Addition - Advisory Review - 020-91; Item 9 - Burlington Northern Southeast First Annexation and Zoning - #50-90,A; Item 10 - Huber Annexation and Zoning - #21-91,A; Item 11 - East Lincoln Second Annexation and Zoning - #5-91,A. Member Strom pulled items 4 and 6 for further discussion. Member Carroll moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD, Phase 1. Preliminary - 035-87B. Member Strom stated his concern was the liability of the landscape maintenance on the common open space, being relatively small and outside the fence for most of the homeowners. He did not want to make a big issue at this point but would suggest a second condition to the effect that the liability of the proposed landscape scheme for the common open space shall be demonstrated prior to approval of the final PUD. Member O'Dell asked if Member Strom was asking for evidence of a Homeowners Association that would be prepared to do this. Member Strom replied that we have language in the LDGS to the effect that they have to demonstrate liability of the homeowner's association and or some other landscape maintenance scheme for open space. He wanted to make that explicit so that we have some specific I�L consideration of it when we approve it on final. The language in the staff report indicates that a homeowner's association was not the way they intended to go. He wanted them to demonstrate for their consideration at final that it is a viable approach. Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design asked if there was something in particular that separated this project landscaping from all of the others that had been approached in the past. Member Strom replied his concern was that this is a very small area of common landscaping and they had some discussion at worksession on Friday about incentives for a homeowners association to function for such a small purpose. They did not seem to have any disagreement on the staggered fencing and the additional landscaping along the street was a good idea. The main question was whether homeowners would continue to have the incentive to maintain it and to charge themselves to do that. Mr. Ward replied as they knew part of the other phases have extensive greenbelt. Member Strom moved for approval of Woodridge Phase 1, Preliminary PUD with two conditions. One is noted in the Staff report regarding maintenance of the median and the second to the effect that the liability of the proposed landscape maintenance scheme for the common open space shall be demonstrated prior to approval of the final PUD. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman, Assistant City Attorney called their attention to page 57, sub -paragraph J of the LDGS, which does require and provide that the Developer shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a plan, providing permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreational areas and community owned facilities and parking lots. It goes on to say that if the common open space is deeded to a homeowners association then the applicant shall file the proposed documents governing the association. That is the protection to insure that there will be an association formed that has the power to collect money to maintain this. Motion passed 5-0. Arbor Plaza Backyard Burgers (Pad 3)PUD - Final - #137-80G Member Klataske stated his concern was with the color of the awning in that particular center. We have Wal-Mart with a brown building and the blue accent stripe around that, the audio shop has a blue roof. Pizza Hut has a brown roof. What restrictions, deed restrictions, or PUD conditions were there for color schemes. His concern was the green awning and that was getting away from color scheme of the center. Ms. Whetstone, project planner, replied that in the PUD for the Arbor Plaza there was some wording that the structures and buildings would be compatible in color and materials. The proposed building will be beige and carry that theme through. The blue stripe in the center has been very greatly carried through in the Soundtrack blue roof. The red roof at the Pizza Hut was a board decision and changed to brown. What she sees with this Backyard Burgers was there was no roof per se, it is basically a flat roof. Staff saw the awning as a sign element and it was very small compared to Soundtrack or Pizza Hut. When she was out there she took some pictures of Pro Golf with large green lettering. There are some other colors out there in the signage element. In the center itself, the buildings are a beige stucco, which this will be, with a blue accent. Chairman Klataske asked if there were any other businesses out there with the canopy • treatment. Ms. Whetstone replied at this time no. Tony Hughes, Vaught Frye Architects, stated he thought Ms. Whetstone expressed the major reasons why they had chosen these colors. It is a tiny building, its about 60 feet long and 12 feet high, it is flat roofed, it is about 80 feet back from Mason Street, probably 200 feet back from College Avenue and probably invisible. Its color scheme is coordinated using three colors, beige, hunter green, and flame red, which in his mind was very tasteful and with some of the strident blues and the unfortunate blue of Soundtrack, he agreed that architectural compatibility is important, but you did not need total uniformity and if you put in perspective the size of this canopy relative to the whole element, the building is 17 feet wide and has a canopy that projects 3 feet around the side so about 23 feet wide and about 5 feet high. It is made of an acrylic material which is heavy duty and has a canvas like appearance so that it is not to his knowledge a glaring bright flashy color. It is indeed a subdued color. It is consistent with the image this company is trying to project that is slightly the upscale, gourmet fast food operation. If you look back on Soundtrack, it originally got approval for a brown roof and then was changed to blue. He did not think that they wanted to change their canopy to another blue canopy. It would be not fortunate and would also upset the whole promotional angle of the company. It would necessitate re -consideration of the other free standing signs, which are also in hunter green with beige. They have worked pretty cooperatively with the City staff and have modified and reduced the size of the signage and in fact changed the colors of the signage to hunter green from an earlier color scheme. The overriding impression is of this beige color with accents of various colors and he sees nothing unconstitutional about that and we have a right to choose colors and they are control colors and are quite small compared to a major intersection. There is no roof and we were really comparing this canopy with • signage on the other buildings as much as anything. Member Strom stated that he had some concerns with the color as well. If we consider this a sign, granted the whole project is small in scale, but the canopy in context with the building it is on is huge. He agreed that the colors they chose were tasteful, the problem he has with it is they are inconsistent with the rest of the center. If you look at the golf place for example, it is a whole lot less that half the front of the building, so he thought they were talking about scale and context and if they want green on a sign that makes sense, but when they put a canopy on a building of scale of what they have here, it makes a very green statement in context to the rest of the area. Member O'Dell stated that if their charge was to make it the same as what already existed there that would be a little easier than talking about compatibility. She thought compatibility was their own judgement, whether they believe it is compatible. In this case she thought it was very tastefully done and thought their was room for individual expression and thought because the building is essentially the same, whether good or bad, it was the same as the rest of the center and it was reasonable to have some variety in the signage and image of this particular building. Member O'Dell moved for approval of Backyard Burgers at Arbor Plaza, Amended Preliminary and Final. Member Cottier seconded the motion. 0 Member Cottier added the comment that she agreed with the idea of considering this as a sign rather than a roof coloring element. She thought there was a variety of colors and signs out there and given its location, set back a considerable distance from College, it won't be that visible. Chairman Klataske stated that even though the color scheme may be all right and it was acceptable from the color scheme standpoint, he believes the canopy itself would be a sign and was overpowering on a building this size. Motion was approved 3-2 with Strom and Klataske voting no. 1992 SOUTHWEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW Ted Shepard, Project Planner, gave the staff report and stated that this was an advisory review and guided by state statutes, that the Planning and Zoning Board look at the location, character, and the extent of the proposal. Part of the Staffs recommendation has been forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board which contains the recommended advisements that they were being asked to make to the school board and they would be considering those tonight also. Mike Spearnak, Construction Project Manager, thanked the City for being very flexible with them, with an accelerated schedule and the Planning Department has been very helpful with them and they appreciate that. He stated that he had with him Pat Dulaney, who is the architect for the School District. Pat Dulaney, stated that the project was placed directly north of Clarendon Hills and was a proto-type Elementary School that the district has built 4 previous ones of and their orientation is that the primary entry is to the southwest and the parking and the building size and exterior playgrounds are similar to the previous schools. They do, as previously, alter the exterior so it takes on some identity in the community. On this particular site they also have something unique to the district in they are putting rather dense plantings of coniferous trees in several clumps down the south property line of this to shield the residences that border the property at that point. Mr. Spearnak addressed the three specific items, one where the extension meets Harmony Road, that there be provisions made for turn lanes. The second one was to put in an island in the cul- de-sac that is off the property to mark the entrance into Clarendon Hills and to give motorists coming down there something to tell them to slow down that they were entering a residential area. The third recommendation was to relocate the intersection 200 feet to the west and put greater curvature into the Hinsdale extension. He stated that the school was out to bid already. Mr. Peterson, Planning Director, stated that as of late this afternoon it appears that the school district and the city had completed some discussions and the school district would have the responsibility for building improvements on Harmony Road for the turn lanes. Member Strom stated that the packet suggested to him that the school board has already acted on this and if anything they said tonight was just blowing in the wind. Mr. Peterson, replied that this was a school that was on the fast track process, the Board of Education met last week on this to authorize the go ahead. The school district, however, is 0 quite cognizant of the board's powers asset forth under Chapter 31-23-209 because the district • and the Planning and Zoning Board have gone through that effort before. He thought the board under that provision, has the ability to request that the school board consider this fully at a public hearing after the board acts on that, if the board wants to go that direction The School District has been quite open with staff because of the schedules of meetings and the time frame that they are looking at to get the school open in the fall of 1992 that they needed to go ahead a week before the board did. Member Carroll asked about the curvature of Hinsdale and would it cause a higher expenditure to move it. Mr. Spearnak replied they had looked at it and it was going to cost some money for the engineers to go back and redo it and have it resurveyed and a number of things involved. Member Strom asked if it was an engineering cost problem or a construction cost problem Mr. Spearnak replied that it would add to the construction cost of the building. Member Strom stated that he did not have a problem with the School District trying to move rapidly, but there was a problem in the process when the district is moving so rapidly that they get things locked in and they spend the money before the public and the Planning and Zoning Board, representing the City, have an opportunity to review and comment and he thought that the Hindsale curvature would be a tremendous improvement. He stated his concerns about the amount of time they spend reviewing and thought according to state statutes have the right to have some input before things are done, rather than afterwards. Member O'Dell stated she has the same concern and read the State Statute 22-32-124. • Mr. Spearnak replied that they were going to be doing alot of building in the next five to ten years with the new bond issue and they hoped to make sure that the board gets to look at things before it happens. Mr. Peterson stated that the board members' points are well taken and would also say for the board members that have been on the board for the previous round of schools, there was a complete difference in attitude in terms of the School District. There has been alot of negotiation between the School District Board and the City Council to involve the school district in the city's review process early on and that had certainly been the case with this school. Rob Ulrich, lives in Clarendon Hills Subdivision, stated that their issue was with the road itself. Mr. Ulrich read a letter from the residents of Clarendon Hills stating they were directly affected by the extension of Hinsdale Drive to Harmony Road. For the past several months they had been working with the Poudre R-1 School District and various department of the City of Fort Collins to provide input for the school, extension, and neighborhood park. With regard to the extension of Hinsdale Drive, they support the following recommendations of the Planning Department Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board. First, the extension of Hinsdale should be curvilinear, the intersection with Harmony Road should be shifted 100 to 200 feet to the west and brought into the existing Hinsdale Drive in the reverse curve design. Second, in accordance with the findings of the site access study, the connection of Hinsdale Drive into the Clarendon Hills Subdivision be made with raised traffic circle in the location of the present cul-de-sac to accommodate excess asphalt and to control speeds. Third, also in accordance with the site access study, the new intersection of Harmony Road and Hinsdale Drive should be constructed with the striping and geometries as specified in order to accommodate the necessary turn lanes. Mr. Chuck Peterson, 4812 Hinsdale, the home immediately adjacent on the cul-de-sac at the end of Hinsdale as it exists now. He was concerned for the safety of the children at the proposed Southwest Elementary School and for the safety of the children of Clarendon Hills. Coming up and over the hill that exists on Hinsdale, their children would be the first that would be immediately endangered by the approaching traffic moving south from Harmony to Hinsdale and the Hinsdale extension. For that reason, as a concerned parent, he rigorously recommend that they specifically adopt the first recommendation, the curvature of the road, and the second, with regard to the island in the middle of the cul-de-sac, elements in the recommendation made by the Fort Collins Development Services Planning Staff. Their two children are not the only ones endangered by not adopting these two elements of the proposal. Therefore as a concerned citizen, he supported the adoption of this recommendation of the Planning Department Staff in its entirety. Two observations, he would respectively submit, to take the advice of the Transportation Department regarding transportation issues and that they consider the recommendation of school administration with regards to school issues. Secondly, he would observe that the School District was able to make a change today and to adopt one of the three recommendations and agree to pay for it did not imply that the whole issue has been decided as a done deal. You could make a change today that would respond to one of the recommendations, you could make a change tomorrow in response to two others. Member O'Dell asked if this subdivision and the school were being developed at the same time, what kind of road ideally would run between the subdivision and the school. Mr. Shepard replied that it would be a local street, 36 feet wide as a typical neighborhood street with a 54 foot right-of-way. Ideally, we perhaps emphasize that the curvilinear street pattern in Clarendon Hills be consistently applied in that we don't transition into a grid system. There would be a logical, sequential street pattern so once you enter off of Harmony, you don't get confused, that the street pattern have some kind of logic to it. Member O'Dell asked if the developer of the subdivision wanted there to be some kind of identifying feature at the entrance to the subdivision, who would pay for that feature. Mr. Shepard replied that unless the feature has a significant traffic control function, it is usually paid for by the developer. If it is a median to regulate left turns, or limit a curb cut to right turns, it is usually paid for by the developer at the time of construction and taken over in maintenance and perpetuity by the City of Fort Collins. Member O'Dell stated she was confused about the island in the cul-de-sac and the purpose of it. Member Cottier asked if a stop sign could be placed there. Mr. Shepard replied that was one of the first suggestions that came up and there was not an intersection. If the stop sign does not have a control function, it would be ignored and become even more dangerous. Member Cottier asked when they put up the flashing yellow sign that would go on when kids are going in and out of school, how close to the end of the cul-de-sac would it be placed. 0 Mr. Shepard replied that he did not know and it had not been decided if the flashing yellow • lights would be installed. Those are typically found on collectors or arterials. They are not in front of all schools, some schools are on local streets and don't have the volumes to warrant the yellow signals. Where you have a school on a collector or arterial you typically find the yellow caution lights. Member Carroll stated that the recommendation concerning the raised traffic circle, in his opinion, it may or may not be a bad idea and has a question in his mind if it was the responsibility of the school district. The cul-de-sac on Hinsdale Drive in front of Mr. Peterson's house was put in by the developer and it was his understanding it was put in as a temporary cul-de-sac meaning it could be taken out. There was apparently some thought on the developer's mind that Hinsdale would be continued at some point in time, therefore made it a temporary cul-de-sac and it may be that the best thing to do would be to remove the curb and gutter and sidewalk and asphalt and straighten the street out. He knew it was at the top of a hill and the traffic island was a good idea. He was not persuaded by the School District's comment that it was off site, but in this particular case, since it is off site and was really nothing of the school district's doing, he was not persuaded that it was up to the district to put it in. Again, as opposed to Hinsdale Drive, it could be addressed later. The traffic island could be put in a year from now if there was a difficultly. He thought #3 had been addressed and so if he makes the motion he would include item #3 and if he did not, he would hope it would be included. Member Carroll continued saying, once Hinsdale goes in, we all would realize that was the way it was going to be forever. The turn lanes could be added at Harmony, the island could be added at the entrance, but Hinsdale would be there longer than the school. He had not heard a good reason why Hinsdale should not be curved. They do have a traffic engineer that is a professional and is paid in order to know these things. His feeling was that unless someone • could persuade him differently, he would adopt this opinion which is in their report. The purpose of the recommendation was to further enhance the neighborhood character of the school site, the vacant property west of Hinsdale and Clarendon Hills. It was important to note that this recommendation was not merely an aesthetic improvement. He did not think the curving of the street would make it any worse. He thought there was a lot of room for improvement for the safety of the children. This was a recommendation that needed to be passed on to the school board. When the school board addressed this in their Monday meeting, it was the first meeting for four new board members and the matter was handled as some what of a consent item. He would be supporting the recommendation of our traffic planner for Hinsdale Drive. He would not support the requirement that the district put in the traffic island, for the reasons he stated. Member Cottier asked if Hinsdale would be moved 200 feet to the west, would the Parks Department agree to buy the additional ground. Mr. Shepard replied no, because the parks acquisition or proposed acquisition did not go as far as Harmony Road. Member Cottier asked if it would affect the park at all. Mr. Shepard replied no. Member O'Dell asked if the people who live at the end of Hinsdale Drive would be affected by the changing of the cul-de-sac, and do they already have their landscaping in. Mr. Shepard replied no, there was no sod out there a week ago when he took slides. The existing cul-de-sac is there on a temporary dedication and that the language on the subdivision plat was very specific in saying that when Hinsdale is extended, that the temporariness of that dedication goes away, so if we are to keep the cul-de-sac bulb, then we would have to get a permanent dedication and it would be a voluntary dedication. On one side Mr. Peterson and on the other side, presently Garth Development. Just a point of fact that this language is on the subdivision plat. Member O'Dell asked if it also said who would pay to take away the temporariness and make it into a regular street. Mr. Shepard replied no. Mr. Chuck Peterson, homeowner on Hinsdale stated he was contacted by the Planning Department Staff and asked whether or not they had committed to any landscaping relative to the issue of the cul-de-sac. They told them that they had, the sprinkler system was entirely installed, the sod had not been put down. They were asked whether or not they would deed the portion of the cul-de-sac that was on their side of the property to the City if that was to be used as a cul-de-sac or whether they wanted it built out. At that point they had already contracted and the sprinkler system was installed. He would hope that if landscaping would be changed someone would pay for it other than him. Member Cottier asked if the traffic study made the distinction, showed numbers of additional traffic that would be going south on Hinsdale from the school. Mr. Shepard stated that the conclusion of the traffic study was that there would be no substantial change in traffic volume in either alignment. Matt Delilch, Traffic Engineer for Poudre R-1, stated that the additional traffic south of the school on Hinsdale would be traffic from the neighborhood going to the school, from the neighborhood going out to Harmony who now go out to Shields, or to the park. Member Carroll clarified his point on the cul-de-sac stating that he did not feel that this was a responsibility that they should ask the district to consider as a point of disapproval of the recommendation. It is very possibly that the traffic island is the best idea and the most workable idea. The question was whether it should be imposed on the district and in his opinion it should not. Member Carroll moved for disapproval of the 1992 Southwest Elementary School Site Development on two conditions, one that the alignment of Hinsdale Drive as extended is not curvilinear and number two that the intersection with Harmony Road with Hinsdale is not constructed with striping and geometries as specified in order to accommodate the necessary turn lanes. If the School Board should amend the 1992 Southwest Elementary Site Development Plan to provide that the alignment of Hinsdale Drive be curvilinear and its intersection with Harmony Road be shifted 100 to 200 feet to the west and brought into existing Hinsdale in a reverse curve design and that the intersection of Harmony Road and Hinsdale Drive is constructed with striping and geometries as specified in order to accommodate the necessary turn lanes then he would add as part of the motion that the plan be approved and not brought back to the board for further action. Member Strom seconded the motion. Mr. Shepard pointed out that based on the information they received this afternoon that the • second part of the condition, the striping and geometrics at the Harmony and Hinsdale intersection will be done according to the traffic study. Member Carroll replied it was not in the plan before them. Mr. Eckman asked if the motion was that if the District Board chooses to follow these conditions, it would not have to come back to them. Member Carroll replied that was the intent. Mr. Eckman stated also if it chooses to overrule those conditions by 2/3 vote he understood it would not come back to them either. Member Carroll replied he understood that. Member Cottier asked for clarification on the motion, in that it was a motion for denial for those two reasons. Member Carroll stated yes. Member O'Dell stated she felt irresponsible not addressing the issue of the cul-de-sac, but did not believe it was the School Districts problem and wondered what was a good way to deal with that issue. Mr. Shepard replied that one of the scenarios that has come up was that they did not do anything right away and work with adjacent property owners, work with the developer, work • with the School District and since there is a 12 month construction schedule, the plans are out to bid, there is a window of opportunity to sit down with the parties and negotiate. Member Cottier stated she was having trouble with the motion as stated. She agreed with getting our recommendation of those two points across, but she would not feel comfortable going so far as to say she was recommending denial of the project. She did not think that the issues were big enough to say that they were going to deny it and force the School Board into additional time. She thought the School Board has demonstrated a willingness to negotiate on some of them. On the point of the cul-de-sac she also agreed that it was not the School District's responsibility, it was the developers. She would not support the motion as stated. Member Strom agreed that the cul-de-sac was not something that they should lay at the feet of the School Board. To a certain extent, he shared the concern about effectively denying the item on the basis of what appears to be one issue. He would support the motion because he did not see any other alternative in terms of essentially getting the attention of the School Board. Chairman Klataske commented that as far as the curving of Hinsdale he did not think that it was going to cost the School Board enough as far as actual money out of pocket to detract what it may add in both safety for the children, possibly slowing the traffic down and also the aesthetics. As far as the traffic circle, it is off -site and it was a temporary cul-de-sac and hoped that the developer, the neighbors and the City could continue to work on something that would be satisfactory. Motion for denial passed 4-1 with Cottier voting no. • 1992 SOUTHEAST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN REVIEW Ted Shepard, Project Planner gave the staff report stating it was a 55,000 s.f. building, the site is approximately 8 acres, located in the Golden Meadows Business Park. There was one advisement that Staff was forwarding on to the Planning and Zoning Board and they pass along to the School Board and it regards the pedestrian connection that could be investigated to link Cape Cod Circle over to McMurry Drive. Mike Spearnak of Poudre R-1 stated this was essentially the same school that they just talked about. He stated that they were in negotiations with Innovative Companies and he stated they planned at this point to develop the whole 10.2 acres. They intended to provide a pedestrian connection for the kids to get across a big swale on the north property line. In their discussions with the City they planned on making that connection. What they were proposing was an earthen bridge with a blacktop path on top of it. Member Cottier asked Mr. Spearnak to respond to the suggestion that they consider a pedestrian walk for the neighbors to the west. Mr. Spearnak replied he could not, but he would take it back to the administration and let them know. They have not taken a look at it at all. They had not received any letter from the City on it. Member Cottier replied that it was an example of an off -site improvement that would really be in the best interest of the School District. Member Carroll stated that he would not recommend they disapprove this because of the pedestrian access. Member Cottier moved for approval of the 1992 Southeast Elementary School with the recommendation that the district consider and investigate the feasibility of constructing a pedestrian access to Golden Meadows Subdivision. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. CUNNINGHAM CORNER AMENDED MASTER PLAN AND CUNNINGHAM CORNER PUD TRACT G. PRELIMINARY Kirsten Whetstone gave the Staff report on the Master Plan stating that Staff was recommending approval of the Master Plan. Ms. Whetstone gave the Staff report on the Preliminary, recommending approval with the condition that an engineering analysis for the requested variance be submitted and accepted by the City. She stated that the Stormwater Utility Department had reviewed the amended storm drainage report for this request and has concerns which they felt had not been adequately addressed. Stormwater Utility has asked for some conditions to be met prior to final approval. Staff was also recommending a condition relating to the preliminary landscape plan. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plan with the following conditions: 10 1. That the final landscape plan address the buffering and screening issues as detailed in the • staff report as well as providing low lying shrubs in addition to trees in landscaped islands in the interior drive and parking areas. 2. That an engineering analysis for the variance to the site distance easement on Windmill Drive be submitted and accepted by the City. 3. That the final drainage report address the question of capacity in the pond and adequately document the increase in dwelling unit density is consistent with the planned impervious that was used in sizing the detention pond. 4. That the developer of Tract G shall perform final grading of the detention pond located in Tract H of Cunningham Corner Master Plan in order to insure proper drainage for the development of Tract G as well as the pond and shall seed the pond with the City approved dry land grasses and shall maintain the pond and grasses until they have become established and accepted by the City. These requirements shall be preformed in accordance with the current criteria of the City as contained in the Code and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Mr. Peterson stated that the drainage situation in Cunningham Corners was a long standing issue with the neighborhood and the various tracts that are involved and as they could see by the conditions that were being recommended by staff, we believe that we have got some appropriate language to insure that what needs to get done will get done. A couple of the issues are not quite settled and need to be before final and the City has agreed in this case to facilitate a meeting because there are several different property owners involved with the detention pond that the developer is not part of, that we have to work with as well and the Stormwater Utility, so sometime before June, there is going to be a meeting to set forth, hopefully the results and shared responsibility in terms of development and maintenance of the pond. There are some things that need to be done before final. Chairman Klataske asked if there was a time limit on the condition that says until the City accepts. Mr. Peterson replied that was one of the issues that needed to be discussed. They believed the condition that mentions Tract G, the fourth condition, provides at this point in time for the public health, welfare and safety in terms of the detention pond that they need to have We expect that at the final, the language will be modified somewhat. Chairman Klataske asked how the traffic impact study was done. Ms. Whetstone replied that it was done on an actual count. Member Strom asked Ms. Whetstone to point out where the variance was required. Ms. Whetstone replied that there are two site distance easements on the plat and pointed them out for Member Strom. Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, representing the developer of Tract G. The Master Plan for Cunningham Corner was originally approved in 1983 and had 4 residential tracts containing 356 residential units. Through the development, some of those tracts were not built out at the maximum approved density, therefore the net increase and what is being proposed • 11 for Tract G is seven additional units. On the Tract itself there are 14 additional units from the original 78 approved, up to the 92 that was being proposed. They feel that given the reduction, and the Sun Disk Village that was approved this evening, down to a single family density, that these additional 7 units would not hardly be noticed in terms of traffic impact. The Preliminary Plan as presented to the neighborhood on March 28th featured 8 buildings totalling 100 units. This plan had 12 and 8 plexes along the recreation side of Tract F and four 8 plexes bending around the curve on Windmill Drive and the two 24 plexes in the center. The plan that was before the board tonight gets the density down from 100 to 92 and reduced the total number of buildings from 8 buildings to 6. He thought that there was a noted difference between the first and the current plan. Mr. Vaught went over the plan on the visual screen, pointing out changes that had been made. Mr. Vaught stated that the project has 52% open space and was achieved by creating the larger buildings in the middle of the site. He stated that this would be the first apartment project in Fort Collins since the Fair Housing Act has been passed nationally. This project will have 38 ground floor units, all of which will be accessible and adaptable to the handicapped. With respect to the conditions Staff has given the Board, they did not have any issue with three of the conditions relating to the capacity of the pond. They think they could provide enough information to staff to agree with their findings as to the capacity being adequate. The landscape issues were something that were typically worked out between the preliminary and final approval and site distance variance, obviously if it is not acceptable then they have to go back to the drawing board and come up with other ways to screen those concerns they have. With regards to the specific language of this developer being totally responsible for the improvements and the off -site detention pond, they don't find that acceptable. They feel that it gives 100% responsible to this developer. In fact it is a piece of property that it is owned and technigly should be maintained by that property owner, however, as you will hear from some of the neighboring single family folks tonight, it is not maintained in an acceptable state by him or the City. As Tom indicated in the additional language, they were certainly willing to sit down with the parties to resolve the issue prior to final They did not feel that there was some responsibility here, however, they did not feel comfortable with the condition of 100% responsibility. To date, there have been meetings between all the parties, however not all three parties have been put together in one room at the same time so they feel that if that could happen, it could be resolved before it is brought back as a final and if it is not resolved, then they still have the opportunity at that point to deny, table or come up with some other creative way to reject or approve. Member Cottier asked for clarification on the owners and with the 4th condition saying that they were saying the responsibility for correction of the detention problem should be all on parcel G. Ms. Whetstone replied that the whole area was very confusing and that there had been alot of preliminaries and finals that have come in and before one was built which had some wording in the development agreement or wording that ended up on the master plan, one of the other phases was brought before the Planning and Zoning Board. It was typical that that was the one to be concerned with because the other one mat not get built. Some of the conditions were then attached to some of the other phases. Ultimately, what the situation here was, that Five Oaks Village was in two phases, and incorporates an extensive landscape design for the detention area: bluegrass area with some active open space and that is now part of an approved PUD, 12 that was Phase II of Five Oaks Village. She thought Staff and Stormwater were still going • through the files and they do have some questions as to the responsibility now that one PUD under the ownership one property owner has responsibilities that were above what the City would require, if we were to say take the drainage pond as a stormwater facility with dryland grasses. We can't just go in there and say we would do that and solve the problem because it is part of an approved PUD now. There has been some shifting of responsibilities around and on the Master Plan the board has, there was some wording on there as to the phasing and certain improvements to the pond were part of the density requirements on points that were achieved by Willow Grove and Chestnut Village. There still were alot of things to look at. Member Cottier asked if she was saying there was some responsibility for the detention pond resting with Five Oaks, Willow Grove and Chestnut Village but yet the condition was saying that Parcel G was 100% responsible, and asked Ms. Whetstone to reread her condition. Ms. Whetstone read the condition again stating it was a condition from the Stormwater Department. The Stormwater Department and Staff felt that the City did have an obligation to request of the next developer of Cunningham Corner, improvements to the pond just as we had in the previous Phases of Chestnut Village and that was something that the Stormwater Department has said was untypical of what they would ask of the Developer who would be impacting the, facility with the water. She also clarified that the pond has been excavated and at one time seeded with Chestnut Village. She was not implying that nothing was done on the pond ever, it has just been sitting there. Building permits were issued. Member Cottier asked if Parcel G did do this, then it would be upgraded further when Phase II of Five Oaks happens. • Mr. Peterson replied yes, Five Oaks had a different plan, it was essentially the difference between what Storm Drainage was proposing now as a dryland grass basin. Five Oaks Village has a fully irrigated bluegrass, wonderfully graded type of facility and they have a responsibility to put it in that condition unless they request a change. We typically would only require the dryland grass type of detention basin. Our minimum was what was being proposed here. Chairman Klataske asked what the bottom line was for the developer if this was to be put in Mr. Peterson replied that it would range anywhere from $1500 to $6000. That's the amount of money being talked about. Member Cottier asked what would be required of Tract G alone on this site in terms of stormwater detention. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility Department replied that he would have his own on -site detention pond and at a minimum he would have to dryland seed and today's standards include some landscaping. Member Cottier asked what about comparative sizes. Mr. Schlueter replied it would be much smaller because it did cover the whole section. Chestnut Village when it came in was when the pond was first graded With Willow Grove all they required was that the volume of the pond be verified and with each of these developments they had committed to extensive landscaping, bluegrass, irrigation systems and it never got done. 40 13 All they were asking here was that the pond drain so it is not a swamp and that it is seeded so it is not weeds. The minimum to get by. Member Carroll stated they had a couple of options, one would be to simply eliminate the condition and let the next developer or the owner of Five Oaks do the detention pond when and if the development occurs. He was not too keen on that particular one based upon what they were hearing from Staff. Another alternative was to accept a condition of Staff and then the developer of Tract G can discuss the matter with the other owners, possibly in a legal context for contribution for what he had to do on this. Perhaps if we simply put the condition in a passive voice instead of the active and said final grading of the detention pond shall be performed to assure proper drainage and shall be seeded and shall be maintained, which means in order for this to be approved, the work will have to be accomplished in some manner, but it doesn't say that the developer of Tract G do it, it leaves it up to the various players to do that, otherwise the final will not be approved. Mr. Peterson replied that that kind of proposal would fit within the context of the other information he was trying to present the Board earlier. Eric Fellers, lives north of the detention pond, stated that his purpose for being here was to argue in support of condition 4. He stated there was a drainage ditch that goes north of the detention pond. He has lived in his house for eleven years. For the past eight years the detention pond has been a basket case. For the past five years, the drainage ditch running north of the detention pond has been disgraceful. These facilities are substandard in many ways, there has never been any grass seed planted in the detention pond. There was seed put in the ditch but it was not properly nurtured and it is just as over run with weeds as the detention pond is. There is no maintenance or mowing until they call the City and complain. There are drainage problems in the pond. There is alot of refuse dumping that never gets cleaned up. The place is attractive to ATV riders, dirt bikers, and there are safety problems associated with it, especially a sidewalk that dead -ends at the ditch and so kids are riding bikes through there and they ride down through the ditch. Mr. Fellers showed slides of the area, the pond, the ditch, the trash dumping. Mr. Fellers stated this was a reasonable request. The applicant is in the process of being granted a request for higher density. In the past, certain amenities have been promised in return for higher density. Those amenities have never been delivered on. One was a child care center and worth 5 points on the density chart. Two was the Tract H, detention pond, which was included in Phase I back in 1983 for density justification purposes. Back in 1983 the pond was twice the size that it is today. That was worth 20 points on the density chart to justify the density for Phase I. That was a long time ago and the pond has been a basket case ever since. Mr. Fellers pointed out that in the Staff Report chronology item 8, 12, 13 all detail Tract H, that pond and how it was committed to be brought up to some satisfactory standard. Mr. Fellers stated it was time to address this problem. Mr. Fellers read a letter of concern from 11 or 12 neighbors that live along the pond and drainage ditch. Mr. Steven Schroeder, lives in the same area being discussed and by the City installed and unmaintained sidewalk, which is affectionately known as the bike path. He has several 14 concerns, it is not a very safe bike path and someone is going to be hurt. He does not know • whos responsibility it was but it needed to be dealt with. Member Carroll asked if there was any particular reason the drainage ditch was not included in the condition. Mr. Schlueter replied that the drainage ditch was another issue. At the present time it exists as an easement on Five Oaks and on the other property to the south which is Sun Disk. Sun Disk has proposed to dedicate it to the City as well as their detention pond and seed it in dryland seed which the City will maintain. The upper end of the channel which is adjacent to Five Oaks was still Five Oaks and as property owners they are responsible for maintenance of the channel. One of the things they were working on was getting ownership of it so they have the maintenance of it. Member Carroll asked if they were also responsible for the detention pond. Mr. Schlueter replied that was true. Member Carroll asked if the ditch was part of Tract G. Mr. Schlueter replied yes and explained the drainage from Tract G to the ditch. Member Strom asked if he was correct in saying that the detention pond accepts drainage from the entire Cunningham Corner. Mr. Schlueter replied yes. • Member Strom asked other than Five Oaks why were the commitments not enforced for the other developments. Ms. Whetstone replied that was something they were still trying to sort through. They had something to do with the time of approval versus the construction and the desire to have the improvements with the Phase that was developing. Member Strom stated that obviously things have slipped through the cracks. It did not matter whos fault it was, the point was they needed to do something so it did not happen from now on. Member O'Dell asked if the Sun Disk pond and the Tract G pond would be two separate ponds and if so why and what was the advantage of having them connected. Mr. Schlueter replied presently as it is proposed, they will be separate ponds and the primary reason was because of the higher landscape and the tennis courts and pavilion that are tied to the Five Oaks development. Those are higher standards than what we would normally maintain. With Sun Disk they are coming in with dryland seeds, minimal landscaping, a few trees which they will maintain. In the future if they regionally find that there is a need to remove the berm between the two for extra detention storage, that was something they could handle within the utility on the Master Plan. At this time both ponds are sufficient for their separate developments. Chairman Klataske asked what the plans were for the sidewalk. • 15 Ms. Whetstone replied the City was waiting for Five Oaks Village Phase II to develop which would then connect that pedestrian connection from the residential area to the north to Windmill Drive and then on to Horsetooth. It was not unusual for a street to end in waiting for the next phase to develop. In this case there is a swale. Chairman Klataske asked what can be done, is this going to continue on forever. Ms. Whetstone replied that at this time it ends where the City property ends. There has been someone from Engineering go out and look at it. She did not know what the outcome of that was. Member Carroll asked if there was any reason the City could not wall that up. Mr. Eckman replied that there was not any legal reason why. Member Collier moved for approval of the Cunningham Corner Amended Master Plan. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved for approval of Cunningham Corner PUD, Tract G, Preliminary with the three conditions stated in the Staff Report and with the 4th condition basically as stated by Member Carroll earlier that final grading and seeding in approved dryland grasses and maintenance be resolved before this project be approved for final. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Colder amended the motion to say that grading and seeding shall be performed and then if Tract G cannot get the other parties to participate in it, Tract G will have to commit to doing It before final is approved. Motion passed 5-0. TOYS R US/WESTERN AUTO PUD - PRELIMINARY. #23-83B. Steve Olt, Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval. Member Strom asked Mr. Olt to explain the interpretation of Point Chart B for the Western Auto, interpretation of the joint parking and how did it qualify for points on joint parking. Mr. Olt replied they did not get full points for that and what they were going to do was use shared access with Western Wardrobe and then there is a bank of parking as well as the existing parking on Western Wardrobe and the proposed parking in Western Auto. We have given them the minimum number of points for shared parking. Member Strom asked if Western Wardrobe was involved in some way and was it necessary to give points on this item on the Point Chart for them to agree to share parking. Mr. Olt replied no it was not, they were not involved in this. There will be an agreement that indicates a shared agreement between the two parties but it was not absolutely necessary for 16 that participation. • Member Strom asked if all they had to do to get the points was to provide a shared access off street to somebody ekes parking. Mr. Olt replied there was some advantages in terms of access to the Western Auto site at this point in time. There is still negotiations surrounding Mitchell Drive and its continuation to the north. At this point in time, prior to that being determined, shared access from College Avenue through the Western Wardrobe site and actually providing that additional parking is advantageous to both sites. Member Strom asked about the Energy Conservation Points received. Mr. Olt replied that in the Staff Report it indicated the measures they are going to and the applicant would go over that in his presentation. Member Strom asked if they had been evaluated and meet the standards. Mr. Olt replied that this came in prior to the policy being adopted, so this is being evaluated prior to actually the new Energy Conservation criteria. Member Strom asked about the points for Toys being given for being contiguous to a transit route. Mr. Olt replied that there is an existing transit route on South College and that was the closest because Bockman does not exist and neither does JFK Parkway. They are part of a single PUD that fronts on a transit route. Member Strom if this new location would not affect the left turn bay into Creager Drive and its in concert with the revised PUD for Foothills Chrysler. Mr. Olt replied that was correct, it has been evaluated by City Transportation Department. Gene Yergensen, representative of the developer, stated that the land was being purchased from two different owners, 15 acres. What they are doing was dedicating the right-of-way for future JFK from the intersection at Boardwalk to the north property line consisting of 2.7 acres. They were also dedicating right-of-way for City streets on Bockman Drive and Mitchell Drive consisting of another .6 acres. Of the total area Mitchell Drive and Bockman Drive will be totally improved and built at their expense. The right-of-ways as well as a new water line on Boardwalk to their property will be developed at their expense, which will exceed $200,000. Mr. Yergensen went over landscaping and parking, pedestrian walkway, sidewalks on College, setbacks for both sites. Bockman Drive has a major link between South College Avenue and JFK Parkway. Bockman Drive is a connection link for the reversed frontage road concept of JFK Parkway. Bockman Drive is projected, once the total Superblock plan to have less that 1500 daily automotive trips. If you were to take Boardwalk and Troutman their projected to have over 5000 daily trips. Mr. Yergensen passed out the rendered elevations showing Western Auto from South College. The lower elevation showed the automotive doors access point and the three foot high • 17 undulating berms, the landscaping proposed on that area. The doors along that side are architectural metal which will be painted to match the brick color. They have eliminated the majority of the widows, just some small viewports for the egress visibility for people utilizing the doors. The doors are always closed except when vehicles are being pulled in and out of the space. Member Carroll asked if they experiment with putting the doors of Western Auto on the north, east, or south. Mr. Yergensen replied that they looked at all the areas, originally they had the doors on Bockman, but in looking at the additional landscaping they were able to provide by redoing the site plan and having a large landscape setback at this point with trees as well as the site distance that is required, they felt more visibility would be from the stop light intersection. It also allowed them to keep a gateway open which could be beneficial to the total site. Member Carroll asked if Mitchell Drive was dedicated at this point. Mr. Yergensen replied that it would be as part of this PUD and plat process. Member Carroll asked if another possibility would be to move Mitchell Drive to the east. Mr.Yergensen replied the problem was taking into account the total overall need of the two users parking area requirements, they were actually providing less parking space at this point that Toys would like to have. Mr. Peterson added that Mitchell Drive from their northern property was dedicated from 3 or 4 lots to the south end of Pay N Pak. Member Carroll stated his question was that if this particular footage had been dedicated or if Mitchell location could have been moved to the east, the answer was it could of been, but it didn't work. Mr. Yergensen replied that for two different reasons, not only for the required parking for the two parcels but also if you see from a standpoint of traditional planning as well as what makes sense from a good plan was smaller users are on the smaller frontage and eventually Mitchell Drive will contend over and tie into Boardwalk at this point. Member Cottier asked it Mitchell was to connect from Bockman to Boardwalk. Mr. Olt replied that was correct, the timing had not been determined, Mitchell Drive would continue south from Bockman to Boardwalk someday. Member Cottier asked if the alignment had been set in any way. Mr. Olt replied not. Member Cottier asked what the reason was why Mitchell could not go straight from the north end of this property to Bockman. Mr. Yergensen replied as previously stated, was to get the required parking. 1g Member Cottier replied that the road was going to be the same width no matter where you put • it so they would have the same amount of parking spaces no matter where you put it and they would have the same number of parking spaces whether they be on one side of the road or the other. Certainly the two sites are close enough to have shared parking. Jay Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum/Dean, stated the difference was that they were going to have the same amount of parking spots but when you have a public road, and if parking for Toys was on one side of a public road no one would go there. They would not park and especially with kids cross the road to get to that store. All the people across the frontage would be smaller users, thus requiring a lower amount of parking spots, the larger users in the back are the ones require the larger number of parking spots to accommodate customers. If this was a regular shopping center road, it would be alot different than a public road with sidewalks and curbs and gutters. It was much more of a barrier to cross. Member Carroll if any consideration was given to bending Bockman to the south so to give somewhat more distance between Toys backline and Bockman perhaps more parking. Mr. Yergensen replied the idea for Bockman was to be a connector link for the reverse frontage road from South College to JFK. A straight connection with the light at this point was felt the best solution to handle that and what they have done to take care of the situation was add additional landscaping to buffer the setback at this point. Member Carroll asked if there was any reason why it would not be in the developers best interest not to move Bockman slightly southerly junction with JFK. Mr. Yergensen replied that in working with the Staff on that as well, they felt a straight • connection between South College and JFK would be the most direct approach. Member Carroll asked Staff to comment on that. Mr. Olt replied that the feeling was granted the setback was less in this situation, the Toys R Us to Bockman than in other similar situations in the area but with the proposed landscaping they have mitigated the concerns and will realize the building is 18 feet in height. Extensive landscaping as proposed, would mitigate those concerns about that shortened setback. Mr. Peterson added that it was conceivable that Bockman would continue past JFK at some point. It was very important in design consideration to have a straight shot going into JFK, and if you shift Bockman to the south, you run at more of an angle and that is not something we felt was appropriate. It was also important for Bockman to line up with the access on South College. When you put in a traffic light design it also has to line up with the auto dealer across the street in terms of how that reconstruction of that circulation works. For traffic and alignment reasons it was important to them to have Bockman as a straight shot. It is very important for us to have the Mitchell connection as a recirculation because Mitchell either between Bockman and Horsetooth or eventually Boardwalk and Horsetooth was really crucial to how traffic was to operate in that whole area when fully developed and the analogy he would give to the Board was the development that they see across South College with the recirculation systems that have developed there on Troutman and Mason. There was an enormous amount of discussion before they came up with these alignments in terms of trying to satisfy both efficient movement of traffic circulation and the concern of public safety and how that was going to work in the area. 19 Member Cottier asked if straightening Mitchell work any less well. Mr. Olt replied that goes back to what Mr. Yergensen was saying before on a parking distribution standpoint was the rational for the realignment of Mitchell Drive from the north property line to Bockman. Member Cottier asked from a transportation standpoint did a straighter Mitchell work any more than this curved Mitchell. Mr. Peterson replied that he would look at the situation in a slightly different way. They are locked into an alignment of JKF, that really defines the back of the property and what they could use. For major users which was what they were looking at and the rear of the conglomeration, you need bigger chunks of parking. You could move Mitchell, then you could probably not see this kind of development occur there. Mitchell works in terms of safety, with the configuration that you see here and works for us in terms of safety and access and circulation in terms of an eventual continuation of Mitchell to Boardwalk. Yes they could move it, but did that accomplish what needs to be accomplished here and we think the answer to that is no. Member Strom asked if there was a reason why the east end of Bockman is where it is. Mr. Peterson replied that it was their feeling in looking at the area across from Bockman in terms of potential development that can come there we want a straight shot at Bockman at 900 angle rather than another kind of angle rather than any other kind of angle because we see the potential for development on the east side of JFK, there is more property back there that does not show on any of the maps they see there. Some of the vacant property goes over to Landings Drive. The other consideration was that the Board was aware that the Post Office has the property that was on Boardwalk and the Landings and JFK and was going to be developed as a major Fort Collins Post Office. Member Strom stated some of them have questions about the lay out of Toys that go beyond a 9 foot setback on Bockman and some of them have questions about Western Auto. Point being that what they have is some very tight sites for the uses proposed on them and if Bockman swung further to the south at the east end it would conceivably free up space on the Toys site which could be translated on to the Western Auto site and give greater flexibility of design on both sites. Mr. Jim Mucklow, owner of Choice Travel, stated he has spent alot of time with personnel and with the developer and is comfortable with their overall plan toward the Bockman property as it would adjoin his property and with the future development of Mitchell Drive. Member Cottier asked how much parking was needed for a Toys R Us. Mr. Olt replied according to the parking guidelines, there are three ranges that they use and in both cases Toys and Western Auto fit neatly into the medium to high range in terms of using criteria based on in one case general retail which would be Toys R Us and quite frankly Western Auto has a general retail aspect to it as well and Automobile Service there is different criteria for both. Chairman Klataske stated he was having a hard time fitting a size 12 into a size 9. Talking about parking being on the high end and not as much as the developer would like to have and 20 they were talking about Western Auto opening onto College Avenue, the trade off being if they • could move Mitchell Drive by 20 or 30 feet on how critical that connection was there and if they did that they would be adding to the Western site and maybe eliminating as may as 15 parking spaces from the Toys. The alternative may be if they could swing Bockman at Mitchell Drive to the south, maybe they could pickup the additional parking there, the trade off there being they don't come into JFK at a 90° angle or something less than that, whether it is too severe to be acceptable or not. The other thing they would pickup would be additional setback on Bockman. He also had a problem with the doors on Western Auto facing College. Mr. Olt replied that the advantages with the doors to the west was the setbacks from College Avenue. Western Auto requires a significant drive land and entry into the service bays. If in fact the building was flipped 1800 and the service bays would be oriented to the east, it would put the building much further to the west. The potential of the building setback from South College Avenue probable would be in the 35 to 40 foot area. If you look at the way the applicant has mitigated the service bays with 40 feet of landscaping alone and 3 foot high berms, significant evergreen trees, it creates quite a barrier. There is significant amount of pavement there but logically won't be visible from the highway. Chairman Klataske asked maybe there was some compromise between the 80 foot setback on College and having to have the full depth you would need to realign Mitchell to have the circulation on the east side there, and how critical was Mitchell to the south that it stay where it is. Mr. Olt replied that the applicant had indicated that the rational for the design was the split in the parking between the two sites, the needs for the individual sites. Mr. Rosenbaum replied that the most important aspect was parking for the Toys and the • alignment of Mitchell was so important that they had gone to the steps of getting and easement from the people who own the Western Wardrobe building. Member Strom stated his concern with the loading dock being where it is and the visibility of it. He had serious concerns whether these two uses fit appropriately on this site giving the constraints with the streets and the access and parking. Member Cottier asked if they considered joint parking with Palmer House or Capital Federal for Toys. Mr. Yergensen replied that the two sites are being developed totally independent, the Toys R Us will own their lot with their parking lot and so will Western Auto. No they did not explore any other areas. Member Cottier replied they did with Western Auto. Mr. Yergensen replied that was correct. Member Cottier stated her concern about the placement of Toys and the lack of a setback on the southern side. Mr. Yergensen replied that for access for getting service vehicles and fire, total service around the building it was directly up to the existing irrigation canal. They have gone as far north as they can up to the irrigation canal. • 21 Member Strom voiced concerns about landscaping and screening of the loading dock Mr. Olt replied that Staff would work with the applicant on screening between preliminary and final approval. Member Strom stated he was not convinced that was an appropriate location for the loading dock. Member Carroll stated that was he sensed from the Board was a lack of being convinced that perhaps there was a better way to do this by a realignment of Bockman Drive and possibly a realignment of Mitchell to some slight degree. He was not sure from a procedural standpoint that we could pass this on preliminary with the proviso that Bockman Drive be explored for realignment and Mitchell Drive be explored for realignment. In turn it would move the building for Toys to a different location. It was like approving the concept of the two being there but not how the streets were going to line up and the parking. Mr. Olt replied that they could condition the preliminary approval on those concerns and word those as deemed fit and condition the final approval on further negotiations. Mr. Eckman added that any condition would have to specifically pertain to layout. Member Strom stated that basically they would be conditioning that they would have to redesign the site in order to accomplish all the things they were talking about. He would be more likely to table it and have them come back with a revised design and reconsider it *xt month. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that they have been working along time on this and all these concerns have come up over and over again and he appreciated them coming up aging tonight. They were under some major time constraints. They were at a point now where even if they were delayed one week they would not make it. Toys has to be open for the Christmas season. It is a requirement, if they are not open this season, they were going to loose the site. The reality of the situation was in order for them to do this site, they do need two users. They were here, they are ready to build the roads, to put the improvements in at this site as it necessitates and not everybody can afford to do this. They were at a point now where they have based everything on today and then going to a final approval on June 24th. They were willing to do whatever they can to meet their concerns and they were hopeful they could approve them preliminarily tonight and condition their approval carefully on realigning Bockman Drive and work with the layout problems the best they could. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Olt if he understood what the boards concerns were and has enough direction to work with the applicant to address some of the concerns they have. Mr. Olt replied that the concerns were very clear and it was not the opinion of the Staff that the concerns could not be rectified and necessitate a delay. Member O'Dell asked if the final plans had been submitted. Mr. Olt replied yes. Member O'Dell asked if the final could be amended in the next couple of weeks to make the June meeting. 22 • 0 Mr. Olt replied yes. Chairman Klataske asked if the ditch could be realigned. Mr. Rosenbaum replied they did not want them to touch it. Mr. Olt replied that it was one of the four major ditches in the City. Member Cottier stated that the concerns they have expressed were not small and would be more comfortable tabling this and consider preliminary and final together next time. Mr. Rosenbaum stated they did need an approval tonight that gave them some comfort to build a $75,000 building on Mr. Bockman's new property. Member Strom stated that he didn't want to give him the impression that moving Bockman to increase the setback of the building was going to solve the problem. He did not see how they could give them tonight what they want. Member O'Dell stated she like the uses at this site and it makes sense here. She did not feel quite as strongly as the rest of the Board. She thought that the site needed a little more space, some better setbacks, maybe some changing of the buildings a little. She thought generally it would be fine and it would work well. Member O'Dell moved to approve Toys R Us and Western Auto Preliminary PUD with the conditions that the Staff work with the applicant to increase the site sizes to allow for more intensity of screening, better setbacks on Bockman and possibly changing of the garage doors so they would face inward to the site. • Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Peterson suggested a worksession to go over the issues raised tonight. Chairman Klataske replied that would give him more comfort. Mr. Eckman pointed out that at a worksession no decisions could be made. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that if they did not get preliminary approval at this meeting they were dead in the water. Mr. Larry Stroud, realtor stated that he has been involved on this property and the adjacent property owners for half a decade. He talked about this being a complex site. He stated that they were looking for a ray of hope, if they did not have the basis to have either a worksession or a conditional approval, Toys R Us goes away from Fort Collins for at least a year if not more. They have been looking at Fort Collins for at least two years and this site is appropriate for their needs. He spoke on the development of the transportation for this area and if not approved it would two or three years. Member O'Dell spoke again in favor of the project and the good circulation of the site. Member Carroll spoke on the fact he did not like being put in the position and did like the uses on the site but would like to see some redesign of the site. • 23 Member O'Dell moved to remake her motion she made earlier. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated her concerns were to major to go along with this. Member Strom did not see how they could grant preliminary approval when they have asked them to redesign the site. Chairman Klataske replied he thought the uses were fine and had some concerns about the garage doors on College and the setback on Toys, 9 foot is not sufficient. If they get preliminary approval, there was alot of major work to be done. Motion was approved 3-2 with Members Strom and Cottier voting no. There was not other business. Meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. 24