Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/25/1988PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES . April 25, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Debbie deBesche, Linda Ripley, Ken Waido, Paul Eckman and Renee Joseph. Planning Director Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included Item 1, Minutes of the February 22, 1988 and March 28, 1988 meetings; Item 2, #13-88 Learning Castle PUD - Preliminary and Final; Item 3, #52-79D Rossborough Fourth Filing Subdivision Replat-Prelimi- nary and Final; Item 4, #96-81K Residences at Horsetooth Commons PUD -Re- vised Preliminary; Item 5, #37-84C Lakewood Estates PUD -Revised Prelimi- nary; Item 6, #58-86B Richards Lake PUD, Parcel A - Preliminary and Final (continued until the May 23, 1988 meeting); Item 7, #72-83VE Resolution PZ 88-3 - Vacation Drainage Easement in Riverside Shopping Center Subdivision; Item 8, #17-84VE Resolution PZ 88-4 - Vacation of a Utility Easement in a part of the Subdivision of West Half of Northwest Quarter of Section 27; Item 9, #208-78VE Resolution PZ 88-5 - Vacation of a Portion of a Utility Ease- ment in Lot 11, Block 7, Brown Farm Subdivision, 7th Filing; Item 10, #90-85B Wild Wood Farm, Tracts A & B - Rezoning; Item 11, #28-88,A Flatiron East Prospect Road First - Annexation and Zoning; Item 12, #29-88,A Sludge Farm Annexation and Zoning; Item 13, #30-88,A Strauss Cabin 1st Annexation and Zoning; Item 14, #31-88,A Strauss Cabin 2nd Annexation and Zoning; and, Item 15, #33-88,A Nature Center 3rd Annexation and Zoning. The Discussion Agenda included Item 16, #20-87A 1990 Junior High School; Item 17, #24-801, Park Central PUD, Phase III - Preliminary; Item 18, #73-82L Provincetowne PUD, Waterchase, Phase I - Preliminary and Final; Item 19, #14-88 Horsetooth West PUD - Master Plan; Item 20, #7-88A Midland Greens Commercial and Res- idential PUD and Rezoning - County Referral; and, Item 21, #27-88 Walker Manufacturing Rezoning and Preliminary Plat - County Referral. Lloyd Banks requested Item 11, #28-88,A Flatiron East Prospect Road First -Annexation and Zoning be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Member Brown inquired if Item 5, #37-84C Lakewood Estates PUD - Revised Preliminary should be pulled from the Consent Agenda as was discussed at the Staff Worksession. The other Board members did not feel it was necessary. Member Edwards noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote on Item 3, #52-79D Rossborough Fourth Filing Subdivision Replat - Preliminary and Final. 0 April 25, 1988 Page 2 Members Crews and Kern abstained from voting on Item 15, #33-88,A Nature Center 3rd Annexation and Zoning. Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Member Crews moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 3. Member Kern sec- onded. Motion passed 6-0. Member Brown moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 15. Member Strom sec- onded. Motion passed 5-0. FLATIRON EAST PROSPECT ROAD FIRST - ANNEXATION AND ZONING Ken Waido gave the description of the project. He stated staff had placed two conditions on the plan. These were, (1) the property be used for sand and gravel processing; and (2) if the property were redeveloped the applicant would resubmit to the Board the project as a PUD. He noted staff recommends approval. Lloyd Banks stated he was trying to figure out where he is located in relation to the project. Ken Waido informed Mr. Banks that his property was not part of the area to be annexed. Member Crews moved to approve Flatiron East Prospect Road First -Annexation and Zoning. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 7-0. PARK CENTRAL PUD, PHASE III - PRELIMINARY Debbie deBesche gave the description of the project. Frank Vaught stated this project has been in the planning process for ten years. He commented that originally the project was under single ownership. Today there were three separate parcels. He added the most recent change occurred in 1985. It transformed the center section into office/retail space. He stated that a traffic analysis and car counts had been conducted during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Overall, he stated, the goal was to create a professional office atmosphere. He believed that the plan achieves the goal. He commented that the cluster of buildings and parking was more sensitive to the neighborhood and pedestrians. He discussed the four conditions staff placed on the project. The conditions included (1) That prior to final approval of the plan, the applicant provide additional information to justify the distribution of parking on the site, particularly the parking between the health club and office Building F; (2) That prior to final approval, the applicant provide additional information to justify the shared parking assumptions, in particular, the peaking characteristics of the office uses; (3) That prior to final approval, the April 25, 1988 • • Page 3 • applicant revise their parking analysis to reflect the proposed expansions to the health club. And if needed, provide additional parking to accommodate this need; and, (4) That prior to final approval, the applicants commit to building the northbound right turn bay from Prospect Road to Lcmay Avenue. He stated, concerning condition 1, that the distribution of parking had been increased seven percent. The parking spaces increased from 317 to 338. Member Crews noted that it seemed Mr. Vaught was implying that medical use would be the primary use. Mr. Vaught commented that it was not his intention. He stated the doctors who would have offices on the east side would probably want to have visibil- ity from the street for signage. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the number of doctors and attorneys that would be officed in the buildings. Mr. Vaught stated this would be difficult to answer at this point Member Crews inquired if the whole presentation was based on shared parking. He stated the pads would be sold but not the parking. He added reserved parking would not be tolerable and wanted a statement on the plan stating such a condition. Mr. Vaught said that there would be no problem adding the proposed language. • Member Edwards stated he was concerned about the parking issue. He asked Mr. Vaught to clarify what had actually been studied regarding the parking study. He commented the site plan, the number of buildings and the parking was different from the proposed parking plan at present. He added that his concern also included the fact that there were ten versus the twelve buildings originally planned; and, there was more building space than what was currently proposed. He inquired if the decrease in building space resulted in more parking spaces. Mr. Vaught stated the discrepancy concerning the buildings might be because building 7 and H are connected as one. He commented 21 additional parking spaces have been added within the past two weeks. Member Edwards asked where the 21 spaces were located. Mr. Vaught stated the parking stalls had been decreased from 9 feet to 8 1/2 feet. He added the parking was long term. Chairperson O'Dell inquired again about the number of doctors which would be officed in the buildings. She stated that there would be more employees with the new number of buildings. Mr. Vaught stated they desired to create a medical environment. He com- mented in some cases doctors would be sharing spaces, which would be a bene- fit. He indicated his educated guess that the site would not develop in one • phase. April 25, 1988 Page 4 Member Brown had a question regarding the phases of the development. She inquired how much of the parking area and drive would be constructed with the first phase. Mr. Vaught stated parking would be completed in proportion to the office space development. Member Brown inquired if the parking would be constructed on a partial basis and how the development would be able to share spaces with the Fort Collins Club. Mr. Vaught stated the construction of the parking spaces took into account the peak parking demand hours of the Fort Collins Club. Member Brown inquired how many spaces would be provided in the northern section. Tony Hughes stated that 280 spaces would be provided for the six buildings and the Fort Collins Club. Mr. Vaught stated overall 338 parking spaces would be provided. Member Kern stated that he had a similar apprehension about the parking situation. He commented he had two concerns. Building F, which would encroach on the Fort Collins Club parking, and phases 2 and 3 along the Spring Creek trail. Mr. Vaught stated that the parking scheme complied with the City require- ments. He commented that he agreed with Member Kern's statement concerning the spaces close to the Spring Creek Trail. He added that it would be accept- able to eliminate these spaces if needed. Member Brown inquired if the Phase 3 parking was included in the 280 calcu- lation. Tony Hughes stated the 280 only included the amount of parking which existed today within Phase I. Mr. Vaught stated that he planned with worst case of parking usage. He indi- cated that during the winter months there was increased usage. Evening hours would create an increase in parking for the Fort Collins Club. Member Strom stated that he also shared the concern about the parking prob- Icrn. He commented that the scale of the buildings was also a concern. He felt the residential scale of the development may not be appropriate for the existing buildings. Mr. Vaught stated the neighborhood to the north was also concerned about the compatibility of the buildings. He commented that the buildings gave the appearance of a two story building. He indicated the development would continue with the same type of materials. These include stucco and red roofing. He stated he belived that the residential scale of the buildings was appropriate. April 25, 1988 Page 5 • Member Strom stated he was concerned the compared to the present buildings. He noted able because it appeared connected. Cluster elevation. He added he hoped the developer possible for an architectural fit. 0 buildings would look too small that the ABC cluster was accept- DEF presented more mass for and staff would do everything Mr. Vaught stated that he agreed that he did not want the appearance of residential homes within a commercial park. Member Edwards discussed the unused retail facility at the west end of the project. He stated it would be realistic to assume a future use of the facility would require parking. He inquired why the parking was not included at the base level or medium level use? Mr. Vaught stated the unused retail facility was not included in the property lines of the owner. He indicated the project has taken an overall look at the parking issue and the building was included in the figures. Member Kern stated he had the same concerns regarding the parking figures. He commented the retail space Member Edwards discussed would require fifty spaces, unless the building was used as a liquor store. Mr. Vaught stated he did not feel the building should be ignored. Member Edwards stated a corridor access could be created by Building F to help with the peak times at the Fort Collins Club. Mr. Vaught commented that one of the items staff requested when they reviewed the project was to intentionally leave the sidewalk off in this area so that the parking spaces would be emphasized for the Fort Collins Club users. He stated there should be a clear way to enter the building. Member Edwards inquired if the intent was to walk around the building or to walk between the buildings. Debbie deBesche stated staff recommended approval with four conditions. (1) Prior to final approval of the plan, that the applicant provide additional information justifying the distribution of parking on the site, particularly the conflict between parking for the health club and office Building F; (2) Prior to final approval, that the applicant provide additional information justifying the shared parking assumptions, particularly the peaking characteristics of the office uses; (3) Prior to final approval, that the applicant revise their parking analysis to reflect proposed expansions to the health club. And if needed, provide additional parking to accommodate this need; and (4) Prior to final approval, that applicant commit to building the northbound right turn bay from Prospect Road to Lemay Avenue. James Junge stated his main concern was that the parking on site was not adequate. He commented the 3 1/2 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. was ae April 25, 1988 Page 6 minimum requirement. He was not pleased with the shared parking issue. He stated the peak periods of the Fort Collins Club would overlap with the office use. In the early afternoon, he indicated, there would be a cross -over parking problem. He added his concerns are not with the plan but with the parking. Frank Sullivan stated he believed that there would be a domino effect with the parking. It could have an adverse effect on his own project. He objected to the shared parking concept. Mike Sollenberger stated he was worried about the parking problem. He informed, people would be using his project's parking spaces since there would not be enough provided for this project. He suggested the Board seriously review the recommended phase approval. Member Strom inquired about the signage plan. Debbie deBesche stated the signage would have to meet the current sign code. Member Strom inquired if the whole PUD was being considered. Debbie deBesche stated the whole PUD was not being considered. Member Strom stated he was concerned about parking. He inquired if the whole project was shared parking. Debbie deBesche indicated yes. Member Kern asked if Phase 1 included the first six buildings; Phase 2 the remaining cluster of buildings ), L, and M; Phase 3 the parking in the south- east corner. Debbie deBesche stated Phase 3 also includes buildings G, H, and K. Member Brown inquired if the employees would use parking spaces behind the buildings. Mr. Vaught stated that this was correct. Member Brown inquired about the signage for the buildings. Mr. Vaught stated a directory would be present for all the buildings in addition to signs on the buildings. Member Brown inquired about the trash containment locations. She stated she was especially concerned about the southern part of the project. Mr. Vaught stated at this point the locations had not been worked out. Member Brown stated she agreed with Member Strom regarding the parking spaces being too close to the pedestrian trail. April 25, 1988 . • Page 7 . Member Crews stated in the conditions stated by staff the same phrase appears, "additional information justifying", which does not really specify how much information is needed. Paul Eckman stated this could be reworded as "additional information justify- ing to the satisfaction of the Board." Member Edwards stated the key issue is the shared parking concept. He com- mented there is an increased degree of unpredictability with the long term parking use for the Fort Collins Club. He indicated aerobics at the Fort Collins Club would generate a greater amount of people requiring parking spaces, which adds to the element of the unknown. Mr. Vaught indicated the Fort Collins Club does have intense use more than one time per day. He stated he had tried to pin point what times the peak uses occurred. He informed the Board that these hours were at 12:00 noon and at 5:30 p.m. He stated he did not feel there were peak hours during the morning. What was represented at the 5:00 p.m. peak was that the offices are only at a 35 to 40% posture of use for needing the parking spaces. Member Kern referred to the memo from Mr. Vaught, which stated during 5:30 p.m. six percent of the parking spaces would be vacant. This means that 20 spaces out of 338 would be vacant in the remote corners of the project. As a result, traffic would probably go to other parts of the neighborhood. • Chairperson O'Dell suggested prior to approval a count of the cars should be taken at 10:00 a.m. She stated her biggest concern is the shared parking issue. She wondered if there could be a condition created to alleviate this problem. Member Edwards stated that the "best guess" was not acceptable. He commented that the twelve buildings have unknown usages. He indicated he was not sure how the project will be built out. He added he does not like to negotiate projects at public forums. He stated the land use was appropriate, and the design was excellent. Member Kern stated in the interest of the applicant, in terms of the proposed phasing, that Phase I of the project could be approved. He felt there was no immediate need to give final approval to all of the phases. He stated this could wait until the parking assessment was made. Therefore, there would not be any undue pressures put on the applicant to have Phases 2 and 3 be granted final approval. Member Strom stated he would agree to the preliminary approval of the entire project with the knowledge the final would not be for the entire plan. Member Edwards hoped the Board was not confused by the concept of Phase 1, 2, and 3. He stated this was not a phased project. He wondered if there were a way to allow the project to be started, but at a certain point the parking situation would be reassessed. Member Strom inquired if Member Edwards suggested the approval of the . entire preliminary. April 25, 1988 Page 8 Member Edwards stated from the site plan he concluded Phase 1, 2, and 3 would be built respectively. Mr. Vaught stated the plan intended to show the logical improvements for the phases. He saw each pad as a final for the Board to review. He commented phasing from the north to the south was more logical. Member Edwards stated he was uncomfortable with the "what if" of this pro- ject. He stated he wanted to find a way to work with the conditions so that the applicant could know what was expected. Mr. Vaught stated that he has dealt with the proposed phasing from an overall parking standpoint. Chairperson O'Dell suggested a five minute recess during which time a condi- tion addressing the concern could be prepared. Following the recess, Paul Eckman stated the fifth recommended condition. The condition was that prior to final approval of Subphase 3 as shown on the site plan, the applicant shall present information to the Board based on actual parking patterns utilized in the project (after development and at least 50% occupancy of Subphases I and 2), showing to the Board's satisfaction, that the development of Phase 3 may proceed without detrimental impact to the sur- rounding properties, as required pursuant to all development criteria #35. Chairperson O'Dell stated that Phase 3 contained over 20% of the square footage of the entire project. Paul Eckman asked if any one in the audience wanted to comment to the fifth condition. Member Edwards moved to approve Park Central PUD, Phase III - Preliminary with not only the four conditions presented by staff, but also the fifth condition as read by the Assistant City Attorney, Paul Eckman. Member Kern seconded. Member Kern asked Paul Eckman if the Spring Creek Trail concern should be expressed in a condition at this time. Paul Eckman stated that if preliminary approval was given, then the Spring Creek Trail concern should be included in the conditions. Member Kern moved to amend Member Edwards motion by including the Board's concerns dealing with the proximity of the buildings in Phase 3 in relation to the Spring Creek Trail, as well as the six or seven parking spaces being relocated. Member Edwards stated he did not share the concern regarding the Spring Creek Trail. He added he was not supportive of the amendment made by Member Kern. April 25, 1988 • • Page 9 • Member Kern restated that he was concerned about the closeness of the park- ing to the trail. Chairperson O'Dell asked if Member Kern was withdrawing his amendment and suggesting one that dealt with parking. Member Kern stated that this was correct. Chairperson O'Dell asked if this was acceptable to Member Edwards. Member Edwards stated the amendment would be acceptable. Chairperson O'Dell stated that the Board had added a sixth condition that related to the proximity of the southern most parking spaces closest to the trail; with the suggestion that these parking spaces be moved or well buffered from the trail. Motion passed 7-0. PROVINCETOWNE PUD, WATERCHASE, PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Ted Shepard gave the staff description of the project Mr. Clinger presented two projects that had a similar context to the plan being shown. These projects exist in the Denver area. He stated the Waterchase • development was all single family homes. He stated the key element within the project was the lake, which would be constructed as a focal point. He stated the project created a lot of interest with the lakes and pedestrian accesses. He commented the circulation systems were necessary to maintain the water quality. He indicated the shore line around the lake were stabilized to prohibit the soil under the grass from eroding. He stated that since a strong internal pedestrian walkway system was created within the project, some streets would have sidewalks on both sides, on one side, and some with no sidewalks at all. He stated that some variances are requested for some of the streets. Member Edwards asked the developer to clarify where the sidewalks would be constructed in the cul-de-sac. He also inquired which side of the street they would be located on. Ted Shepard stated the sidewalk on Waterchase Drive would be on the north side of the street. He added there will also be a sidewalk on one side of Cerlew, because it is a longer cul-de-sac than the others. He stated there will be a sidewalk on both sides of Blue Heron, King Fisher, Waterchase Blvd., Province, and Lemay streets. Member Edwards inquired if there was only one street with one sidewalk on one side of the street. Ted Shepard stated yes. He stated the cul-de-sac had one sidewalk. • Ted Shepard stated staff recommended approval on the first phase of the PUD. April 25, 1988 Page 10 Richard Smith asked where the water would come from to feed the lake. Mr. Moore stated the water would be brought down from drainage ditches. Mr. Smith stated he was concerned about Benson Lake. He commented he approved of the project. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if there were any restrictions on how low the water could be brought down if the water from the lake is used. Ted Shepard stated he understood that the applicant owns enough water rights for the project to satisfy Benson Lake and the ponds in the Phase 1 prelimi- nary. Chairperson O'Dell stated this had been a concern at the master plan stage. Mr. Moore stated the project would be adding water surface to Benson Lake. Member Brown asked if she was correct in presuming that there was an inlet but no outlet. Mr. Moore stated that putting water into the lake system and recirculating it was important. The current water quality would be maintained. Member Brown inquired if the use of herbicides and fertilizers would have an impact on the lake. Mr. Moore stated they would, but the effects would be controllable. Mr. Clinger stated the ponds were situated in order that wildlife could use them. He stated a non -toxic chemical would be added to the ponds. He indi- cated there would be minimum amounts of grass around the ponds so that geese would not be attracted to the lawns. Member Brown inquired if there were other types of recreation. Mr. Clinger stated that fishing, paddle boats, and docks would be provided. The project would promote passive as opposed to active use. Member Klataske inquired if the property lines went down to the lake itself or is this area common space. Mr. Clinger stated 75% of the space around the lakes would be common area. Member Klataske inquired about the price range of the homes and about the Home Owners Association fees. Mr. Clinger stated that the homes would have three car garages and be quite large. He estimated the houses to be anywhere from 2,500 up to 4,500 sq. ft. He commented that all the home owners would pay into the association. April 25, 1988 • • Page I . Member Klataske inquired if the amenities would be constructed with the first phase. Mr. Clinger stated yes. Member Edwards asked Mr. Clinger to show on the map where Phase l was located. Mr. Clinger stated Phase 1 represents one-fourth of the entire plan Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the internal sidewalk system. She asked where the bus stop for the school children would be located. She also wondered who would be responsible for the snow removal. Mr. Clinger stated the bus stop location had not been determined yet. The Home Owners Association would take care of the snow removal. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the electric pumps which would recirculate the water were noisy. Mr. Clinger stated the houses for the pumps would be insulated. The pumps were located next to the water falls so that no noise can be heard. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if ice skating would be allowed Mr. Clinger stated yes. Member Edwards inquired about the Home Owners Association issue. He stated it appeared that with Phase 1 there would not be sufficient units to support the amenities package. He inquired if there should be a delay in the build -out in Phase 2 or 3, who would the owners be looking to for the proper mainte- nance of the amenity package? Mr. Clinger stated there would be no problems with selling the units; therefore, creating no problems with maintaining a Home Owners Association. Member Edwards stated he was not proposing there would be a problem but the worst case scenario should be reviewed. He inquired if a Home Owners Association defaults on taxes of a commonly owned area what would happen. Paul Eckman stated he understood Member Edwards was concerned about the maintenance of the common areas. Member Edwards commented the Board is being asked to grant variances for sidewalks which would normally be public right-of-way, in lieu of interior walkways which are privately owned. He stated there is concern about snow removal. He inquired what would happen, for example, if the Home Owners Association decided it could not afford to plow the sidewalks, would there be any recourse by the City. 0 April 25, 1988 Page 12 Paul Eckman stated with regards to the snow removal, the City requires within 24 hours after a snow storm the snow be removed from public sidewalks. He commented he did not feel the Code would require snow removal from these sidewalks since they would be privately owned. Member Edwards understood the City would have multiple options if the situa- tion he mentioned were to occur. He inquired if these ponds would become a part of the storm drainage utility. And what impact would there be on the Home Owners Association not recirculating the water and maintaining the pumps. Ted Shepard stated it is his understanding that several of the ponds would function as retention and detention ponds. The ponds would be platted as easements, and would not in any way be dedicated as ownership to the City. Member Edwards inquired if the private entity decided not to pay the taxes would the City take over and maintain the areas. Mr. Clinger stated the subdivision codes require developers to provide detention ponds. The proposed ponds were 99% within Home Owners Association lands. Member Edwards stated with a site plan like this one, as an observer of a lake amenity and the issue of sidewalks on one side of the street, he was as supportive of staff's recommendation as to the adherence to the code. He commented should there be one sidewalk make sure it is wide enough so that two people can walk together on it. He suggested that staff and the applicant further study areas of similar nature to determine the walking patterns of people. Mr. Clinger stated he appreciated Member Edwards remarks. Member Brown stated with having the sidewalk on the north of the long cul- de-sac the snow will melt off much quicker. Member Klataske inquired if fencing would be provided for the lots that back up to the lake. Mr. Clinger stated that low split rail fences with screens on the inside would be constructed. Member Kern moved to approve Provincetowne PUD, Waterchase, Phase l -Pre- liminary and Final with the variance requests and conditions as outlined by staff. Member Strom seconded. Member Brown stated she felt the Board was impressed with the quality of the project. HORSETOOTH WEST PUD - MASTER PLAN Ted Shepard gave the staff report. April 25, 1988 • • Page 13 . Rick Hattman stated he represented the owners of the property. He stated the project was mixed use in nature. The property was envisioned as a long term master plan which would build -out in the next ten years. He indicated the School Board has approached the owners of the property concerning a future elementary school for 1992. He stated the north area of the project would be buffered with single family homes adjacent to the north county residential lots. The school site was located off the arterial on a collector street. The dual land uses on Tracts G and H were due to the fact that Parks and Recreation was also looking for a site in this area for a neighborhood park. Ted Shepard stated the request for a master plan was in conformance with the plans and policies of the City and recommended approval. Member Crews stated a lot of the presentation by Mr. Hattman was focused on the school site. He inquired if the school was a sure thing. Ted Shepard stated at this point the construction of the school was not definite. Mr. Hattman commented the two parties were in negotiations about the pro- posed school and at this time the school site was not purchased. Tom Peterson informed the Board that the School District was reviewing other sites. Member Brown was concerned about the appropriateness of the neighborhood center and convenience store being located close to the school. Mr. Hattman stated the location of the neighborhood center had been discussed with the School Board. He indicated negotiations for setbacks had been discussed but not finalized. The convenience store in Tract D was far enough away from the school site and would not be a major concern. Member Edwards stated normally when a master plan was presented a prelimi- nary accompanies it. He inquired why there is only a master plan for this project. Tom Peterson stated it was at staff's request that only a master plan be presented. The issue of the major water main extension down Horsetooth Road was presented and the City became aware that the School Board was negotiat- ing with the applicant, which made this situation somewhat unique. John Stednick stated he was a resident who lived just north of the property in question. He read a letter prepared by the members of the Teft Acre Water Association. The letter was signed by twenty homeowners. He proceeded to submit the letter to the secretary. Member Edwards inquired if the plan was inconsistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan. He also asked what set of plans and criteria was being used to evaluate this project. April 25, 1988 Page 14 Ted Shepard stated the Board evaluated the project under the City adopted Land Use Policy Plan. He commented that the plan was consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement. Member Edwards indicated that the project is within the City and within the urban growth area boundary. He stated from a land use policy standpoint, the project was considered under the City's policies. Tom Peterson stated that Mr. Stednick had brought up the concern about turn- ing movements off Horsetooth Road and Taft Hill Road. He informed the Board that the City was planning to install a traffic signal at the location this summer. Mike Versharty wanted the record to show he agreed with everything Mr. Sled - nick stated. Joyce Oppenheimer complimented Mr. Stednick on his research. She stated she had been advised that the children coming out of both trailer courts, as well as Rossborough, will be part of Johnson Elementary School. She commented that this leaves very few children to the north of the proposed site to attend the new school. She stated she found it hard to believe the site will be chosen for the school location. She added that the traffic problems were also a concern. She felt that there was no need for another convenience store in the area. Lynn Courtney inquired if there was additional need for the child care center. He stated he had spoken to five day care centers who said they were not at full capacity. He added he wanted to go on record showing he supported what had already been stated. James Gabel stated he owned property directly north of the proposed project. He wondered if the roads which cross from the north would go to some other area. Mr. Hattman stated that during his decided the eventual collector system would avoid existing roads. discussions with Rick Ensdorff they would be placed in this mile section Mr. Gabel stated the project would block his view of the mountains and there- fore he was not in favor of the plan. Member Edwards requested staff to highlight what a master plan meant. He also wanted to know where the project was in this process. Ted Shepard stated that a master plan was not a request for a subdivision, not a PUD, and there was no development proposal uncder review. He indicated only land use designations are being reviewed. He explained the reason for this was to look at street systems, curb cuts. This aided in the development of long range utility and traffic planning. Master plans create a level of expectation as to what some of the proposed land uses might be. For anything to happen on the proposed site a preliminary PUD would have to be submitted. April 25, 1988 • • Page 15 • Member Kern inquired what would happen if the proposed school were not located on the site. Mr. Hattman stated single family homes would be constructed on Tract F simi- lar to those on Tracts A and B. Member Kern stated there was a traffic impact concern Mr. Hattman stated last year the capital budget contained information about the development of this area. Member Kern stated a master plan entails a level of expectation for the development. He commented the staff applied their criteria to the project. Ted Shepard indicated each square mile of the project created a circulation system. The project has internal access to itself. He added the plan has mixed uses. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the density of the single family lots. She stated it would be wise, at the preliminary level, to increase the density to the southern part of the tracts and decrease the density where the area meets the larger lots. Member Crews inquired where on the map Moreland dead ends. . Mr. Hattman stated Moreland terminates at the cul-de-sac just short of the property. Member Edwards commented to the statement "we have too many child care centers, too many shopping centers, etc." He stated that the development was based on the land use decisions. It was compatible with the surrounding areas. Member Brown stated the site of the school was inappropriate with the other uses from an activity standpoint. She disagreed with having a neighborhood center and convenience store across from each other. Member Crews stated he agreed with Member Brown. He commented he felt the convenience store was too close to the school, and by this fact he would have to vote against the project. Member Kern indicated the elementary school was too close to the neighbor- hood shopping center. He added he also had some concern about the single dwelling units to the north. He stated the school site next to an arterial was not an appropriate use. Member Edwards stated the project was only a master plan. He commented it is slightly premature to condemn the land use at this point. He indicated the school could be adequately provided for and buffered. Member Brown stated she still felt this was not an appropriate adjacent land use, even at a master plan level. L J April 25, 1988 Page 16 Chairperson O'Dell stated she would be surprised if the School Board were to choose this site as being acceptable for the reason that the arterials are too close in relation to the proposed school location. Member Edwards moved to approve the Horsetooth West PUD - Master Plan as presented. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 4-3. With Members Crews, Kern and Brown voting no. MIDLAND GREENS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PUD AND REZON- ING -COUNTY REFERRAL Linda Ripley gave the staff description of the project. Dave Shupe stated he wanted to correct the staff report. He indicated the property north is an autobahn; a recreational center featuring go-carts. He informed the area is designed as an open space. The approach of the plan is the concept of separation between the cities. He stated the green space along the front and across the frontage of the commercial parcel to the north can be heavily landscaped. He informed a plan had been submitted to the County that illustrates the type of landscaping being described. He stated the landscape screen can add to the separation of the cities in an appropriate way. Linda Ripley stated staff is recommending denial because of the project's inconsistency with the Larimer County Land Use Plan and the Intergovernmen- tal Agreement of the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. She stated that the plan proposed commercial development, as well as, residential density twice the limit allowable in the agreement. Mr. Shupe stated the Intergovernmental Agreement also provided that the County would restructure its zoning ordinances in such a way to enforce the rural farm designation in this area. He stated that the County had chosen not to do this, for reasons unknown to him. He stated by virtue of the zoning ordinance only, this property could contain 125 units under the FA zoning. He said this could be an enforceable situation. Member Kern stated that in the FA zone, 1/2 acre lots would be acceptable. He asked to what extent do the Intergovernmental Agreements override this zoning. Tom Peterson stated he was not sure the answer he was giving was completely correct. The Intergovernmental Agreement created an overlay zone which superseded County zoning in the areas covered by the Intergovernmental Agree- ment. Mr. Shupe stated that his comments stemmed from a legal representative he had sought, and that they were not his own. Member Brown commented that one fact was that C-Commercial was not allowed in the FA zoning. She stated the development might be 125 units but not commercial. April 25, 1988 • Page 17 • • Mr. Shupe stated the C-Commercial would help in paying for the proposed landscaping. He informed the Board that the landscaping would cost approxi- mately $30,000. Member Brown asked if there were any restriction on the landscaping due to its location with the highway. Mr. Shupe stated site distance at the intersection was one restriction. This area would have to meet the site criteria for the Highway Department. Paul Eckman stated he had his doubts that the Intergovernmental Agreement had created any zones within the County because they have to comply with the statutory procedures for rezoning. Member Kern commented he was in sympathy with a number of items Mr. Shupe had stated. In regards to the landscaping, Member Kern stated, if the $30,000 estimate was correct, the homes within the development would receive approximately $300 of this landscaping. Mr. Shupe stated there would be, perhaps, some area for negotiation. He stated that the owner of the Autobahn would like some space to expand, by perhaps buying two acres of the property. Member Edwards stated he understood why staff was recommending denial because of staff's criteria and the Intergovernmental Agreement. He wondered if there could be an alternative or another way to approach this situation. He • asked if the City could approve the project with conditions. Linda Ripley stated staff was recommending denial because of the commercial use along 287. She commented there was no doubt this was not an appropriate land use in this area. She stated that the Intergovernmental Agreement guarantees housing density of 2.29 acres per dwelling unit. She added there might be a solution somewhere in the middle; more housing units could be allowed, grouped in a way to leave more open space. Member Edwards stated this would require a major replatting of the applica- tion. Linda Ripley stated she had hoped a new application would have been sub- mitted at this meeting. Member Crews inquired how the Board would look at this application under a new agreement. Tom Peterson stated the project would be reviewed in the same way. Member Kern suggested the recommendation be split into two parts, commercial and density. Mr. Shupe stated the project was presented as commercial and residential PUD's. April 25, 1988 Page 18 Member Edwards inquired if the Board was reviewing two applications. Mr. Shupe stated the County had asked him to present the project as one, but had advised it could be reviewed as two separate items. George Von Eissler, President of Consolidated Industries Unlimited, stated he owns the 35 acres to the south of the project. He stated that at this time, he has a PUD in existence. He stated his concerns about the economic status of the area. He added "as is" the area is not economically feasible. He stated a good compromise is needed. He discussed the possibilities of a convenience store being located off of Highway 287. He stated the store could be effectively screened. Member Kern stated that it would not be appropriate for a convenience store to be located on 287. This was not good planning. Member Strom commented there was no way he could support the development with its current density and would vote against the project. Member Crews stated there are two parties to the agreement, the City and County. Chairperson O'Dell stated the Board would uphold their part of the agreement and that she could not support recommendation of the project to the County. Member Kern moved for the denial of the Midland Greens Commercial and Residential PUD and Rezoning - County Referral for the following two rea- sons. (1) The Board does not want the area to be rezoned from FA to C Com- mercial; and, (2) the residential section is almost twice the allowable density allowed under the Intergovernmental Agreement. Member Klataske seconded. Motion denied 7-0. WALKER MANUFACTURING REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT -COUNTY REFERRAL Debbie deBesche gave staff's description of the project. Bob Walker stated he understood that the project does not fit the current zoning and land use plan. He stated that the property would be located adjacent to a turf farm area. He commented that this project can not go into an existing industrial zoned area and have the water to grow 20 acres of turf. Member Edwards asked if it was not financially feasible to locate within the City. Mr. Walker stated he can not afford to buy within the commercial use. Member Edwards asked if Woodward Governor used City -treated water. April 25, 1988 Page 19 is Paul Eckman stated Woodward Governor uses water from the Sherwood Lateral Ditch. Mr. Walker stated he thought they used wells. Member Kern asked what provoked the need for I -Industrial zoning. Mr. Walker stated he plans to build a larger site and around the building would be a turf site. This would require the I -Industrial zoning. Member Crews asked if the turf farm was an agriculturally related industry. Debbie deBesche stated it was close but the area surrounding the property was still FA farming. Member Edwards asked if it would be an agricultural use if Mr. Walker wanted to constrect an under glass carnation farm. Debbie deBesche stated this would be an agricultural use. Tom Peterson stated this was a difficult judgment call on the part of staff. A large percentage of what Mr. Walker would be doing would be considered agri- culturally related. Member Kern stated the main concern was not necessarily what Mr. Walker was proposing but with the fact that the industrial zoning resides with the land. He inquired about the nature of the manufacturing. Mr. Walker stated the manufacturing was light and clean. He indicated inside storage was required for the product. Member Kern inquired about the noise or fumes that would be generated. Mr. Walker stated there was virtually no noise and the painting operations would have to meet the required standards. Tom Peterson commented that staff wanted to bring to the Board's attention that, if the use was abandoned or changed, the Board could have the opportu- nity to review the area again. This would give everyone a higher level of confidence regarding the project. Member Strom stated the proposed use could be interpreted as an agricultural use. He indicated he would be in favor of recommending approval of this use if there was some mechanism attached to insure re-evaluation in the event of abandonment or change. Member Kern stated that he was not sure how to phrase the concerns of the Board in the form of a recommendation to the County. • April 25, 1988 Page 20 Paul Eckman stated that since the Board was making a recommendation to the County, it could be left up to them to decide if they have the power or authority to approve this land use. He asked if this cannot be done, would the Board still be recommending approval. Member Crews stated that if this could not be done, the Board would like to look at the project again. Member Edwards asked if there was a way to recommend with a variance or create a different designation. Member Kern stated the change in zoning was the issue being addressed. He added he was concerned about the future uses. Member Brown asked how many employees would be required. Mr. Walker stated he has 40 employees at the present time. These employees work on one shift. Member Brown commented that Mr. Walker had found his needs outgrew the current facility. She asked how the new facility would accommodate his needs in the next five years. Mr. Walker stated the project has allowed for expansion. He commented that he anticipates 60 to 75 employees within the next 3 to 4 years. Member Brown commented that Mr. Walker had previously stated the product was not shipped or received by rail. She asked if the product was transported by truck. Mr. Walker stated that this was correct. He stated that he projected three to four shipments per day. Member Edwards asked if Mr. Walker could apply for a variance based on the hardship of not being able to utilize the building to its fullest extent and still retain the FA zoning. Paul Eckman stated it was hard to give an opinion on what the County would do. But if the property were within the City, and Mr. Walker was asking for a variance due to some hardship in terms of the use, a standard subdivision variance could be granted. Tom Peterson stated the variances run with the land, not the individual owner. Member Kern stated there was a reluctance with approving this application because the industrial designation could mean anything later on. April 25, 1988 , Page 21 0 • Member Kern moved to recommend the approval of the Walker Manufacturing Rezoning and Preliminary Plat - County Referral with the intent that it be returned for referral if the County can not assure us that the project would not return to the Board if any changes in use, intensity or ownership occurred. Member Strom seconded. Member Crews stated he was in support of the project because he felt it is agriculturally related. Member Brown stated she felt this was an industrial use. Member Strom stated that if the area was developed for single family units, there would be more traffic generated than what would be created from this project. Member Kern stated that he would not have made the motion to recommend approval to City Council if he felt the area would become an industrial site. Motion passed 4-3. Members Edwards and Brown and Chairperson O'Dell voted no. OTHER BUSINESS Tom Peterson noted that a work session meeting on Wednesday, May 18, 1988, . at 5:00 p.m. in the CIC room, would be held to discuss the Downtown Plan draft. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.