Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/21/2006Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Smith, Stockover, Schmidt, Lingle, Rollins, Meyer, Fries Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Moore, Jackson, Sommer, Maiziand, Virata, Bracke, Olt, Waido, Langenberger, and Deines. Citizen participation: None. Director of Current Planning, Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas and recommended the following changes: • Remove Item 1, April 20, 2006, May 18, 2006, June 15, 2006, and August 17, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes. • Table Item 6, 3955 S. Taft Hill Road Out -of -City Utility Request. Director Gloss stated that the applicant is not sure if they want to move forward with this request at this time. • Member Schmidt has declared a conflict of interest on Item 11, #24-06 Recommendation to City Council for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code to add Health Clubs as a permitted use to the River Downtown Redevelopment zone district (RDR). • Member Rollins has declared a conflict of interest on Item 12, Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the Land Use Code and City Code Implementing Mitigation Measures of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Chair Lingle asked the Board and members of the audience if there were any other agenda change requests. The results were: Member Rollins requested that Item 4, #16-06, Fox Pointe Plaza — Project Development Plan be moved to the discussion agenda. . An audience member asked that Item 5, #21-06, 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use — Project Development Plan be removed for discussion. An audience member asked that Item 16, #20-06, Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment be removed from the consent agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Resolution PZ06-10 Easement Dedication at 1800 S. Lemay Avenue 2. Resolution PZ06-11 Easement Dedication at 1800 S. Lemay Avenue 3. #19-04A Recommendation to City Council for minor Wording Amendments to the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 4. #23-06 North Weld County (NWCWD) and East Larimer County (ELCO) Water Districts Water Transmission (NEWT) —Site Plan Advisory Review 5. #56-98AL New Dawn Fort Collins (Rigden Farm) Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment Planning & Zoning Board September21, 2006 Page 2 6. #38-OOA Arbor South Second Annexation & Zoning Discussion Items 7. #5-94L Front Range Village Amended Overall Development Plan and Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center Major Amendment 8. #1-06A Harmony and Shields Revised Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning 9. #58-86J Water's Edge at Richard's Lake — Project Development Plan 10. #20-06 Front Range Second Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the consent agenda consisting of Item 2, Resolution #PZ06-10 — Easement Dedication, Item 3, Resolution #PZO6-11 — Easement Dedication, Item 7, #19-04A, a Recommendation to City Council for Minor Wording Amendments to the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, Item 8, #23-06, the North Weld County (NWCWD) and East Larimer County (ELCO) Water Districts Water Transmission (NEWT) — Site Plan Advisory Review, Item 9, 56-98AL, New Dawn Fort Collins (Rigden Farm) Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, Item 10, #38-OOA, Arbor South Second Annexation and Zoning, #38-OOA, #38-OOA. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Fries moved for approval of Item 11, #24-06, Recommendation to City Council for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. (Member Schmidt had a conflict of interest and did not vote.) Member Schmidt moved to approve Item 12, Recommendation to City Council for Amendments to the Land Use Code and City Code Implementing Mitigation Measures of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. (Member Rollins had a conflict of interest and did not vote.) Project: 412 E. Pitkin Change of Use — Project Development Plan (PDP) - #21-06 Project Description: This is a request to convert an existing single-family residence located at 412 East Pitkin Street into a two-family dwelling. The proposal includes conversion of the existing unfinished basement into a legal dwelling unit, a 424 square foot addition to the north (rear) side of the house, remodeling of the existing front entryway to a front porch, a new paved parking space off of the alley and enhanced landscaping. The property is located on the north side of East Pitkin Street, east of Peterson Street and west of Whedbee Street, and is in the NCM Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval. Planning & Zoning Board September21, 2006 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Public Participation Marianne Pike lives at 403 East Pitkin Street. She has two concerns: first, that once one owner decides to turn their property into a rental, other owners in the neighborhood will do the same; and second, parking congestion is getting to be a problem in that area. Dana Lockwood lives at 415 East Pitkin Street. Mr. Lockwood also believes this action may prompt others to turn their properties into rentals. Bill Eckart lives at 70 Circle Drive. His concerns are economic in that he feels there are too many rentals in the neighborhood and in Fort Collins. Shepard Wolfe lives at 408 East Pitkin Street, approximately two houses to the west of the subject property. He is concerned that it will be rented to college students and that it could be very noisy. The house next door was rented and was trashed. Cheryl Price, 418 East Pitkin is two houses east of the subject property. She is concerned about the parking issue. End of Public Participation Applicant Phillip Sand, 4115 Terry Lake Road, stated that the PDP requires that four parking spaces be provided, two for each unit. Three will be at the back of the property and one at the side of the house. The property will be owner occupied, so it will behoove him not to rent to noisy and disruptive tenants. Member Fries asked if more parking could be provided. Applicant Sand replied that they could tear down the garage, but they didn't want to. Member Schmidt asked what the zoning is at the address. Planner Sommer replied that it is NCM — Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. Chair Lingle asked if two-family is allowed in the NCL Zone. Director Gloss replied that it was not permitted. Chair Lingle asked why this item came before the P&Z Board. Member Schmidt replied that it did because exterior changes are proposed. If there were no exterior changes, it would be subject to a different review type. Planner Sommer explained that the purpose of the modification is to exempt the property from the alley paving standards. That paving is usually required in a development. Member Schmidt made a motion that the P&Z Board approve the modification for Section 3.6.2(J)(2), the design construction requirements for a public alley based on the findings of fact in Item 6 of the Staff Report. Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Fries moved for approval of Item #21-06, the 412 East Pitkin Change of Use Project Development Plan based on the findings of fact and conclusions found on page 9 of the Staff Report. Member Stockover seconded. The motion was approved 7-0. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 4 Fox Pointe Plaza, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #16-06 Project Description: This is a request for a Convenience Shopping Center on 1.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Boardwalk Drive and JFK Parkway, just north of the main U.S. Post Office. The proposed uses are retail, office, and restaurant in a 2-story building at the corner and a drive-thru coffee shop in a one-story building interior to the site. Access to the development would be from both adjacent streets. The subject property is in the E — Employment Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval. Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Rollins stated that her concern is the access drive that comes into and out of the mail drop- off lane. She asked how that would function, and stated she thinks it will add congestion to that area. Applicant Ed Zdenek with ZTI Development Group introduced traffic engineer, Matt Delich. Matt resides at 2272 Glen Haven Drive in Loveland. He stated that since peak hours for the coffee kiosk will be in the morning and peak hours for the post office will be in the afternoon, there should not be congestion issues. Member Rollins asked who has the right of way if someone is dropping off mail and another individual is getting coffee. Delich responded there is a stop sign after the mail drop, so the other vehicles would have the right of way. Member Schmidt questioned other uses. Matt Delich responded that there are some retail and other offices. He stated that the square footages on those areas are fairly small and so are the number of trips in and out. Not everyone will use the intersection in question as Boardwalk is also available. Chair Lingle asked if that connection could be moved further east to move some of the bottleneck away from the JFK Parkway. Ed Zdenek with ZTI Development Group, stated that it is 70 feet between that access and out. There needs to be enough room after leaving the post office to get past it and stop before making a turn. Shortening that space would inhibit that ability. There are also drainage concerns that will not allow that movement. Chair Lingle questioned the drainage at the post office parking lot. He stated there is a five to six foot drop into a depressed area near the parking lot. He asked if the spot would be filled and what the grading transitions are between all the elements of the site plan. Applicant Zdenek responded that the site will be filled about three and a half feet. Lingle then asked if there are retaining wall structures between the parking lot lane and the applicant's parking lot. Mr. Zdenek responded that there are retaining walls. Chair Lingle asked for input from the Engineering Department regarding this design. Randy Maizland responded that engineering does not see any situations that might create a hazardous situation for traffic coming off Boardwalk. He also stated he does not see any drainage issues. Public Input Jim Gore, 374 High Pointe Drive. Mr. Gore stated that Boardwalk is being used as a short cut for people traveling west on Harmony to avoid the Harmony/College intersection. He requested that a Planning & Zoning Board September21, 2006 Page 5 study be completed to determine if a stoplight can be installed at the intersection of Landings and Boardwalk. End of Public Input Eric Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, stated that the City is currently reviewing that intersection and discussing a possible roundabout. He stated it is a slow process to get the post office to agree to do something with the intersection. Staff Bracke thinks it is inappropriate to delay this development while the City is negotiating with the post office. Member comments are: (1) Member Rollins is still concerned about the driveway; (2) Chair Lingle stated he is concerned about traffic flow; (3) Member Stockover stated he thinks it will be self- regulating. Member Smith moved to approve the Fox Pointe Plaza, Project Development Plan (PDP) - #16- 06 and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions on page 7 of the Staff Report. Member Fries seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-2 with Members Schmidt and Rollins the dissenting votes. Project: Front Range Village Amended Overall Development Plan and Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center Major Amendment, #5-94L. Project Description: This is a request for a 101-acre regional shopping center in the Harmony Corridor located generally at the northwest corner of East Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. The site contains 850,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area divided among 17 buildings. Of these 17, four are large retail establishments. In addition, there are eight pad sites to be developed individually in future phases. An amendment to the Overall Development Plan is included. There are three requests for Modifications of Standard. Staff is recommending 12 conditions of approval. Recommendation: Approval of the Amended O.D.P. Approval of the Three Modifications as Conditioned Approval of the Major Amendment with 12 Conditions Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Director Gloss provided contextual site information. Three years ago the Planning & Zoning Board considered and approved the Summit Lifestyle Center PDP near Harmony and Ziegler Road. One year ago, the applicant elected to not go forward with the plan and pursued an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan which would allow a regional shopping center on the site as opposed to the lifestyle center concept they had brought forward. Now, they are requesting to amend the Overall Development Plan and also make a major amendment to the PDP that was previously approved. This 101-acre parcel is bordered by Harmony on the south and Ziegler on the east. Applicant is requesting an 850,000 square foot center with seven buildings. There will be eight additional pad sites that are not part of this particular request. There is a pedestrian -oriented main street with Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 6 diagonal parking. Building mass is two-story elements, and the City has discussed a branch library with the developer. Some of the 12 conditions of approval are: Staff is not satisfied with the elevations submitted to date and is asking for additional architectural embellishment of the main street area. 2. Staff is requesting additional architectural and landscaping treatments through several different areas of the site. 3. A public plaza is required as a community gathering place. Staff would like to see the space between the two southerly buildings expanded to at least 6,000 square feet to make it a more meaningful public gathering place. 4. There are several parking areas with excessive parking spaces. Staff is asking for additional landscaping to mitigate the effect of the parking area. 5. The City has a parking distribution standard for large retail establishments which states that no more than 50% of the parking in front of a large retail establishment be provided. The parking has to be distributed more evenly. Several parking areas are not meeting that requirement. The City is asking for mitigation via architectural embellishment and landscaping treatment to help mitigate that impact. 6. The city is asking for a bus pull-out in front of the Target Super Center. 7. At the Lowe's Center, there is only one entry. Director Gloss stated there are some off -site issues also. Corbett Drive will someday extend into English Ranch. Staff is requiring that the applicant participate in working with the neighborhood to provide traffic calming. There is a requirement that the applicant provide a pedestrian connection to this site. Director Gloss stated that additionally the applicant will need to provide letters of intent from those abutting and adjoining property owners to provide the land needed for those off -site improvements. Director Gloss stated that staff is recommending approval of the amendments as proposed with the several conditions noted and approval of the three modifications of standards. Applicant David Silverstein with Bayer Properties in Birmingham, Alabama stated they met with the neighborhood four months ago and recently held another neighborhood meeting. He stated the meetings went well. They would like to begin construction in March of 2007. Bruce Hendee a member of BHA Design, a local architectural and planning firm, stated he would provide clarity on issues raised in work session. Mr. Hendee thinks they are meeting LUC requirements by providing a grid -type system that has interconnectivity and provides a street system that meets street standards. He stated that all of the buildings shown on the plan will be built in Phase 1. Subsequent phases will consist of development of the pad sites along Harmony Road. They have agreed to all of the conditions staff has recommended. Mr. Hendee discussed the three modifications. The first modification is to Section 3.2.2, parking lot size/scale. This section requires that large parking lots be divided in sections containing no more than 200 spaces. Mr. Hendee stated there are three areas greater than 200 cars. Mitigating factors are (1) over a 100-acre site, the deviation is nominal and not a significant departure; (2) the project is parked at considerably lower than the allowable ratio — roughly 4/1,000 square feet as opposed to the allowable 5/1,000 square feet.; (3) parking has been broken into numerous smaller fields throughout the project; and (4) the project landscaping exceeds the 10% requirement of parking lots over 100 cars. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 7 The second modification is to Section 3.5.4 and required that at least two sides of a large retail establishment shall feature operational customer entrances or attached smaller stores or liner shops. The mitigation offered by the applicant is to place a 5,000 square foot building pad next to Lowe's Garden Center. Staff has asked for a three foot masonry base on the garden center and to consider a tower elevation on the corner. They have also agreed to additional mitigation via architectural detail at the sports store. Applicant has also agreed to work with the library to provide a branch public library. The third modification to Section 3.5.4 requires that no more than 50% of the off-street parking area for any large retail establishment shall be located between the front facade and the abutting streets. Applicant stated that by looking at the shared concept, the parking lots are not that large because there are parking blocks for different stores. They also believe the landscaping does exceed the City standards. Chair Lingle asked why the comment was made in the Staff Report that "the strict application of such would render the project infeasible." Applicant Hendee responded that Target will not locate here unless the parking is located in the locations they need in front of their building. Lowe's stance toward parking is the same. Additionally, the parking in some areas is the only way they could provide the town center, an element vital to this project. Member Schmidt asked how they envision enlarging the public center. Applicant Hendee responded that on the main street area, they will have a high-level finish on the hardscape, a design concept similar to Mountain and College. They are also working with the library on creating an outdoor plaza space that will be used by patrons. Member Fries questioned the components of the agreement with the library. Applicant Silverstein responded that they are providing the land and the infrastructure. The library will build out their space. Member Fries asked how the property will be conveyed. Applicant Silverstein stated there will be a letter of agreement with the City. Brenda Cams, Library Director for the City of Fort Collins and Marty Heffernan, Director of Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services introduced themselves. Member Fries asked if the November ballot measure seeking to establish a library district and funding does not pass, will the City tell Bayer Properties that they cannot move forward. Applicant Silverstein said the library building will be built anyway. If the library funding does not come to fruition, the burden will be Bayer's to convert the building to another use. Director Gloss stated he would be comfortable amending the staff findings and conclusions to reflect that. Chair Lingle remarked that what is stated is alleviating an existing and defined problem of city-wide concern, which is the library, not the town center. Director Gloss stated the City would use the applicant's justification that it is equal to or better than a compliant plan. Member Schmidt asked what would happen if some of the conditions are not met. Director Gloss stated staff will not approve the final plan if the conditions are not satisfied. Chair Lingle questioned why this is coming before the Planning & Zoning Board without the 12 conditions being resolved. Director Gloss said it is a time -sensitive issue and was spurred by the schedule. Staff is confident they will come to agreement. Public Input Earlene Backes, 2732 County Fair Lane, stated two concerns: (1) the impact on Corbett going south past Preston Junior High and into the Harvest area; and (2) what kind of architectural control is there over kinds of businesses that will be placed there. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 8 Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, requested consideration for the surrounding neighborhoods; namely, loading and off -hour activities of the major retailers. She requested a more graphic description of the construction to Corbett. Larry Arend, 3121 Yellowstone Circle, stated he is in favor of the project. Mr. Arand stated they get a lot of freeway traffic, and he thinks shopping traffic and stop lights will slow traffic. He is requesting approval of the project. Robert Schutzius, 3208 Mesa Verde Street in the Woodland Park Estates Subdivision is in favor of the development. He believes it would enhance property values, and he would like to see it endorsed. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated he is concerned about the process. If the developer leases the building, could the funds from the lease go to the library system. End of Public Input Matt Delich, Delich Associates, addressed the impact to Corbett. He stated that currently the trip distribution to the south on Corbett is less than 5%. This is a regional shopping center, and it will encompass all of Fort Collins as well as other areas within and outside of Larimer County; therefore, he thinks the trip impact to Corbett Road will be very small. Staff Bracke stated that Ziegler will be the fastest route from the south. The location of the connection to the north is dependent upon the development of the site north of the project. It will not connect directly to Kingsley. Applicant Silverstein responded to the question about the uses on the pad sites. He stated there will be no fast food restaurants in that drive throughs are restricted. There will probably be bank branches and selective business types designed to be compatible with the overall project. Chair Lingle asked about loading docks and off -hour activities. Silverstein responded that Bayer manages their own properties, and they will put operational guidelines in place with all of the retailers. He added that the City also has operating procedures guidelines. Member Stockover asked Attorney Eckman if it would be wise to add a drop dead date and tie it to the City's election cycle so that if the library initiative does not pass the developer would hold that space until the next election. Attorney Eckman responded that it would be hard to grant a modification based on a library that's contingent upon an election. He stated that Director Gloss's equal to or better than rationale may be a better support than the library. Member Schmidt asked that if the library initiative does not pass, would there be an option on any other pad site at a later date? Applicant Silverstein responded that they are unable to warehouse space for an unspecified period of time. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Front Range Village Amended Overall Development Plan #5-94(L) based on the facts, findings, and conclusions in the section so referenced in the Staff Report. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the first modification to Section 2.8.2(H)(4) based on the staff facts and findings on page 2 of the First Modification Review based on that granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and it would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 9 Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Modification to Section 3.5.4(C)(3)(a) concerning the entrances to large retail stores. Granting the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested is to mitigate the impact associated with large, single user buildings that have a single point of entry. The impact to the large retail format on the entire regional center is effectively mitigated by the urban design of the central town center. This area will be comprised of four — two-story buildings that front on a street with diagonal parking in a pedestrian plaza. The development plan as proposed would be equal to or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Request for Modification to Section 3.5.4C(3)(b) regarding the large retail establishment parking lot. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested is to mitigate the impacts of large parking fields in front of large retail establishments and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested, and that the reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with it is because the impact to the parking distribution associated with the large retail format on the entire regional center is effectively mitigated by the urban design of the central town center. This area will be comprised of four —two-story buildings that front on a street with diagonal parking and a pedestrian plaza. To help mitigate the impact of the large parking field and the parking distribution, the conditions relating to upgrading the interior and exterior landscaping in the findings of staff (C) shall be made conditions of approval to the major amendment. Also, upgrading the connecting walkways between buildings B1 to B5 and buildings B11 and B12 shall be a condition of approval for the major amendment. The motion was seconded by Member Fries. The motion passed 6.1 with Chair Lingle casting the dissenting vote. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommends approval of the Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center Major Amendment subject to the 12 conditions listed A through L, pages 1 through 3 of the Staff Report. Meyer seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Lingle stated that the comments he made on Modification 3 were not intended to be about Bayer Properties. He thinks the plan is good and that it is a nicely designed center. Project: Harmony and Shields Revised Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning, #1-06A Project Description: This is a request to amend the Structure Plan map and rezone a 58 acre parcel located on the west side of S. Shields Street north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially reconfigure the pattern of existing zone districts by moving the 17.9 acre area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, approximately 500 Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 10 feet to the south. The resulting zone districts would include an NC - zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed Use neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Director Gloss provided contextual site information. Director Gloss stated that the Planning & Zoning Board heard an application for a Structure Plan Amendment and rezoning on the subject property in March. That recommendation went to City Council and City Council denied the applicant's request for rezoning. Director Gloss stated that the applicant is presenting a new application for the same property and that the configuration is the same as in March. The applicant has provided additional information with this presentation. Director Gloss stated that the findings of staff and the consulting engineer is that the traffic generated from this development if it gets moved to the south will be predominantly from the east. Traffic coming from the west seems to be an issue because of the schools and because of the direct connection of Wake Robin from Shields into the neighborhood. It is staff's belief that the impact to the west will be lessened if the neighborhood center is moved to the south. Director Gloss added that the Natural Areas program is not interested in purchasing the property. Director Gloss stated that staff is recommending that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of this rezoning request to City Council. He added this is a private sector initiative and that staff is not initiating the request. Applicant Michael Markel, is the president and owner of Markel Homes. The business address is 5723 Arapahoe Avenue #2B, Boulder, Colorado. Matt Delich, traffic engineer for Markel Homes, did a preliminary traffic and transportation analysis regarding the structure plan and rezoning of this site. He stated the impact to the neighbors to the west would be higher. At the corner location, the traffic from the west should remain on Harmony Road because it would be shorter and more direct to stay on Harmony Road. Snowden Leftowich, 5233 South Ironton Way, is a senior vice president with Regency Centers. He stated that Regency owns over 400 shopping centers, of which 95% are anchored with Safeway, King Soopers, Kroger, Whole Foods, or other grocery stores. They are primarily a neighborhood grocery store developer. Member Schmidt asked Staff Bracke to discuss the improvements to the Harmony and Shields intersection. Staff Bracke stated that Harmony Road will be a four -lane arterial with auxiliary turn lanes from College Avenue all the way to Seneca. The project length is one and one-half miles. The intersection of Harmony and Shields will be improved so it has two through lanes in each direction, double left turns south bound and also probably west bound. The Shields Street improvements will go as far as Wake Robin to the north and a little bit south of Harmony Road. Wake Robin will probably become a right-in/right-out street. Construction will start in 2007 and go through 2009. Chair Lingle asked if the rezoning configuration was the same as was proposed last spring. Applicant Markel replied it was nearly identical. Chair Lingle asked who would hold the land after development. Markel replied that his company and Regency would work together on the engineering and planning. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 11 Then, Regency would own the commercial area and Markel would own the MMN property. He also stated that Safeway has given him a letter expressing interest in this location. Public Input Bill Carson, 4442 Craig Drive. Mr. Carson thinks that Safeway can succeed on that location as zoned and is requesting a no vote on the rezoning. Kathy Gargan, 4366 Westbrooke Court, has concerns that if Wake Robin is closed, how would she get to Harmony and Shields. She also asked for a definition of a three-quarter movement or a full movement from the traffic department. She also requested that a yellow flashing light be placed at the location where Wake Robin comes through Shields for a 20 mph crossing for the children. John Williams, 4331 Mill Creek Court, believes that the rezoning request deals with monetary gain and should be thrown out. He thinks their plan for a 60,000 square foot super center indicates a move toward developing a regional center as opposed to a neighborhood center. He requested that the Planning & Zoning Board ask for proof that the proposed zoning change promotes the public welfare. Neal Krawetz, 4736 Westberry Drive, stated that according to the definition of an NC, there should be a buffer zone around it. He is also concerned because a neighborhood center should be central to the neighborhood. The King Soopers at Harmony and College is one and a half miles away and will be more convenient than rezoning this location. He requests that the rezoning be denied. Matt Kassaware lives at 1156 Belleview Drive. He stated that zoning provides predictability for home purchasers and lenders of home sites or business properties and that it also encourages the most appropriate use of land. The residents of Wake Robin, Regency and Westbrook neighborhoods will have to contend with an unforeseen commercial development with regional access. He believes the developer is attempting to bring in people from across the region rather than just the neighborhood and asks that the rezoning be denied. Lisa Rhoads, 1238 Belleview Drive, believes there is a commercial over -building crisis. She stated that excessive building lowers property values, impacts the quality of life and affect the safety of our children. She requests denial of the rezoning. Dr. Sharon Butler lives at 1309 W. Harmony Road. She stated that she lives across the street from the proposed super center. She doesn't understand how increased traffic, noise and light pollution, and delivery trucks will be advantageous to this area and requests denial of the rezoning. Jeni Makinen, 4305 Westbrooke Court. She is concerned about traffic because she doesn't think there will be a stoplight, meaning that people driving from Harmony will have to turn left into the neighborhood centers without a light. Desiree Williams, 4331 Miller Creek Court, stated she believes shoppers will have no trouble entering or exiting this center under the current zoning. If the neighborhood center is moved to the corner of Harmony and Shields (one of the busiest intersections in the city), shopping will be further away from the people that might walk to the area. She requested that the rezoning be denied. Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive. As a former Planning & Zoning Board member, he reminded the Board that approval of a zoning change can only be recommended if the proposed change is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by a change of condition within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. He doesn't believe this request is consistent with many elements of the City Plan and is requesting denial. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 12 Ed Kirchhoff, 1403 Nunn Creek Court, stated that when it says the change is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood. He does not feel anything has changed in the neighborhood. He cited several grocers that are doing just fine in the middle of a street; ie, Whole Foods, Sunflower Market, and Wild Oats. He stated that the City of Fort Collins needs to keep its commitment to the citizens who bought homes in Westbury and Westbrook, and asked that the NC zone not be moved. Marilyn Kirchoff, 1403 Nunn Creek Court, stated that she thinks the rezoning will bring traffic and safety problems, lower property values, is incompatible with an existing neighborhood, and infringes upon the Dragon's Lair Wetlands. She requested that the Planning & Zoning Board deny the request and demand the developer place a responsibly -sized, less than Wal-Mart size development at the originally zoned location. Janie Romero, 1420 Nunn Creek Court, asked that the following issues be considered: two schools are west of this site and dozens of children cross Shields to get to these schools. There are currently 3,384 students at Front Range Community College, and the college has a 31 % growth rate projected over the next five years. Please consider traffic issues, that the enormous center would change the neighborhood tremendously, property values will decrease, and the importance of the children's safety. James Butzik, 302 Peyton Drive, stated there are actually 5,200 students at Front Range Community College. All totaled, students and employees are about 6,000 individuals. He suggested that the City wait to see if the Harmony/Shields widening corrects the current traffic issues before increasing traffic volume in that area again. Karen Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated that mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezoning require that the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and warranted by a change of conditions in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. She said that disturbing aspects of the staff report are that commercial uses are more efficiently accessed at the corner of two arterials as opposed to the middle of the property. While this may be correct for a true commercial zone, the City Plan clearly states land use boundaries and density changes in the NC district shall occur at mid -block locations to the maximum extent feasible rather than at streets. She asked that the Planning & Zoning Board consider the community goals in the City Plan which state the existing residential neighborhoods will be protected against development that is incompatible with the community goals and needs. Ken Manning, 1219 Mariposa Court, stated that he believes you travel to a particular super market because of the quality of the goods, the variety of the goods, the shopping ambience, the service quality, the comparative prices of goods and services, and the accessibility of the store relative to competitive outlets. He is a professor of marketing at CSt1 and suggests that accessibility is going to be hurt by the rezoning and asks for denial of the request. Shane Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court, stated he doesn't think the property values will be affected. His conclusions are: rezoning arbitrarily reallocates value from one group of homeowners and awards it to another, ignoring the principal of predictability; rezoning encourages greater use of residential streets to the west as alternate routes north for car traffic right by the schools, parks and ball fields which already experience lots of congestion; it replaces a natural drainage area with non -permeable parking lots and structures, degrades the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood which are better served by a neighborhood center mid -block, maintains a current view corridor from Harmony Library and Front Range Community College all the way back to the foothills and Horsetooth, and conflicts with existing uses. Planning & Zoning Board September 21, 2006 Page 13 End of Public Input Chair Lingle asked Matt Delich to address the Troutman Parkway extension. Delich stated the Troutman extension would provide access into the current zoning with a potential signal on Shields where moving the zoning south would eliminate that. Chair Lingle asked what effect that has? Delich replied it would allow movement in from Shields in the north -bound direction because it would be the only signal north of the signal at Harmony and Shields. With the rezoning, there will be a collector street to Troutman which will provide the opportunity to go north at Shields. He had stated earlier that there will be less congestion to the west at the schools on Harmony rather than cut through the neighborhood. With the current zoning, it would be more direct to cut through the neighborhood on Silvergate or Seneca. Chair Lingle asked about the comments that Wake Robin would not continue through. Delich stated that has not been decided. It would have to be evaluated in a traffic study and be approved by the City Staff. Chair Lingle asked that staff discuss concerns regarding the comprehensive plan and staff evaluation. Ken Waido stated that one of the consistent policies in the City Plan was to encourage the creation of neighborhood shopping centers. Consistency with the comprehensive plan for rezoning is just a classic requirement, and that's why this specific zoning request is in conjunction with a recommended change to the Structure Plan. The most important element is to have a neighborhood center with access through a collector street to the neighborhood. In both options, there is that connection. Lingle asked staff to comment on the lack of predictability cited by the citizens. Staff Waido said that the colors on the zoning map don't mean just one use. NC zone permits residential and other uses. Lingle asked for comments regarding the location of a commercial center on a corner or mid -block. Applicant Leftowich reiterated there has not been a formal letter of intent from any grocer. There has been an expression of interest. He did reiterate that Regency is not interested in a mid -block location because historically they are not as viable as those located on corners. Applicant Markel stated his consultant felt it was important that the commercial be moved from mid -block to the corner. Member Schmidt asked Staff Bracke what the expected level of traffic will be at Shields and Harmony once the improvements are completed. Bracke replied that it will go to Level of Service B and C. In the long-term future, it is expected to retain a Level of Service D, which is acceptable. Presently, it is a Level of Service F, and it is one of the highest accident locations in town. Member Schmidt asked about the impact at Troutman if traffic stayed in the area it is and if the intersection would be able to handle that level of service. Staff Bracke stated it should be able to. Member Fries asked what square footage the Wal-Mart Super Center is. Director Gloss replied that it is around 200,000 square feet. Member Rollins asked Director Gloss to define changed conditions and what that includes. Director Gloss responded that since 1981 when this property was first master planned, clearly there has been a change of condition in traffic volume in the area. Information has been provided to staff that from a market standpoint the visibility and exposure based on that location is important for the economic viability of the center. That goes hand in hand with the notion of changed conditions from 1981 to the present. Planning & Zoning Board September21, 2006 Page 14 Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board move for approval of the Harmony and Shield Structure Plan Amendment based on the facts and findings in the Staff Report on page 7 and 4a of page 11. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with. Member Stockover casting the dissenting vote. Member Schmidt asked if Regency considers working with smaller size stores. Applicant Leftwich said yes, in different markets. He also stated that the different sizes of grocer format are related to the different sizes of the land tracts. Member Schmidt asked where the nearest grocery stores are. Director Gloss replied that there is an Albertsons at Horsetooth and College,about two miles from the subject property. Member Rollins asked what type of buffering and landscaping would be completed along the north side of Harmony. Director Gloss stated there would be standards for street tree placement along the street. Building placement will buffer some of the noise and light and other uses. Parking lots at the side of the buildings have to be screened, and there are minimum screening requirements for the perimeter of the parking lot. He stated there is also extensive landscaping required inside the parking lot to break up the horizontal plane and there is also some natural habitat that has to be protected along the south side of the property. Lingle stated that part of the problem with rezoning that is not conditioned on a specific site development plan is that if Mr. Markel goes away next week, the City would have a rezoning and structure plan amendment that they would have to abide by regardless of who might come in with a development plan. Member Fries stated that he was swayed by the traffic expert's comments that the traffic will not change at Shields and Harmony regarding of the position of the NC zone. He stated he would also like to think that decisions made by this Board are not economically driven. He thinks the grocery store is better off with a grocery store a couple blocks away and will support the amendment. Member Schmidt thinks that conditions have changed for the subject property. The neighborhood is changing because there will be MMN zoning which will create more homes and traffic in the area. Because of that, there is a need for a grocery store in the area. It is also her opinion that the buffering will be more effective with a commercial use rather than a multi -family use. She will support the motion. Chair Lingle stated that he doesn't understand why the neighborhood immediately to the west would not rather be buffered by the MMN land than be directly adjacent to the NC where there could be loading docks across the back yards. He stated it seems much more logical to have the mixed use buffer between a resident's property and whatever might happen in the neighborhood center. He can also understand why the Westberry neighborhood feels infringed upon by having either MMN or a type of natural area buffer suddenly become a commercial center directly across the street. He also stated he is impressed by the owner/developer team. Member Stockover stated he is considering predictability. He said he would prefer to see housing in that area and does not feel there is a need for another grocery store. He will side with the neighbors and their concerns regarding predictability. Member Smith stated he believes conditions have changed for the subject property. He believes the traffic expert's information. He also thinks the buffer is inadequate and will be enhanced by moving it to the south. He will support the recommendation. Planning & Zoning Board September21, 2006 Page 15 Member Fries stated that he would only use the predictability argument if there was a substantial change in the zoning; i.e., change from a grocery store to a 4-story office building. He also stated that the most compelling argument is that nothing will go in there if they don't grant the rezoning 500 feet to the south. Member Schmidt moved the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Harmony and Shields Rezone #1-06A based on the facts and findings in the Staff Report on 4b. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Stockover casting the dissenting vote. Member Schmidt made a motion to continue Items 15 and 16 to the next meeting. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Attorney Eckman stated that Item 16 had no one to speak to it. It was about to be moved to the consent agenda when someone from the audience wanted to speak to it. But that person is no longer here this evening. The audience was polled to see if anyone wanted to speak to Item 16. No one responded. Member Schmidt rescinded the original motion to continue 15 and 16 to October 20, 2006. Member Meyer moved to continue Item 15, the Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Project Development Plan to the October 20, 2006 meeting. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Structure Plan Amendment for the Front Range Second #20-06 based on the facts and findings on page 5 of the Staff Report. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the Front Range Second Rezoning #20-06 based on the facts and findings in the Staff Report on page 5. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Other Business: None. Meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. on September 22, 2006 with the Water's Edge at Richard's Lake Project Development Plan to be continued at the October 20, 2006 meeting. Carr ron Gloss, ire or Vice -Chair