Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/23/1991• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 23, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Vice Chairman Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member O'Dell was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 -Election of Officers; Item 2-Minutes of the July 22,1991 meeting; Item 3-South Glen Subdivision, First Filing, Preliminary and Final, #110-79H; Item 4 - Amendments to Chapter 29 of the City Code, #39-91. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 5 - Poudre Valley Hospital PUD, Preliminary, #39-84C;Item 6 -Park South PUD Overall Development Plan, #46-88B;Item 7 - Park South PUD, Preliminary, #46-88C; Item 8 - Country Club Corners PUD Overall Development Plan, #72-84A; Item 9 - Country Club Corners PUD, Preliminary, #72-84B. . ELECTION OF OFFICER Chairman Klataske nominated Member Strom for the position of Chairman of the Board. Member Cottier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Chairman Klataske relieved his duties to new Chairman Strom. Chairman Strom opened the table for nominations for Vice -Chairman. Member Cottier nominated Member Walker for the position of Vice -Chairman. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Member Walker moved to approved consent items 2, 3, and 4. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. 1 0 POUDRE VALLEY HOSPITAL PUD -PR LIMINARY - #39-84C Sherry Albertson -Clark stated this was a request for preliminary approval of a series of expansions to the existing hospital at 1024 South Lemay Avenue. The property is zoned High Density Residential and Low Density Residential. The expansion included a 34,000 s.f. emergency room expansion near the south edge of the site, a six -level parking structure near the northeast corner of the site, a 120,000 s.f. conference and office facility and additions to existing portions of the hospital of approximately 118,000 s.f. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that hospitals were a permitted use in the R-H, High Density Residential Zoning District, however, both existing portions of the hospital and some of the proposed expansion areas did exceed the City's 40 foot height limit. Therefore, the project did need to be reviewed as a P.U.D. and Staff has evaluated this project under the Land Development Guidance System. Staff has evaluated this proposal as a Business Service use which requires a minimum of 50% on the appropriate point chart. This project scored 71% on that chart and also addresses the All Development Criteria that applied to the project. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that one other item that related to the proposed expansion was a request to prioritize Doctor's Lane as a major entrance into the hospital facility while still retaining the existing Robertson and Lemay entrance into the site. The site did include eight residential properties along the north side of Pitkin Street. These properties are owned by the hospital and are used as an accessory residential use to the hospital operation. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that Staff was recommending a condition that a note clarifying to the City's satisfaction the future use and procedures required for changes of use of the eight residential properties be added to the final site plan. We are interested in having language written between now and final plan review that indicates that those residential structures would be maintained in a residential character. That was the kind of language we are interested in developing. Ms. Albertson Clark added that Staff was recommending a condition with respect to drainage on -site. There are some issues that Staff has yet to resolve with the hospital regarding technical details related to drainage. That condition is that the final drainage report and plans address all outstanding drainage concerns. There are several items that we have discovered during the preliminary plan review that relate both to the 1989 surgery addition as well as the current plan. These tend to be technical issues which our storm drainage staff believes can easily be addressed, however, we have not gotten to that level of detail yet on the preliminary plan, therefore, the condition. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that Staff also added a third condition that deals with the proposed striping of the Elizabeth -McHugh and Elizabeth -Patton street intersections. As most everyone knows, these are intersections that do not line up at the present time. The Staff condition would require that an interim stripping plan for those intersections be provided with final utility plans and also that the long term realignment of these intersections be addressed in the development agreement. To both that condition and the drainage condition, we would add that these conditions be addressed to Staffs satisfaction. That was something that in talking with our legal staff recently that we felt needed to be clarified in terms of the wording of these conditions. Right now it is implicit that City Staff would have to approve interim stripping plans as well as final drainage report plans. • Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that at this time the project did not include property west of Lemay Avenue. She believed that had been an area of concern and confusion on some people's part. As noted on the site plan on the slide before them the site is restricted to the current hospital site as well as the eight residential properties on the north side of Pitkin Street and the existing Poudre Valley Hospital Foundation site at the northeast corner of Doctor's Lane and Lemay Avenue. Ms. Albertson -Clark went through slides showing streets, building elevations, the residential properties on Pitkin Street, the existing entrance and the existing emergency room, Lemay Avenue, the existing Lemay Plaza shopping center to the west, the medical center on the west of Lemay Avenue, Doctor's Lane, the site of the Foundation Building where a small parking lot was proposed and the general area of the proposed parking structure and the site where the proposed support services expansion would occur, and the intersection of Elizabeth and Patton that is proposed to be realigned. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that Staff had evaluated this under the Guidance System and believed that the necessary All Development Criteria had been addressed by this project. They believed that the building height review criteria had been addressed and that our review criteria including views, light and shadow, privacy, neighborhood scale have been appropriately addressed by the building expansion and those expansions are compatible, given the existing hospital on -site and given the surrounding development. Staff was recommending approval with the condition regarding notations on the site plan, stripping plan and improvements for the Elizabeth -McHugh and Elizabeth -Patton intersections and a note or condition regarding the final drainage report. Mr. Peterson stated that before we got into the public participation portion with both the i developer and the public, in the interest of trying to eliminate one of the major questions that has come up with the hospital and in both of the previous expansions, he would ask the Assistant City Attorney to address the Board. Mr. Eckman stated that Mr. Peterson advised that one of the issues might be whether this plan complies with private protective covenants. If that is an issue, it would be his advise to the Board that it not be an issue addressed by the Board because private protective covenants have another means of enforcement, a private means of enforcement, and it would not be proper for the City and its public processes to attempt to interpret or much less enforce private protective covenants. That was typically done through the court process or the judicial process and their decision should be based upon whether the plan complies or does not comply with the code of the City which includes the Land Development Guidance System. It should not be based upon their interpretation of the meaning and intent or compliance with private protective covenants. John Laurie, Chief Executive Officer at Poudre Valley Hospital, stated that Ms. Clark pretty much elucidated the points that they would want to make in terms of describing the project. He wanted to share some of the background that lead to the development of where we are today at the hospital. Mr. Laurie stated that in 1989 they initiated some reviews of their master site plan. They were beginning the final phases of completion of some structures that were going on at their campus that had resulted in a PUD approval a couple of years ago. The facility needs that they identified and planned for are targeted towards meeting not only the community needs of Fort Collins, also to address the needs of the rest of the hospital district and the region we have begun to serve more and more in the recent past. 3 Mr. Laurie stated that they retained the consulting firm of The Grant Corporation from Hinsdale, Illinois, who has extensive experience on hospital facilities planning to assist them with the planning process. What they asked them to do was to help them work with the City Staff in terms of addressing their P.U.D. issues, so they could try and forecast why their requirements would be, trying very hard to avoid being back here every couple of years with additional changes to the site. It is a very challenging process and a very dynamic and changing industry that we are in today. If anyone could tell you what they think they could do with hospitals five years and beyond, he would look at that with a great deal of skepticism just because of the change in technology and the delivery system. Mr. Laurie continued by stating that the plans the Board saw today show what they would anticipate as some possibilities of what could occur within the next three to seven years on the Poudre Valley Hospital campus. If the Board would notice from the site plan, that it pretty well consumes most of their available land with any reasonable development. Their are two specific project that their board has approved at this point, the southwest addition, which includes the emergency department, also a new pediatrics unit and a new data processing department in the basement. Additionally they have approved them to go forward with a support services building which would be developed to the eastern end of the site and that would accommodate a number of support facilities, purchasing, housekeeping, dietary, laundry, maintenance and a number of other issues that occur inside the walls of the hospital that people tend to forget are needed to make a hospital function effectively. Those are the only two components of this site plan that they are currently planning to construct. They did try and respond to the City Staff the best we could as to what else might go on that campus that does show as Sherry mentioned, an office building, they have on plans at this time to develop that but they wanted to show that it might come in the future and if it does come it will necessitate a parking garage as well. Staff had asked them to project what the maximum size would be and they show that to be six stories, although, he would have some strong reservations of it ever going to that height. He appreciated their concern on! wanting them to look at the extremes. They have worked very diligently in trying to address not only the community needs and trying to make them the most cost effective decisions to continue to maintain a high quality reputation that the hospital enjoys with what they feel is a very competitively priced service to our community. Mr. Laurie they have also tried to work effectively with the neighbors recognizing that the emergency room department expansion in particular to the south is an extremely sensitive issue and that they are abutting a residential neighborhood. They had initially developed plans for three alternatives, one was to look at demolishing the houses that are on the south side that they currently own to create a new south entrance to the hospital. They have looked at demolishing those houses to build additional parking in that area. They have looked at demolishing those houses just to allow them to build more parking with the existing site then berming that as opposed to houses all of which they have abandoned. They had originally submitted a plan to the City to encroach into the backyards to allow them to have a little better circulation and some additional parking. They have had some meetings as recently as the last thirty days. In fact, they asked the City if they could postpone by 30 days their presentation so they could allow the neighbors to meet with the hospital board and express their views that occurred last month. As a basis of that, we have looked again at the parking and made a determination that they would redesign some of the parking area so they could stay within the existing property lines. He would tell them that their parking dropped from 82 spaces to 64 spaces in that area. That will meet their needs for the immediate future. He would tell the Planning and Zoning Board, however, that he has some serious reservations about the long-term abilities to have adequate parting in the immediate area. He hoped they did not have to revisit that, but he 4 • thought that was an indication on their part that they were trying very hard to be good neighbors to a residential area, still meet the neighborhood concerns about parking and also meet the needs of the patients that come into that environment. Mr. Laurie stated that they have worked very hard with the City Staff to try and preserve a south entrance to the hospital because they think that the traffic would be sufficient there that they would need to allow egress and an entrance into the hospital on the south side. They are additionally looking at acquiring properties on the southern part of the community, that is still in a very preliminary stage and have nothing to propose but he thinks it is indicative of the direction that health care is going, which is into an ambulatory environment. If that is the case they would anticipate that they would be developing services away from the hospital campus while continuing to maintain their major focal point where PVH is currently located. Those are no guarantees, but as he said, in five years the health care delivery system will change dramatically and he thought they would see them in a number of aspects that they probably did not anticipate today and can't anticipate but he thought they had laid out a plan that showed them pretty much what they would anticipate would go on the current site for the next five to seven years and hopefully they would not'have to come back unless the parking on the south side gets to be extremely difficult. George Brelig, consultant for Robb-Brenner-Brelig, stated that the Board was well addressed Friday at the worksession in very much detail by Sherry. Mr. Brelig stated he wanted to talk about three areas, the expansion of the hospital and the different areas where it would be expanded, the general approach of circulation and thirdly, the issue of parking. Mr. Brelig stated that the first area they would see construction should be starting early next spring is the expansion of the emergency area which is approximately 37,000 s.f. of expansion to the south of the existing emergency area. It will be three levels, a basement plus two. This was a critical expansion in dealing with other issues particularly circulation that will be the second part of the area he would be discussing. Mr. Brelig stated that the other area of major expansion is the support services area towards the east and the southeast area which will actually be built on top of the new main entrance and lab that was just built. Those three areas, 37,000 s.f. for emergency, 57,000 for support services and the southeast addition approximately another 55,000 s.f. coupled with the conference center which would be approximately 120,000 s.f. and the parking garage to the north of that. Those areas as well as expansion that is not part of the P.U.D. and that was to the north part of the existing hospital, the older part of the hospital that was built as early as the 1930s. It is planned for some time in the future, maybe 10 years to 15 years to be torn down and approximately a three or four story patient care services area would be built there. He stated that he was throwing these figures out because it was showing approximately a 70% increase with all of this planned space to an existing facility which presently is approximately 485,000 s.f. He thought the hospital had taken a major step in trying to anticipate in as many areas as possible that future expansion and being able to provide the support services and parking as necessary to handle that expansion. Mr. Brelig wanted to point out that all the materials that Sherry pointed out on the elevations will be the same materials, the bricks, the glass etc. as used on the present hospital. It should be very compatible. Secondly, circulation, when we begin looking at circulation, there were two major philosophies that we looked at and how to handle this needed expansion. One, was 5 0 to bring a major entrance off of Pitkin Street and have it go east and then north clear to Elizabeth and come out north and then come out further west and more of a parkway type of circulation pattern. That philosophy, a parkway philosophy, was entering on Pitkin and swinging up and the homes on the north side of Pitkin taken down and a large landscape buffer put in and a more of a park -like arrangement around the hospital with the major entrance at Pitkin and also at Elizabeth Street. That was one approach. The second, was an approach. of Doctors Lane being a major access and that was approaching with the fact that the hospital's expansion beyond the basic plant as they now see it and the future would be toward the north rather than the south. So with the Doctor's Lane philosophy you would have a more of a center access approach of what will become in the next 20 years a more dense medical center than what you see now. Most of the areas north of Doctor's Lane are all one and two story small medical facilities with just grade level parking. Mr. Brelig stated that staff was not supportive of the philosophy of the entrance off of Pitkin, we looked at several generations of that and from that then ended with our major entrance on Doctor's Lane. The reason for not having the major entrance remaining on the south was simply a matter of space and with the necessary emergency expansion there just was not enough space to provide the parking and emergency entrance in a major circulation entrance on that south area. It was a major step to bring that circulation in from the north. As it comes in from the north, the area by the support services is a major shipping and receiving area, grade level or parking garage. The philosophy was to bring the major entrance clear to the east and then south, two -fold, one if they brought it in this direction they would be interfacing with the shipping and receiving area, which they did not want to do. It would also be bringing in a major circulation area through and between the parking and the hospital forcing all the people to cross that major circulation area. By having Doctor's Lane being the main access, they will have a new traffic signal then at Doctor's Lane. The pedestrian crossing as is now will be eliminated and all the pedestrian crossings would be at Doctor's Lane. Mr. Brelig stated that in developing the main access on Doctor's Lane, there was also a concern of the users, particularly medical use, to the north. Some of those users are hospital functions, other are private medical functions and addressing a concern of particularly pedestrian access across Doctor's Lane. They did meet with several of the users and neighbors there and were able to work out a pedestrian crossing at two different areas which they think will meet their needs and be safe and compatible with that pedestrian circulation. Mr. Brelig stated that one other area that had been a little bit of a concern that has been touched on at least, was the concern about the helicopter pad. That is not part of this P.U.D. The concern was expressed at one of the neighborhood meetings from an individual who would liked to have seen it on top of this expansion rather than on the pad out there. The pad is a designated private landing helicopter pad by the FAA. They have looked at possibilities of putting a helicopter pad on the roof. That posed a more serious concern as far as helicopters landing on the roof, particularly with wind shear with some of the taller portions of the hospital toward the north. Mr. Brelig stated that the last area he wanted to touch on was parking. The plan did call for increased parking to the south at the emergency area. It also will allow in the future, at some point, a major parking garage, whether that be four levels or six levels. As Mr. Laurie indicated, that presently the proposal in front of them did indicate a six level parking garage. That would increase the parking from approximately 850 to about almost 1600 spaces. He was saying that in context with all the expansion in front of them that it was being looked at very seriously. That does carry a price tag somewhere around $8,000,000. It was just not something 0 that they just run out and build and it was a tough thing just to build two stories this year and . two stories in three years and so forth as you need them. So as kind of a stop gap measure, the hospital has been negotiating and does have under contract, two parcels of land on the west side of Lemay, directly west of the hospital; a shopping center and a little medical plaza, both on the north and south sides of Garfield Street. The plan of this is to use that parking to supplement the needed parking that the expansion will require and at least put off and give them some time before they have to build a parking garage. The general plan is to look at that area as the tenant leases run out and to use that surface parking and then also look seriously at potentially taking those facilities down and make an all is surface parking area which would give them 400 to 450 spaces on the west side of Lemay. The west side are not part of the P.U.D. The hospital would enter into an off site parking agreement, however, which would be part of the development agreement as he would understand it. Member Walker asked for the south entrance in terms of the circulation, what would be the new situation with the current entrance, how would the circulation work through there. Mr. Brelig replied as indicated, the major entrance will move from what is now called Robertson Street entrance north to Doctor's Lane. The south entrance will be signed, emergency/convenient care entrance. It will be signed appropriately for those two functions and as a third, which is an outpatient pickup for one day surgery. Because this entrance has been the main entrance, regardless of how we sign it, we are not going to stop a lot of people from going there. At least the first six months to a year, it is just a matter of education. If they did block it off right now he was afraid that they would have a lot of people trying to use the emergency parking and simply walking around to the southeast entrance. It is primarily an emergency/convenient care entrance. j Member Walker asked what the City's intentions were with regard to the intersection at Lemay . and the south entrance. Mr. Peterson asked the City Traffic Engineer to address that question. Mr. Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, replied that the intersection at this time will remain the same, as a full intersection. Right now they have signing that tries to discourage any through movement onto Robertson to the west side of Lemay. That will remain. They want the pedestrian signal aspects that are there now to remain as pedestrian access. They will look at, if and when this plan goes into effect, the traffic flow of southbound traffic into that access point. Try to monitor that to see if people are in fact coming southbound and using the Robertson access to go all the way back into the parking for the hospital users. We would prefer them to use the Doctor's Lane access. Initially they did not plan to change that, they will watch what happens and address it accordingly if there is a problem. Member Strom asked if the main problem at this point with access from the south is not having enough space to get the parking they need there as well as a major access point, or is it interaction with Lemay Avenue that causes the problem. Mr. Brelig replied that presently the situation as it exists, allows a pretty thoroughfare lane bypassing the emergency area and entering directly into the southeast parking lot. With the expansion of the emergency area, south as far as it is, from where it is right now, expanding south, that is obviously proximity -wise, fairly close to the south property line to the point where trying to swing a major thoroughfare with not having parking directly off of it coming in here would be very difficult. They did look at trying to keep that when they looked at 7 L J taking all eight houses down and developing anemergency parking area there. That was less than ideal, however, because it required people to cross a major traffic flow. Trying to develop a major thoroughfare and then have parking off set, they did not want to confuse the emergency with that thoroughfare. They wanted to give emergency their own access. Member Strom asked if it had any effect on his thinking now that they have parking on the west side of Lemay near that area. Mr. Brelig replied that the west side of Lemay, the two parcels on either side of Garfield will be employee parking. Member Strom asked if they intended to use those for visitor parking. Mr. Brelig replied no, that was entirely employee parking. Member Collier noted that on the west side of Lemay, the land they were talking about acquiring, there would be approximately 400 parking spaces if they took the buildings down at some point in the future. How many spaces would there be without taking down the buildings. Mr. Brelig replied in the neighborhood of about 215. Member Collier asked where besides those lots would be designated as employee parking. Mr. Brelig replied that they were looking here at development that shows a parking garage and conference center and right now that area is all surface parking. They would probably eliminate employee parking in the rear that would go back to visitor parking. They have increased at least the emergency/convenient care parking by approximately 42 spaces and it would probably creep back further north by assigning some areas which are presently employee to visitor parking. Member Strom asked if they had a sense at this point for what the current parking utilization is. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer for PVH, stated that in the previous PUD he did a parking demand study for the hospital. As he recalled the parking situation was that the employee area was pretty well full. The visitor area had spaces throughout the day and the particular times the counts were made, there were always spaces in the visitor lot and they used the peak hour times. He could not come up with firm numbers, but there were always spaces available. Member Strom asked if he did a new parking demand calculation for the expansion. Mr. Delich replied with the new proposed lots on the west side of Lemay, it was their feeling that the employees would be taken care and the visitor parking would be handled in the present visitor lot. As things go forward, when various levels of the parking garage go in, a three level and then up to six, the parking situation will be more than adequate. Member Strom asked if there was a significant increase in staff associated with the expansion. Mr. Brelig replied that the additions that are presently planned in the emergency area, the second floor above emergency which is the pediatric area, approximately 20 beds, do not add 0 0 • • any new bed count to the hospital. The pediatric area, for example, is on the third floor of the north building and it will move to the second floor above the emergency area. The general charge here was to try to take patient care out of the north part of the building which is the old building and slowly move those patient care areas south into the expansion area. They are not adding any new beds either with this expansion or with the support services expansion there. Even with the southeast area to go in, the psychiatric and one other that would probably locate in the expansion in the southeast addition, they were not anticipating any additional bed count. As to what that will do for employees, they have some areas outside the hospital that will move in, there will certainly be some growth they could anticipate over the years but not in actual bed count. Member Strom stated what he was trying to get at was he was just trying to understand the thrust of where the hospital sees itself going. He understands that technology is changing dramatically and that they were not comfortable predicting that far in advance. One of the questions that came up after worksession on Friday was, if they were pushing the edges of the envelope of this site and does it really make sense to look at an office/conference facility on the site, if you have parking ability across the street now, did it make sense to look at a parking garage now. He was just trying to get a better handle on the overall direction the hospital was going. Mr. Laurie replied that one of the reasons they wanted to acquire those facilities was that with these two construction projects that will bring contractors to the site, staging areas that will take up parking as with most projects and their desire to have the property across the street will be basically to off set and give them a modest increase in parking while the other two projects, the support services building and the southwest addition are being built. As those are completed, they would think that some of the construction will go away for a little while. They did develop the master site plan with the anticipation that they will ultimately go up to about • 1600 spaces which is double the current capacity. He thinks they will always have parking on their campus or plans to have parking on their campus that would exceed what the City requirements would be in order to accommodate that demand. He thinks the conference center would be the major driving force for them to put a parking garage on their campus if they get to that stage. That was driven primarily by the fact that health care is moving in a different direction. They want people to recognize that hopefully their role in the future will be to help encourage people to stay well and healthy and avoid the hospital. They want them to know that they can come to the hospital campus for wellness and prevention type things and that is why they would focus having that on their campus to develop it away from the hospital tends to segregate health care services and delivery of care and wellness as two separate issues, which they are not. That was mainly their strategy on that and that they will ultimately be at 1600 parking spaces but that would be 5 to 7 years away. They think the satellite campus will allow them to develop diagnostic centers and other ambulatory programs that will hopefully take some of the strain off of this site. The other reason they bought the property across the street was they can develop parking there at grade level at about 50 cents on the dollar as to what it would cost to build the parking garage so to try to avoid if at all possible building that garage for economic reasons for this community. Mr. Haberstroh, 1512 Patton Street, speaking for the Highlander Heights Homeowners. He stated this was a group of eight or nine people who have been dealing with covenant problems on an ad -hoc basis for a number of years. No formal Homeowners' Association exists. This group gets together when community problems arise and attempts to rally the support of the neighborhood. Their activities have been to communicate with the property owners by letter, telephone and personal visits and conduct neighborhood meetings as they did on the 10th of E 0 September in connection with the hospital problem. They have virtually unanimous support of the active neighbors. Their next projected activity after this crisis is over will be to create a formal neighborhood association. Mr. Haberstroh stated that the basis of their common point of view is that the subdivision's quality is maintained by the protective covenants. The principal provision of these are for single family use. There are some others. These covenants have been successfully applied and defended five or six times over the last decade or so. Their experience at the matter at hand is the original proposal by the Poudre Valley Hospital violates the covenants. The hospital owns these eight properties on the north side of Pitkin Street. They proposed to use the backyards of these houses as part of their parking lot. This was clearly unacceptable from their point of view. They discussed this difficulty with the Poudre Valley Administration and Board and the hospital subsequently offered a redesign which is the one they see which does not violate the single family use. At the insistence of the City of Fort Collins Planning Office, the eight lots are proposed to be kept in the P.U.D. They can accept the inclusion of these lots in the PUD but with conditions which they need to outline and make part of the record. 1. They agree in the concept that there may be additional protection offered to their neighborhood by the inclusion of these lots in the PUD. They were not waiving their rights under the covenants. 2. They want the language of the PUD to state clearly that these rights are maintained in specific details which can be copied from covenants themselves. 3. Their essential concern was the preservation of single family use. They believe they need language .which specifically eliminates the possibility of demolishing these houses for conversion of that land to another use in the future. They would like to review this language before the final approval. Mr. Haberstroh stated that this approach that he was talking about had been discussed in four way conversations among their group, the Planning Office, Poudre Valley Hospital Administration and their attorney. They all appear to agree that this scheme would be satisfactory. With these limitations they are in agreement with the applicant's proposal. They appear to have a mutually acceptable and amicable resolution of their prior disagreement. He had to say that if assurance of single family use is not provided, they will resist at all appropriate levels here and at further levels the inclusion of these eight properties in the PUD. They look forward to reviewing the language of the PUD in advance of final approval and thus avoid speaking at that meeting also. Mr. Harold Griffith, 1312 Emigh stated that he had a question for the architect. The emergency entrance has remained where it is at but they were going to take the main entrance going off of Doctor's Lane, so their ambulance comes south on Lemay and turns into the emergency entrance. There will be no traffic light there because as he understands it, they are going to move the traffic light up to Doctor's Lane. It looked as though they were going to open up one hell of an accident there for that ambulance coming southbound and turning into the emergency entrance without a signal, he just did not see it. Mr. Griffith stated that the other question was how come they were coming so far south of the hospital, why didn't they go east over toward Emigh Street instead of coming down toward Pitkin where there is already multi -family housing. 10 0 • Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that they way she understood him was why there would not be a • signal kept at the Lemay-Robertson intersection. In their discussions there had always been the intent to leave a signal there, the question has been whether it would be a full signal or something that would be activated for emergency use only. As Mr. Ensdorff indicated earlier, that was something that the City would be evaluating. There would be an intent to leave the signal there. The pedestrian signal that is mid -block, between Robertson and Doctor's Lane would be removed and there would be a full signal at the Doctor's Lane and Lemay intersection. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the second question was why the hospital was not expanding to Emigh. She would briefly comment that it came up at the neighborhood meeting as a question and it was an appropriate question for the hospital representatives to respond to. Chairman Strom stated they would come back to that question after public input. Ryan Butner, lives on Pitkin Street, asked if anyone had considered putting a landscape berm where Pitkin is now and extending as far east as it needs to isolate any hospital activity from the subdivision to the south. They would have to dead end Pitkin or turn it south onto Luke or Yount and then he realized they would have to move the houses and then the hospital could have their entrance or causeway somewhere to the north of this berm and he was not talking about violating covenants, he was talking about changing the boundary line a little bit of the subdivision. The covenants for the remaining properties would remain in tact. Chairman Strom stated that would be a question the Board would pursue with the applicant after public comment. He knew it had been looked at and he would ask the applicant and Staff to give a thorough discussion of that. Mr. Barry Cunningham, part owner of an office building north of Doctor's Lane. He would like to hear exactly what the plans were on the timing for changing Doctor's Lane to handle all the traffic that will go through there. Mr. Ensdorff, City Transportation Director, replied that the key improvement, the installation of the traffic signal was approved in the 1989 PUD and there was an intent by the hospital for the City to construct that still later this year. The other improvements would be removing parking on Doctor's Lane, striping of lane lines and pedestrian crossings. That would happen, they would work with the hospital and have that installed soon after the approval of the plan or when they would like it done. Chairman Strom asked if portions of it would start right away. Mr. Ensdorff replied that the key thing, the traffic signal was approved as a part of the 1989 PUD and has been put on hold through the development of this PUD process but they have agreement with the hospital to install the traffic signal and they will pursue that later this year. Mr. Chuck Rhodes, 1401 Patton Street, he would like to comment on Mr. Butner's proposal and that one of their main concerns as they are now addressing this problem has been the integrity of the neighborhood and they feel that it is no more fair to start in on the northwest corner and do something to the neighborhood as it would be to come off of Prospect or elsewhere. He was sure he was speaking especially for the people who would loose their houses in making a new entrance and the change that would be necessitated there with, which would be the traffic flow 11 0 which would stop Pitkin from being a through street. It would, he thought, cause a lot of hardship to the people who now live in the area who go out Pitkin Street to work and come back that way. So for reasons of integrity of the neighborhood they would be very much opposed for that consideration and have expressed that view point to the hospital and fortunately they agreed with seeing their problem and that was why they have looked elsewhere to solve their access problems. Mr. Dave Yost, 1301 Patton, stated he would like to say that they were not asking the Planning and Zoning Board here to uphold the covenants but they would like to have the idea of the covenants to continue with those eight homes that they see south of the existing lot line of the hospital and they would like for those to remain intact and to have the same usage of single family dwellings. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of the questions, why not go east on the site instead of south and the question about access in via essentially a modification of Pitkin Street or a change in the south access. Mr. Laurie replied that the question about moving east was one that was raised at the public hearing in order for them to do that, they would have to take their existing emergency department and relocate that to a new location. Given the functional relationships between the emergency department, the lab, radiology department and surgery it needs to stay in close proximity to those areas for patients, especially the trauma cases that need to go to the OR. The current location is on the south side. The only alternative would be to move it to the north side which would mean taking down the oldest building which they would ultimately like to do in about 7 to 10 years. In order for them to do that they would have to build new buildings for predominately administrative services first at a price in excess of $6 million dollars in order to demolish that building to build a new emergency department. They felt that given the fact they have a multi -million dollar master site plan to be developed was an inappropriate prioritization, that their preference would be to put their dollars into providing clinical facilities and services and administrative services second so that it was mainly a financial decision not to move east as well as the functional requirements that they would not have the diagnostic services available to the emergency department when major trauma comes in. Mr. Laurie replied to the second question that they had as he had said in his opening comments looked at coming to this area and closing off Pitkin and taking the houses out and developing a Boulevard entrance that would be heavily bermed as the gentleman described and probably from the hospital perspective that was their most desirable alternative to pursue. It would allow them to put the additional parking in there that they need, create a better access to the hospital campus to control traffic. On the north side they need to recognize there is physician offices there who have considerable patients as well as employee traffic to the hospital on a daily basis. They have some reservations about the amount of traffic that they are going to have to deal with the cross walks. That was their ideal first solution and he thinks one that at some point in the distant future they would need to revisit but as he said in his opening comments, it was their desire to work with their neighbors and be sensitive to their needs and try and determine what they could do to try and accommodate being in a residential area and still meet the needs of the patients and try to do all they could to try and control the cost of health care by maximizing the use of the existing site. Chairman Strom asked if it was their best guess at this point, with the internal constraints within the building and the organization of facilities, is this as far south as they would go. 12 Mr. Laurie replied that he learned a long time ago to never say always and always avoid saying . never and he will take that same option here. They do not have any present plans nor do they anticipate them looking at developing plans that would cause that to happen. To give any assurances or guarantees, he could not do that. Member Clement -Cooney stated she was confused, they just talked about the possibility of centralizing Doctor's Lane, Doctor's Lane was going to be the entrance into PVH with the possibility in the future expanding to the north thus centralizing Doctor's Lane. Yet we are also talking about potentially utilizing Pitkin in the future for the entrance into the hospital. It seemed to her that maybe she was confused or maybe she was not hearing it right, but we were talking about two different things and perhaps we've talked about long-range planning and it seemed to her that maybe some long-range planning needs to be done about where the hospital is going. In the future were they potentially going to use Pitkin, are they going to centralize Doctor's Lane and move to the north. She also has written down in her notes, they talked about a potential southern satellite facility.. There was a lot of guessing going on here and maybe they will build a parking garage, maybe they won't, maybe they will have a southern satellite facility, may they won't and she would like to see some more planning and less guessing about this. Could some one address the fact of, she knows that they can't plan into the future, it is very hard based on the health care industry but even just starting at basically are they planning on moving on south or north. Mr. Laurie replied that he just commented that they did not have any plans on moving south. Member Clements -Cooney replied that they had a letter in their packets that they were leaving that open and he had addressed the Board earlier in his discussion that potentially Doctor's Lane could be centralized moving to the north and she was just trying to get a hold on whether it is north or is it south or is he just not sure at this point. • Mr. Laurie replied that their plans are pretty much laid out in the proposal that it keeps the integrity of a southern entrance through the emergency department as currently configured in the PUD proposal as well as the widening on the north side that there will be two access points to their campus because they will continue to see significant traffic. Maybe one thing they did not point out is that the vast majority of traffic of patients and visitors coming for inpatient will flow into the hospital at the current entrance. As Mr. Brelig mentioned probably for the first six to twelve months when this is done people will continue to come in through the current entrance because that is what they have been accustomed to coming in as a major entrance to the hospital. Others will start to come in the other route. They also heard Mr. Ensdorff make a comment that they will continue to study the traffic flows on Lemay and he thought that would be the crucial point of influence where the City would possibly come back to them and ask them to revisit the access to the hospital because of how the traffic is being managed. He thought that would drive it a lot quicker than any plans the hospital has. Member Clements -Cooney stated that the issue she was getting at was long-range planning. Mr. Laurie asked for a time period. Member Clements -Cooney replied, ten years. Where did they see the hospital going. She has heard a lot of items alluded to. They alluded to the fact that perhaps there might be a potential for a southern satellite facility. That was not in the ten year plan? 13 Mr. Laurie replied that he would anticipate that if they acquire property for a satellite campus which is to the south of the hospital and not anywhere in the immediate neighborhood, that would be done sometime within the next six month for the property acquisition. That would be to develop diagnostic ambulatory facilities. It would not be any inpatient services provided with that type of a site at least not hospital services. Based on the projections for the population for Fort Collins for the rest of the decade, they did not think they would have to expand the construction size for hospital beds beyond what it is, that technology will continue to shorten the lengths of stay, take inpatient services to outpatient services so that their bed capacity, even though the population continues to grow they should not need to grow. They do have some private rooms internally that could be converted to semi -privates as well, so they could increase their bed capacity in the hospital without doing any new building on the exterior of the site. They really needed to be sensitive and appreciate where technology is going in medicine. Things they planned for in terms of ambulatory surgery two years ago had to be done on the hospital campus is now being done outside the hospitals that did not exist two years ago. Some doctors are taking out gallbladders in ambulatory surgery settings away from the hospital. That procedure was not even available when they started the project they just finished on, expanding their surgery facilities and he would tell them that anybody that came in here and tells them beyond a five year horizon, he would not put much credibility in anything they would tell them about what medicine will be delivering and would question their credibility or they know something very unique and they were a real visionary that has some inside information that just wasn't there. Member Walker asked if we could speak with some certainty in a five year horizon. The issue of the residences along Pitkin, was it in the hospital's vision in the next five years what would be the case with these residences. Mr. Laurie replied at this point they did not anticipate making any changes in the residences from how they are currently used. Member Walker suggested that the use of those properties be placed in the PUD with an open- ended horizon. He suggested that if changes were made, then this clarification be brought back before the Board with the PUD. Mr. Laurie replied that if he understood the request correctly, he would interpret it as if they were asking them to assume additional restrictions on properties that they currently own that they don't have. Mr. Laurie replied that if he was asking if they planned to adhere to the legal restrictions of the covenants, they have every intention of doing that. Member Walker replied that covenants were not the issue. From a planning perspective, it would help, it would be important to clarify the future uses of those properties. He would not say always or never as he suggested. For planning purposes he thought we needed to have some sort of statement in the PUD that suggests what the planned use for this is as this plan goes forward again not to say that it could not be changed, they were changing the use on the site through this process tonight. That was his point, that there was a request from the neighborhood and staff that clarification of the future use of the properties. It appeared to him that what needs to happen here would be for the staff and neighborhood and the hospital to get into some agreement as to those residences. He was just trying to get at that issue and 14 some assurance in terms of a vision for the hospital right not is that as they suggested, their . vision at the moment was that these be maintained as residences for people who use the hospital. Mr. Laurie replied that he would be receptive to sit down with City Staff and look at what they would be proposing on that, he did not want to make any commitments not knowing what they would be at this time, he certainly would be willing to visit with that. Mr. Eckman, Assistant City Attorney stated that as he was listening to some of the testimony given by the neighborhood and the public generally, in reference to that they did not have a proposed condition that Staff had presented to them. He sensed that there might be some dissatisfaction with that condition on the part of the public or on the part of the applicant or on the part of both. The first condition, the Board could still consider it and use it instead of the new condition, but he thought he would read both of them for comparison purposes. The first condition was that a note clarifying to the satisfaction of the City, the future use and procedures required for changes of use of the eight residential properties located on the north side of Pitkin Street be added to the final site plan, that would be one approach. Another approach was suggested by Highlander Heights was that the Board impose some sort of condition that stated that those lots are subject to the protective covenants. He had some difficultly with that because he would think it to be exceeding the Board's jurisdiction to make such a decision here when they have not even seen the protective covenants and did not think should be seeing those covenants. Another condition that might work that might read something like this; There shall be no voluntary intentional demolition or change of use from single family residential use to any other use of the houses located on the original lots 1-9 of the Highlander Heights Subdivision without the public review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of such demolition or change of use as an amendment to the Poudre Valley Hospital Planned Unit Development. That would not insure that those lots would never be . changed, as that could be accomplished as an amendment to the PUD. At least it would give the neighborhood another public hearing to give their input on that. Member Cottier stated that an issue that has come up in their discussions on this project in the past was pedestrian connection from the parking structure directly to the hospital. In addressing that could he also comment on why it might not be more efficient for internal and external circulation to flip the parking structure and conference facility such that the conference facility is closer to Doctor's Lane on the north and that way the parking structure would be closer to the majority of the patient -oriented services of the hospital and the pedestrian connection would be possible. Mr. Brelig stated that this request was two -fold. He stated that on the west side of the parking garage was a main pedestrian access coming from Doctor's Lane. There would be an uninterrupted pedestrian connection at grade level. Using the site plan slide, he demonstrated how the pedestrian path would be from the parking garage to the hospital. He stated that an overhead walkway would not be possible because of the windows around the intensive care unit section of the hospital that would require the light to enter the sections. Also an overhead walkway would have to have enough height clearance for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks. Mr. Brelig stated that there would be some merit in changing out the parking structure and the conference facility. However, there would be two main drop off points, one at the conference 15 0 center. If the center and parking structure were changed, it would be possible to tie into a four- story portion of the building but this would force visitor traffic down the main corridor of the nursing care units. Member Cotner stated that if there were a pedestrian bridge or a more direct connection available, it would ensure that the parking structure would be utilized more than it might be without such a connection. Mr. Laurie stated there would be a serious analysis at that stage if they should have employee required parking and that the grade level remain visitor parking. He stated that they do have the ability to build a conference center/ office/garage so there would be an underground connection to the garage. Member Cottier asked if the Board could require the applicant to address plans for the straightening out of McHugh and Patton in the development agreement since the applicant does not own those properties. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that this was an on -going topic since the 1989 surgery addition. The last two traffic impact studies have addressed this. She stated that City concern was with potential construction of a parking garage in the northeast area of the hospital and with Doctor's Lane becoming prioritized as a major entrance, the connection to Riverside becomes attractive. The City believed that, based on potential traffic impacts from the development, they do have the ability to work with the hospital to require some of those improvements. The difficulty would be in that the hospital does not own that property. The City would encourage the hospital to make contacts to acquire the property. If the property would not be available, the City would have to step in. The primary interest with the staff condition was the interim striping plan and the development agreement addressing what the specific responsibilities of the hospital. Member Carroll commented that he would concur with the first condition of staff with the understanding that this area was used as residential. He stated that if any changes would be made in the future, they would have to come before the Board as an amendment or a PUD. He commented that he also concurs with the other two conditions. Member Walker commented that, with the houses as they exist, there was some implied language in the PUD that these houses are part of the hospital's PUD. However, he suggested that clarification of that language would be useful since it was an issue of concern. He believed that as this PUD was viewed as proposed, those houses were residences. Chairman Strom asked if there was concern about icing in winter on the street shading of Doctor's Lane. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that this was reviewed and that Doctor's Lane would be shaded virtually year round. She stated there could be some potential icing on Doctor's Lane but it would not be any more significant than any other City streets where there were mature deciduous trees or evergreen trees. She stated that this was not a concern at this time. Chairman Strom commented that he had concerns with the main entrance of the hospital at the southeast corner of the building with the potential parking garage. He believed that all of this together with the proposed change of major access to Doctor's Lane would be better with the major access to the south but did not see a better way at this time. 16 0 i • Member Walker moved to approve Poudre Valley Hospital PUD with the three conditions as noted by staff, namely clarifying the future use of the eight residential properties, the interim striping plan for Elizabeth/McHugh and Elizabeth/Patton, and the final drainage report with outstanding drainage concerns being addressed at final. Member Carroll stated that the first condition about the use and procedures stated "shall be added to the final site plan." He asked if this meant that this will come back before the Board on final. Mr. Peterson responded yes. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 6-0. Park South PUD Overall Development Plan - #46-88B Park South PUD - Preliminary - #46-88C Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the descriptions for both Park South items. She stated that there was a new condition placed on the preliminary which stated: "A four foot detached sidewalk be required along the west side of Manhattan Avenue as part of the development of Park South PUD Preliminary." Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that staff was initially not certain as to whether they could require the developer to construct and install this sidewalk at the time of development of the site. After further review of the development agreements and a discussion with the City Attorney, staff believed that they do have the ability to require this sidewalk which was only along one side of Manhattan Avenue and along the frontage of this proposed preliminary plan. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the preliminary subject to that one condition. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated that this project was brought before the Board and was denied in 1988 based on the negative traffic impact and negative neighborhood compatibility. He briefly discussed what was proposed in the 1988 project and what changes have been made in this overall development plan noting the increase of 3 acres of the total acreage, the decrease of the non-residential area which is Parcel A and B,the increase of Parcel C, and the reduction of acreage and change from a community shopping center to a neighborhood convenience shopping center of Parcel A. He stated that Parcel B was a transitional area and Parcel C contained 121 lots. Member Walker asked if it was just a concept in the report that mentioned the access off of Horsetooth with left turns from the westbound lanes. Mr. Vaught replied that this was just a concept and not a consideration in the overall development plan. Member Walker asked why the car wash and detail was on the list for potential uses. Mr. Vaught stated that if this could be made to be architecturally compatible, they believed it could be an acceptable use. However, this could be deferred to the preliminary plan. 17 • Member Walker had concerns with the intensity of the use of the 7 plus acres/ 80,000 square foot area and the higher use than prescribed. Mr. Vaught replied that they believed this was not a neighborhood shopping center with a food store anchor. This has the potential to be a healthy center and needed to incorporate an anchor of some sort into the center which could be a 30,000 square foot anchor. If this were limited to 50,000 total square feet with an anchor that would be the drawing card, there would not be enough support square footage in the smaller shops. Ruth Barrier represented the Four Seasons Homeowners' Association. She stated that the association's main concerns in 1988 were the traffic impact and having no need for a neighborhood convenience center. She stated that they have no objections to the increase in residential housing, office buildings but they were opposed to having a neighborhood shopping center. She stated that she had met with Mr. Shepard and Mr. Middel and an agreement was made with the concern of the number of residential housing. Mr. Middel agreed to make the homes along Benthaven part of the Four Seasons Homeowners' Association. She stated that they had a concern with the lot size and drainage easement of the lot next to Leisure Village. She stated that after discussing this with Mr. Middel, he agreed to put that particular house directly on the easement line which would still create a 40 foot house frontage plus the five foot required adjacent to the next property. Susan Shaw, 3725 Benthaven, had concerns about nine lots that would be directly across the street from her home. She also had concerns about the increased traffic impact that this development would -create on Benthaven. Loren Dilsaver, property owner of land on other side of Manhattan Avenue, stated that he was concerned about the density in the residential area, the sewer capacity and the increased runoff of the detention pond. Norm Meyer, resident of The Village, stated that the number of homes between Dennison and Bonita, on the east side of Benthaven, should be no greater than the number of homes on the west side of Benthaven between Dennison and Bonita. Member Klataske asked if the detention pond capacity and the sewer line have been addressed at this point. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, stated that they have not been addressed at the master plan level. He stated that this would need to be investigated and where the flow would go at the time of development. He stated that there was a master plan in terms of drainage and if the capacity was not in that detention, then the developer upstream would have to detain more on site. He stated that the sewers were master planned for anticipating densities. Member Klataske asked if the detention pond east of Manhattan would drain into the proposed detention pond. Mr. Herzig replied that he was not familiar with that and could not recall if all of detention for Park South would be on that location. He stated that he could not respond to the question without further investigation but this would be done with the preliminary and final development. Member Klataske asked if the detention was considered with the preliminary residential area ILI Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that the Water and Sewer Department responded to the sewer issue by stating that most of the mains were existing and some services were currently installed. Mark Middel, developer, stated that the City Storm Drainage Department and Stewart & Associates have discussed this and they all agreed that there were no problems with the detention pond. He stated that there was a 36 inch storm drain along the west side of Manhattan which was a sub -surface pipe which allowed for the discharge of water at any one point and not restricted by gravity now. He stated that the City was looking at additional storm drainage capacity in the South Glen pond. Member Cottier asked for clarification of the number of homes on Benthaven. Mr. Middel replied that there would be nine homes on Benthaven. All of the lots would be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Member Walker asked for the rationale behind the small lot sizes. Mr. Middel stated that the current plat on the property was 143 sites. This property was zoned and annexed under a forced annexation with the city. In that agreement, this subdivision could be approved and developed as those 4,000 square foot lots without any City curb or gutter. A resolution has been agreed upon that the site could be developed with City standards which would make the lots larger and in conformance with the current standards. The style and size of homes has changed to make lots appear deeper which would make better use of the land. He stated that they would put in curb and gutter to upgrade the proposed site. Member Walker asked for staff perspective on this issue. • Ms. Albertson -Clark added that the key to a PUD was the offer of flexibility. She stated that slightly over half of the lots for this proposed development were under 6,000 square feet but they were internal to the site. She stated that staff believed that this was a buildable plan and was an improvement and upgrade to the already approved plan that was in place today. Member Carroll asked if the land east of Manhattan was zoned Highway Business and if it had a current plan for it. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that at one time there was a plan for the Minerva Business Park but this has expired. She stated that currently this property had no plan approved but could develop as a use -by -right. Member Carroll stated that he had concerns with the potential development of the property east of Manhattan Avenue and the collector and arterial street connections. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that this was one of the criterion that is reviewed by staff on the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center point chart. Staff did not feel that it was appropriate to do the point chart and include it in the packet. She stated that staff does not evaluate a neighborhood convenience shopping center as part of an overall development plan. She noted that in 1988 staff struggled with the definition of what the proposal was then and whether it played a community -serving role. She stated that the discussion was centered on particular square footage that was proposed at the master plan level. The difficulty now was delineating between a neighborhood convenience shopping center and a neighborhood center. 19 0 Chairman Strom asked if the projected traffic impact level of service is based on the 80,000 square foot commercial space and, if so, could it be clarified where the level of service would be. Ms. Albertson -Clark referred the traffic impact portion of Chairman Strom's question to the Traffic Engineer. She stated that staff believed that the existing traffic system could handle the traffic that would be generated by the center. She stated that on the 1988 plan, another concern was that Manhattan was primarily a residential -serving collector street and Staff was concerned about the level of service. Chairman Strom asked Mr. Lee, Traffic Engineer, if the traffic projections assumed 80,000 square feet of commercial. Mr. Lee responded yes. Member Cottier stated that the PUD guidelines discouraged from locating within 3/4 of a mile from another convenience center. This proposal was within 3/4 of a mile of another center and 1/2 mile from commercial areas on College Avenue. She asked how, from a planning perspective, would the closeness to another shopping center be justified. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the convenience center Member Currier was referring to was the one at Cunningham Corners. This center may not qualify under the definition of a convenience center because it would be based on the amount of retail sales of gas versus the amount that qualify from other non -gas sales. The evaluation of the overall development plan portion was to focus on the kinds of uses that were listed on the ODP as uses in the neighborhood convenience shopping center and, with the exception of the car wash and detailing, staff believed these were the kinds of uses that were neighborhood -serving. There were also some potential pedestrian -connections proposed. Member Clements -Cooney asked when traffic signals would be installed at Manhattan and Horsetooth. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that these would be installed when warranted. Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not see a change for transition and believed that this needed to be addressed. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that typically with lower density residential uses developing first, the higher intensity use would carry a greater burden for buffering to the residential units. Member Klataske commented that he hoped the developer would not have the expectation that the Board would approve anything up to 80,000 square feet, when the stated policy was 50,000 square feet. He also commented that there should be a reduction in the possible improvements of square footage of the shopping center. Member Walker commented that the car wash and detailing potential use should be stricken from the overall development plan. He also had concerns with the 80,000 square foot expectation and buffering of the single family to the south. Member Carroll asked, if this was approved, would the Board be approving an 80,000 square foot shopping center. 20 Ms. Albertson -Clark replied technically no. She read a note that is typically placed on overall development plans which stated "The proposed land uses and density shown on this plan are estimates of development potential. Approval of this plan, by the City, does not constitute the final approval for these land uses, design, or density. Rather, any further land uses must be approved according to the procedures, processes, and criteria of the Planned Unit Development regulations and other relevant City policies and standards." Chairman Strom commented that approving an ODP does not commit the applicant to 80,000 square feet but he believed that it created an expectation. He stated that he would rather create an expectation that will meet a typical guideline. If a more detailed proposal that could justify 80,000 square feet were submitted, he would feel more comfortable considering it at that stage. Member Walker moved to approve the Park South Overall Development Plan with the modification that the car wash and detail facility be removed from the list of possible uses of the convenience center and that the neighborhood convenience shopping center be shown on the Overall Development Plan as 50,000 square feet and 7.3 acres. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that she would support the motion but had reservations about the commercial activity and would hope that the future neighborhood convenience center would reflect the lower level of intensity and that the 50,000 square feet would be taken as a serious guideline. Motion to approve Park South Overall Development Plan carried 5-1 with Member Clements - Cooney voting no. Member Cottier moved to approve Park South Amended Preliminary PUD with the condition that the homes on Benthaven be part of the Four Seasons Homeowners Association and be designated on the final and that the four foot detached sidewalk be required along the west side of Manhattan Avenue as part of the development. She commented that this was a much improved plan from what was submitted in 1988 and was more compatible with the neighborhood: Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion to approve Park South Amended Preliminary PUD carried 6-0. Country Club Corners PUD Overall Development Plan-#72-84A Country Club Corners PUD - Preliminary - #72-84B Kirsten Whetstone gave descriptions of both Country Club items with staff recommending approval of the preliminary with the following conditions: 1) that the College Avenue acces issue be resolved with the State Highway Department and the City Transportation Department prior to approval of the final plan; 2)and that final storm drainage grading and erosion control plans be approved to City staff satisfaction prior to review of a final plan. Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman Architects, briefly discussed the proposed projects stating that the build -out would be over the next 7 to 10 years, depending upon the economic conditions of 21 Fort Collins. He also briefly discussed the pedestrian circulation, accesses, parking, landscaping, and building architecture. Member Cottier asked Mr. Hattman to review the circulation for the proposed drive-thru restaurant. Mr. Hattman reviewed the circulation using the site slides. Chairman Strom asked for a comparison of the color scheme of this proposed project with the Union Colony Bank. Mr. Hattman stated that this project would match the new beige stucco on the bank but the tile and brick accents have not been chosen. Tom White, owner of the Town and Country Motel, asked if the berm between College Avenue and the restaurant would include a sidewalk or other pedestrian access along College Avenue. Ms. Whetstone replied that there would be sidewalks constructed with this phase along College Avenue. Also when the shopping center is built, there will be a detached walk along College Avenue from Bristlecone to Willox Lane. Eleanor Shipley, 218 West Willox, stated that this area was in desperate need of a shopping center, especially a grocery store. Harry Abrahams, representative of Union Colony Bank, stated 'the traffic of the bank will be compatible with the proposed restaurant. He believed that this development would be a benefit to Fort Collins. Chairman Strom asked for an explanation of the State Highway access. Mr. Herzig stated that the State Highway Engineers have stated that no access can be approved off of College because Bristlecone and Willox Lane were accessible for the entire land. After discussions with the Highway Department, an agreement was reached that the Highway Department perceived this access can be right -in right -out when the shopping center would be developed. They have also agreed to review alternatives as to what can be handled with the access in the interim. He stated that more investigation will need to be done in regards to the access. He stated that the applicant will have to prove that there would be a benefit to the signalization of Willox and the intersection at Bristlecone in having this access before it could be allowed. Different alternatives will be reviewed during the final stage plus additional information from the traffic study to determine with the State what would be an acceptable access and what would trigger further improvements as the center develops. Member Cottier asked if the access south of the bank should be deleted from the overall development plan. . Mr. Herzig stated that in their discussions with the State, this access did not conform to the access code requirements. This would need to be further analyzed. Member Cottier asked if the rationale of adequate access from the State was not the same as accesses on South College. She asked what the City could do to encourage the State to be more responsive regarding accesses. 22 Mr. Herzig stated that developing a highway access plan for North College would be the key for development on North College. Chairman Strom asked what it would take to trigger a North College Access Plan. Mr. Herzig stated that this was a Council Goal and the Traffic Department was in the process of starting a North College Access Plan. Member Carroll moved to approve Country Club Corners Overall Development Plan. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 6-0. Member Carroll moved to approve Country Club Corners Preliminary PUD with the two conditions that College Avenue access issue be resolved by the State Highway Department and the City Transportation Division prior to approval of the final PUD plan and that the final storm drainage, grading and erosion control plans be approved prior to review of the final review plan. Member Cooler seconded the motion. The motion to approve Country Club Corners Preliminary PUD carried 6-0. STEELE'S MARKET AT HARMONY MARKET PUD -ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE #54 87E Mr. Eckman stated that due to his previously declared conflict of interest regarding signs in the Planned Unit Development process he would leave the chamber for this discussion. Mr. Peterson stated that before them tonight was a request from the Neenan Company, representing Nash -Finch and Steele's Market for an administrative change to the previously approved signage at Harmony Market, the Steele's Market, Filing Three, Final, P.U.D. Mr. Peterson stated that, based on Staffs review of this matter, it was felt that it was important enough to take the item directly to the Board rather than Staff acting upon it. Mr. Peterson stated that the proposal for the administrative change was essentially to add larger signs adjacent to the Steele's Market currently approved sign for Pharmacy, Bakery and Deli, three feet high with some lower signage for Mail Boxes, Travel and Cleaners, 20 inches high on the lower fascia. The reason this has come about was that instead of what was originally contemplated there were some sub -tenant leases going on in Steele's Market for some individual businesses. The applicant felt the need to make some changes in their signage package. They will make those arguments with the Board. In terms of Staff review, we have looked at it and believed it was appropriate that the Board make the final decision. Staff does have a recommendation for consideration, if the Board wants to go in that direction but it was the Board's discretion at this point. Chairman Strom asked for the Staff recommendation. Mr. Peterson stated that Staff, in reviewing this item, had been torn between what we did with both Pace Warehouse and Builders Square and the different types of use that a grocery store 23 0 put into a neighborhood shopping center of this size. Included in the Staff report was an analysis of building heights, the building widths and sign letter sizes. The grocery, the staff believed, did have some difference between what you would find with the much more regionally oriented Pace and Builder's Square type of buildings. Therefore, we felt that the applicant had proposed a bit much in terms of what else had gone on. In terms of looking at the other Steele's store on College Avenue and what was being proposed here, we would be comfortable if the Pharmacy, Bakery/Deli signs were reduced from three feet to two feet, and would also believe the signs on the top fascia should be the same letter style with the outline in white and with the muted red brown, interior illumination. This provides some consistency based on what has gone on with the rest of the center. Finally, we believe that the three smaller signs, Mail Boxes, Travel and Cleaners, being proposed really should be taken off of the fascia and be changed into a blue color to continue the signage theme that has been developed for the other stores in the center. Staff believes that the modifications, in their opinion, represent a reasonable compromise that demonstrates some sensitivity to the Harmony Corridor, the residential neighborhoods to the north, and the integrity of the whole Harmony Market P.U.D., especially considering the needs of tire individually owned retailers located within the multi - tenant structure. There was some justification for doing this based on All Development Criteria number 2, 33 and 46 in Section E-5 of the LDGS. Member Walker asked if the three smaller signs were lowered off of the fascia, where would that put them. Mr. Peterson replied that those signs could be placed on the glass below the fascia. Greg Fisher, the project architect for the Neenan Company, representing Steele's, stated that the project is progressing very well and on schedule for Steele's to be open at the beginning of November. Mr. Fisher showed a slide of the front elevation facing north on Harmony Road and stated, immediately to the right, which would be to the west of Steele's, is proposed retail space of about 20,000 to 30,000 square feet. Further to the right is Builders Square and further yet is Pace Warehouse. All the lettering and signage shown on the building would be individual letters as opposed to a sign box. The signage would be constructed of aluminum channels with colored acrylic faces, the signage shown here, Steele's Market, the main anchor tenant signage was previously approved with the original P.U.D. and is 48 inches in height. The additional signage of the Pharmacy and Bakery/Deli is 24 inches in height based on the recommendation of Staff to reduce from 3 feet to 2 feet. The upper signage as shown, would be all the same in character and color as Staff recommended and would be exactly the same as the signage on the existing Steele's stores in terms of color and character. Mr. Fisher showed slides of the actual main signage on the two existing stores and pointed out you could see the individual letters, they have a white boarder surrounding the letter with the muted red color in -fill. Mr. Fisher stated that they had discussed the signage and as well the character of the buildings at the neighborhood meeting and found a very favorable response from the neighbors. A question was raised about the signage in terms of the amount of signage and so forth, and they explained that it would be comparable with the existing stores and there was no further discussion. 24 Mr. Fisher stated that the signage on the lower fascia was 20 inches in height, as per Staff recommendation, it is all the same color and character. It would all be blue with the intent to tie into the signage colors of Pace and Builders Square. In reviewing the Staff report, Staff mentioned that Steele's is a project that is distinctly different from Pace and Builder's Square and there are five distinct tenants, each offering neighborhood services, versus a single regional community warehouse type use that Pace and Builder's Square offer. The five tenants going into Steele's would be Steele's, which is owned by Bert Steele and managed by Bob Smith, who is also here tonight. The other tenants would be a Pharmacy, which would be owned and operated by Ed Horges, who operated the Northern Pharmacy on North College for several years and currently operates the Pharmacy in the two existing Steele's stores. The Mail Box tenant is Mail Box, Etc., which is a national franchise, owned by Bruce and Kathy Anderson. The franchise would be leasing Mail Boxes and would also offer services in the form of sending faxes, UPS mailings and word processing services, and they would also retail packaging goods. The other two tenants are Ambassador Travel, owned by Bill Brown and operated by Ann Dean and Country Cleaners, owned by Bill Burger. Mr. Fisher stated that, typical of all retail spaces, adequate signage and separate identification of the individual tenants is crucial to the businesses to be operated and be efficient. Mr. Fisher stated that in reviewing Stafrs recommendation, they have agreed to reduce the signage of Bakery/Deli and Pharmacy to the two foot recommendation. All the signage on the upper fascia would be the same in character and all the signage on the lower fascia would also be the same in character. The only recommendation that Staff has made that they are in conflict with is the recommendation that the signage be lowered from the lower fascia. The reasoning for this is that they already feel the signage there is very mitigated and scaled, due to the fact that it is over 600 feet from Harmony Road. There is extensive landscape and berming buffer along Harmony Road that was required originally for the project as well there • will be retial tenant pads along Harmony Road that would further block the signage. Mr. Fisher stated that there was some technical problems with lowering the signage. If they were to bring the signage down onto the brick or glass as Staff has suggested, it would be very difficult to connect to the glass, other than through the use of neon which would need to be mounted inside the window, and they did not feel that would be as strong or as pleasing of a character. There would also be some problems with visibility, in that if you lower the signage down, it would be in the shadow of the overhang, which is approximately 5 feet, and there are also brick columns spaced at every 20 feet that would also reduce the potential for view windows into the signage. Staff had also mentioned in their report that they saw the three non- food businesses as virtually the equivalent of the in -line retail space that would be typical in Harmony Market and that it would be typical of most retail spaces throughout Fort Collins. Therefore, they request that they be treated the same as typical retail spaces. There will be retail space developing to the west of Steele's and as the envelope as shown on the Preliminary PUD, that would be immediately adjacent to Steele's and would more that likely develop almost flush in terms of the north face with Steele's. It would also be likely that the retail development would have a fascia, or some similar element such as Steele's has, to both cover the entry ways into the tenant space and as well repeat the character established throughout Harmony Market. It would also seem likely that those tenants would also request signage similar to these three tenants on that fascia which would be the norm pretty much displayed throughout Fort Collins. 25 • Mr. Fisher also mentioned that the monument sign, placed on the corner of Harmony Road and Lemay Avenue, is similar to the Pace Warehouse and Builders Square monument signs and would only say "Steele's Market" and "Harmony Market" on it. None of the tenants would be displayed there, which further means that the north elevation of the building is the tenant's only opportunity to indicate that they are present in the center. Member Cotner asked if the tenants are not going to want to be further identified as "Ambassador Travel" and "Country Cleaners." Are they happy just being "travel' and "cleaners." Mr. Fisher replied yes, it had been discussed and to mitigate having more signage than we already have on the building, they tried to make it simple and identify the services that were available so that vehicles passing by on Harmony Road would know that these services are available and could come in and take advantage of them. Kathy Anderson, co-owner of Mail Boxes, Etc., stated that they are very concerned about the signage. They do feel that this is their only exposure to the public and hope that the Board would see it that way. Bert Steele, Steele's Market, stated that these services were not offered in ordinary grocery stores and people won't necessarily be looking for these services in their store and the signage becomes real critical to the tenants and to their ability to draw business in. He thought the biggest concern that he would have would be that anything they do on the downside eliminates the value of the sign at all and he would appreciate the request to stand. He thought that it also makes an attractive building. Member Carroll stated that Staff had recommended that the three, Mail Boxes Inc., Travel, and Cleaners be moved down and he was having a little trouble visualizing just where they would be moved to. He asked, was it glass all the way across there, or was there some brick? What was Staff thinking as to where they would go. Mr. Fisher replied that there was glass on either side of the front door and then brick, Member Carrollasked if they were to be moved down, they would either have to appear on the glass to either side of the front door or on the brick. Mr. Fisher replied that virtually would be correct, they would either be on the glass or on the brick out to the outside of the columns. Member Carroll commented that they have noted that they have two one word "travel" and "cleaners" then we have "Mail Boxes, Inc.", which is the name of the company which is three words and was there any particular reason for that, that it couldn't say U.S. Postal or Mail. We've got again one tenant who has it's name and two who don't. Mr. Fisher replied that Mail Boxes, Etc., being a national franchise, has national requirements for the format of their signage, whereas, Ambassador Travel and Country Clean are local tenants and don't have those requirements. As he mentioned, they would be quite a bit larger in signage as well and that was the agreement made. Member Carroll asked that there are certain other grocery stores in Fort Collins and one comes to mind, at the corner at Drake and Lemay that does have some postal facilities, does it have any signage indicating its uses other than groceries. W Mr. Peterson replied that he was not sure. When they went through with the grocery store . downtown at the corner of Mulberry and College, there was some additional signs added and he thought that if would be safe to say that the trend with neighborhood supermarkets such as this that they are sub -leasing space to operations like this to make them more attractive. He thought that this would not be the only request the Board would see in the future. Member Carroll stated that he was inclined to go with some additional signage and what troubled him was that had the neighbors come in and said, "well our paint shop is not ours, we consign our paints out to a national paint chain and our hardware is not ours, we consign that to a national hardware chain," so therefore those people want their signs. He suspected that we would of said, as far as the public is concerned, this is a large hardware store or building store and you can find what was inside of it. Member Walker asked about the retail space to the west of Steele's and that it was going to be more individual retail spaces, what would be the signage requirement or concept on there, would it be above where the Bakery/Deli is or would it be down on the fascia. Mr. Peterson replied that the space next to this, the 20,000 to 30,000 s.f.that connects this site and the Builders Square site has really been talked about in two distinct ways. One is the possibility of one or two large single users, like a furniture store, an office supply store, that sort of thing and then you would be looking at one or two operations and one or two signs somewhere there. The other uses that have been talked about are essentially a long building with a number of different tenants and in that case you would see a number of signs there. At this point in time the market is not ready to indicate what was going to happen there. As far as he knew, there had been no discussion with the owners of the property as to what is going to be proposed there in probably two years. • Member Walker asked where will the three shops be located within the Steele's, would they be right at the front and once he knew there was a cleaners in there where would he find it. Mr. Fisher replied that the cleaners would be located behind the glass, actually he is the last couple of panes on the end. The travel agent would be located adjacent to him and the Mail Boxes, Etc. would be in store entrance and would have a separate entrance for their 24 hour service. Once you enter the store, all three of the tenants will also have some signage inside the store on a soffit within the store that exposes what their purpose is. Member Walker asked with this proposal before them, there would be no signs on the glass. Mr. Fisher replied that was correct. Member Cottier asked for the rationale to be explained for wanting the three small signs to be blue. Mr. Peterson replied that both Pace and Builders Square signage was blue and the three smaller signs would tie in with that signage. They would expect when the 20,000 to 30,000 s.f. complex came in there would be some blue in there so there would be a constant theme running through the entire center. Member Clements -Cooney asked what was approved on the original PUD. Mr. Peterson replied that the sign that says "Steele's Market." 27 0 Member Klataske asked if this was reviewed against the Harmony Corridor's Design Guidelines also. Mr. Peterson replied it had been and what was being proposed did not impact the Harmony Corridor sign guidelines. If this was a fast food restaurant on a pad site on the Market then it would have some impact and we would have looked at that. Mr. Peterson added that when Harmony Market was approved, there really were only three identity signs approved for Harmony Market, one where Boardwalk comes in, one in the middle where the major entrance would be, and one on the Lemay side and there would be no other signs other than those for identification. Chairman Strom asked in terms of free standing monument signs. Member Walker commented that since Mail Boxes, Etc. have their logo on there, then the other two tenants obviously have some sort of logo and asked, within the space there, wouldn't it make more sense, for identifying these companies, shouldn't they have their own logo up there? He would prefer to see within the same space though so that we were not taking up more space but something that would reflect their corporate identity rather than a generic type of thing. It did not make sense to him to have one corporate logo and the others in generic terms. Chairman Strom commented that was an interesting thought from the standpoint of comparing and contrasting it with the Builders Square. If you have an individual identity, then perhaps you should display your individual identity, if you don't, perhaps you don't need a sign. Member Clements -Cooney stated she was looking at a letter to the Board regarding the additional signage of specifically the Deli/Bakery suggesting perhaps the letters be only 2 feet tall. Chairman Strom stated that it was already in the Staff recommendation that the letters be 2 feet in height. Member Klataske commented that realizing that signage is important, he did not see that any one of these three tenants travel, mail boxes, or cleaners, were impulse type businesses. Once someone has visited Steele's they are going to know that they exist and know where they are. The justification for additional signage above the windows or the building, particularly the size that is going to very difficult to read from Harmony at 600 feet at any speed whatsoever and he was having a hard time justifying that. Member Walker stated that with the location of these signs, you are not going to miss them when you are walking up to the store. Lets say that these are lowered off of the fascia, on either side of the door it is right there what these businesses are. The only place you really see these from is when you are in the parking lot and you are moving into the building. It is going to be fairly obvious. Obviously they are getting visibility aside from just the signs on the fascia. He thought it might be more effective to have them where they are located. He questioned what they were getting by putting these signs on the fascia. Member Cottier commented that travel and cleaners are plain generic signs and yes they are not impulse things. The mail boxes, however, she would be inclined to run in if she saw that it existed as she was driving through the parking lot and needed to mail a letter or do 28 something. To her there was a little more rationale for having the mail boxes sign but having said that, she did not have any problem with the signs there, she wished they could be a little more interesting. Member Cottier moved for approval of the administrative change and allow mail boxes, travel, and cleaners to be on the lower fascia because she thinks it looks better there. The motion died for lack of second. Member Klataske moved for approval with Staff recommendations with the comment that if it were placed on the glass or the brick with the letters being that small and once you are in the center it brings It down to a personal level, you are already going to be in the parking lot so where if it is up on the fascia, once you are in the center, do you really look up there. It may actually help to bring it down to a personal level. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m. 0 29