HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST PROSPECT ROAD SERVICE FACILITY - ODP & APU - 44-08/A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 24
back yard and they are running out of available property as they look around the developed areas. At
this time, they believe this is the best use of the East Prospect property.
Chair Schmidt said that Advance Planning staff has presented the Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan to the
Board at their work session. She was thinking later if the park and school swap, the park would be the
buffer to the neighborhood. The new school land would be surrounded by Industrial/Employment —
Anheuser Busch and you'd be right there by the interstate connection that could support this type of
traffic. That is an option, she hopes they could pursue. She understands it would take some discussions
with AB because they are donating land for the park. She said who's going to say what's going to
develop first (Timnath or the north part of town).
Holder said they felt they have followed the City process and addressed requests such as a Traffic
Impact Study. They are proposing uses based on interpretations of staff. He's not sure what else they
could have done differently than to submit what was proposed. He appreciates the opportunity to review
the proposal with the Board and thanked them for their input —they'll take it into consideration.
The motion approved 5:0.
Chair Schmidt said the Board's concern was basically the intensity of what's being proposed
Other Business:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Steve Du h, Current Planning Director
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 23
access points? Hendee said that if you have a project with more than one phase, you have to come in
with an CDP. Hendee says they are asking them to approve access points and the overall plan.
Director Dush said since the applicant's request for the addition of permitted use was denied, what's left
are the two subsequent phases which are permitted uses. Campana could not see by the posted
diagram where the next phases would be. Hendee said what they have shown is Parcels A-D--it's not
noted as phases.
Member Campana said that normally on an ODP, we'd see Phase 1 is .... Phase 2 is..., etc.
Let's play this out (not suggesting you would do this), but if you phase out the parcel to the west in a
different phase from the parcel to the east and you're putting public facilities according to staff's
definition; that doesn't require P&Z approval (it's an administrative approval). You'd be going forward
with that phase with an advisory and a staff review. Staff has seen the definition of public facilities
differently than the Board... do you see how this plays out? Director Dush says the school does require
Planning & Zoning Board approval —it is a Type II application. Campana said he's not hearing the Board
is opposed to the school as much as they are to what's being classified as public facilities. The Board's
ability to review will be gone.
Hendee confirmed what he's hearing is if the Board should deny, it's really on staff's interpretation of
what a public facility is. Campana said he can't approve that (plan on overhead) because he doesn't
even know what he's approving --other than some arrows that indicate access points, he's certainly not
approving any phasing-- he can't approve that plan. If he had a plan in his packet that they had been
discussing for the past two hours, if it had phasing on it and access points and we discussed that we'd
probably comment on it further but it's certainly not what we've been doing here.
Chair Schmidt asked Eckman if an applicant can ask for a continuance. Eckman said you have a motion
and a second. They have asked for a continuance but he thought it was under the purview of the Board
to decide to continue or not.
Member Smith said he thought it wouldn't be that bad to continue.
Member Stockover asked if the CDP is denied; what is the applicant's ability to bring the project back.
Chair Schmidt said they could come back with just a Site Advisory Plan. Shepard said they could
resubmit a revised ODP. Director Dush summarized the options. they have the motion on the floor and
you also have the ability to continue to address the concerns you've identified in your motion (Section
3.5.1 (A) through (H)).
Eckman said procedurally if there is a motion to postpone to a date certain —those take precedence over
the main motion and should be considered first
Hendee said that after conferrinq with his client they have decided not to pursue a continuance
Member Stockover said what he's hoping is that the Board is sending a message to the School District to
please evaluate other options before proceeding with this. He said we aren't here to fight, we aren't here
to be "no growth", and we aren't trying to be stubborn but he thinks there's enough at stake here that we
are asking you to go back to the BOE and advise them on what their alternatives are. As the City
develops, we loose opportunities. Stockover said that right now there are enough opportunities to do this
type of development in what would be a more suitable area.
Holder said they have evaluated all the applicable considerations. They have looked at their other
pieces of property. It would be safe to say, if they were proposing the same facility at the Mountain Vista
site, they might be having the same discussion with different neighbors. Nobody really wants this in their
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 22
ODP so unless the continuance would address those things, it was fairly clear that we don't agree with
that.
Hendee said he understands and it's a good point to make so if you'd be turning this down based on that
discussion, you 'd be rejecting something that are currently permitted uses in the LUC with the exception
of staff's interpretation of what a public use is.
Chair Schmidt said in a way that it's the idea -and that if they went to the character and the extent
argument, there are all kinds of public facilities. The feeling is even if it's a permitted use, does that
public facility being described here compatible and does it work in this particular UE parcel. She said to
that extent, it's still an issue.
Hendee asked staff to address what you're approving with an ODP. He said maybe we can get an
interpretation of the character statement because he believes what they're asking for is approval of an
OOP based on the drawing that is posted with the exception of the request for addition for permitted use
Director Dush said the purpose of the ODP is to establish general planning and development controlling
parameters for projects that are going to be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing
sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an ODP does not
establish any vested rights to develop the property in accordance with the plan. Dush said there's no
vesting with an ODP, it establishes a phasing plan and identifies the uses and as Hendee has indicated,
the uses but for the addition of the permitted use (which was denied) are permitted uses in the UE zone
district.
Hendee said in the long run it may not help the applicant if the site specific plan review comes back
through and those incompatibility issues are still there but he believes what they're approving with an
ODP is exactly what Director Dush just said.
Member Lingle said, as a technicality, the Plan they have in their packet is the illustrated plan. That was
depicted at work session as the ODP---they don't have the plan that is currently on the overhead.
Shepard said they referred to what was in the agenda packet as the illustrative plan and not the ODP.
The ODP is the bubble diagram was submitted when the project was submitted and the fact that we
didn't get it into the Board packet was an oversight.
Member Lingle said the point, and we're not here to argue about it, is we've been reviewing the plan on a
much more specific basis than the bubble diagram.
Chair Schmidt said if they just look at the bubble diagram for the ODP but the next step could very well
just be the Site Advisory Review Plan (which is much more limiting as far as to what the Board can
comment on); she thinks the comments would be the same.. She doesn't know exactly where Mr.
Hendee is going with this because in a way it was good for the applicant to hear this discussion. Should
it come back again, the discussion would probably be the same unless things were. changed
substantially.
Hendee said he would like to point out is if another applicant came in and did not have a site specific
plan to show you, he believes the review and discussion would be different. He said they've heard a lot
of good comments tonight. The District can go back and review those comments; using them to revise
the Site Advisory Review Plan.
Member Campana said he believe Hendee brings up some good points. He said if the Board approves
the ODP, he doesn't know exactly what they'd be approving. Would it be phasing? Would it be the
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 21
Holder said they are proposing an 80 foot buffer and they are approximately 1/8 of a mile away from their
property to the nearest house by virtue of the back yards of Kitchell Estates. They are actually closer to
the property south of Prospect.
Member Campana said that normally when he looks at transitioning on a project (such as apartments
adjacent to single family homes), he does one or two story buildings closest to the homes and transition
up to three stories as you move away. He wouldn't take into consideration their back yard —that's their
375 feet. Perhaps he would put a building that is a little more transitional such as a small warehouse that
could look like an outbuilding for UE. He said along those lines, you could transition to the fueling station
and the bus depot. He understands they have Industrial to the west. He would expect the Industrial land
to take into consideration what they're putting adjacent to that property line.
Holder said there was some thought given to placing the buses there. Part of putting them closer to the
buffer was to try to mitigate the sound issues. The farther away we get from the buffer, the more obvious
the sound issues become so they did take a lot of that into account as they placed the individual "parts
and pieces" on site.
Member Stockover said the one thing that was really tipping him was the Larimer County portion. That
is, in his opinion, the worst of the whole project. Holder said what's confusing this is the fact that they
brought an illustrated drawing. Normally at the CDP level, the Board would not have seen an illustrated
drawing. They thought it was important to show where they were going with this site. The Larimer
County portion is still just discussion --they think it makes good sense. They would certainly encourage
Larimer County to participate in the same process and bring specific development proposals. He cannot
speak for them nor have they sold the property to them.
Member Stockover said he totally understands that. He just still comes back to the fact that if a private
developer brought this to them, the Board would say not in Urban Estate. You are trying to do too
commercial oriented a development in a UE area. We have the Code and the guidelines so that when a
property owner purchases a piece of property, they have some confidence in what is going to be coming
in around you. He just feels that we're pushing that boundary way too hard. Holder said his
understanding then is that you are not interpreting these uses to be public facilities. Stockover said that's
correct— that's his personal view and it will reflect in his vote.
Member Lingle moved to not approve the Poudre School District East Prospect Service Facility
Overall Development Plan, # 44-08 based on the facts that the ODP does not comply with
applicable standards of Section 3.5.1(A through H). Campana seconded the motion.
Bruce Hendee, consultant for the District, would like to ask for a continuance. He also wanted to ask one
thing —if you look at the CDP and you look at the permitted uses —the transportation access points
shown —that's really all that the ODP is. So it's not approving the site specific plan. The
recommendation for a warehouse was denied —understandable but the ODP itself only lists permitted
uses that are currently listed in the Land Use Code with the exception, at the'very beginning of the land
use classifications, there's a statement at the bottom left that specifically states the permitted uses. The
CDP is actually very much in conformance with the LUC if you're not considering a site specific plan
approval tonight. If you're inclined to vote against this tonight based on the site specific plan that you've
seen, he would suggest the District ask for a continuance to another hearing date so they can clarify
what the intent of the CDP is.
Member Lingle said in response, there's been considerable discussion that they don't necessarily agree
with the staff application of the definition of public facilities and some other things that are the basis of the
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 20
schools for the public facility or would that be a pointless effort if the warehouse can't be a component of
it. Shepard said that would be a question for the applicant but staff has been told that the warehouse
was identified as Phase 1_ and the other transportation related improvements were identified as Phase 2.
The school was identified as Phase 3. Holder said the warehouse is one component —if the Board
denies the warehouse and approves the remainder of the project, the phasing may change so please
don't deny the ODP just based on the warehouse itself --consider it as an Overall Development Plan and
the other uses they are proposing.
Member Stockover said his feeling is the warehouse, in and of itself, could be. made to work. He said it
was the compounding of that (the extreme nature with everything that went with it) that causes him to
pause. He doesn't think it'll change his opinion if the warehouse goes away. He still would be opposed
to this project.
Chair Schmidt agrees with Stockover. She could have been sold on the warehouse with other mitigation
that would have made it more compatible with the surrounding areas but she felt like the additional uses
of the public facilities made it less compatible versus more. Phase 2 of the ODP was almost more of a
concern as far as the traffic issues and the compatibility than just the,warehouse.
Eckman said the ODP would have to be evaluated against the Land Use Code criteria so if you're
looking at permitted uses (as the schools are in that zone district), the Board would have to deny on
some basis in the LUC as Shepard has outlined in his staff report.
Member Campana said he thinks what.the Board is saying, at least that what he's saying; is where staff
has found it to meet the requirements of 3.5.1 (A) —Building and Project Compatibility and 3.5.1 (H) —
Land Use Transitions; he does not. We'd just have to put that in the motion.
Member Smith said that when he was talking about the unresolved transportation issues and the
warehouse being a significant component in the ODP; he's wondering if the Traffic Impact Study needs
,to be updated based on the denial of permitted use.
Director Dush said another option you have, since it seems like the review of the application was based
upon item # 5—the request for the addition of permitted use and the concerns raised relative to transition
and location, is (with the applicant's agreement) the idea to table the item for further review to address
some of the Board's concerns.
Holder said he's not sure about all the issues that are "out there" right now but he assumed by taking the.
warehouse "off the table" that would reduce the traffic impact the TIS has identified. On the issue of
transition —he's unclear on that because part of the property is currently zoned industrial and the
property directly to the west is zoned industrial. There is no transition between UE and Industrial other
than this particular piece of property. He said there is technically not a transition between the UE and the
Industrial zone.
Chair Schmidt said, at least for herself, Ithat idea is on the particular design of the property. As Shepard
mentioned, with the warehouse its 100 acres and there's a lot of mitigation you can do. But here we
have the buses/transportation needs pretty close to the rural houses. Within the design of the public
facilities to be placed on the property (even if it's a permitted use), there really isn't a transition to the
neighboring uses. If we looked at someone who wanted to come with an industrial project, there would
be a certain amount of expectation to what they would do within their zone as the got closer to the
housing.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 19
that extent, staff just relied on the zoning that was in place and the permitted uses stated in Article 4 to
guide them.
Member Campana thanked the surrounding neighborhoods for their effort. He's been at neighborhood
meetings where he had projects where those in opposition had not taken the time to research what they
are opposing. He appreciates the time they've taken to give public input. He also appreciates the time
and effort the District has put into the project. He said it looks really good and he understands the need.
However, he's not going to be able to support either request tonight. He doesn't think the intent of
public facilities was to do this in LIE. He lives in one of the UE zones and he wouldn't want something
such as this in his back yard. He thinks the design could be modified perhaps to give better transition
from the back yards of the neighbors to the north. He's been wresting with the request for a week and a
half but he's decided he's not going to be able to support it.
Member Lingle said he thinks the letter from Susan Kirkpatrick was a great piece of evidence in his
deliberation because it shows a 20 year history of what the City of Fort Collins commitment to this
neighborhood was even though city-wide all properties were rezoned in 1997. The fact that this property
was placed in UE, which is their lowest density residential zoning district, shows a commitment to follow
through on the promises that were made to the neighborhood in 1990. He thinks the entire thing is too
intense, incompatible for this particular, location, even with all the buffering in the world. He was never a
firm believer of the LDGS philosophy that anything could go anywhere if you buffer it enough. When he
looks at the master plan drawing, he thinks it very efficient and a well laid out plan. The combination of
multiple users that take advantage of the same kinds of needs and facilities is also great if it just wasn't
surrounded by large acreage lots in residential subdivisions. If it were somewhere else, it would be fine.
He agrees with Campana and Stockover that he would not be able to support either request.
Chair Schmidt agrees with the statements that Member Lingle made. She really feels that when the land
was rezoned in 1997. the fact that it went to UE was an additional commitment that it stay more large lot
residential or something compatible with that. She doesn't think the intensity of this project is really
compatible with the whole theme behind the UE zoning district --that's of particular concern. She
applauds the District wanting to work with Larimer County. That's an excellent idea of combining those
facilities and she really hopes that a place can be found that would really work. Her concern is, given the
funding limitations, the Prospect Road and 1-25 interchange is not going to be built out in time to see the
benefits of having that type of facility there. She would encourage them to look for a place where in five
years everything would be all set to go. She said this is going to be a really congested headache for a
lot of people with this level of intensity.
Member Smith said he won't be supporting it either. When additional permitted uses are requested, they
have to be very clear —pass the "straight face" test (if you will) that the use is not that debatable. He's
not sure that's the case here. That, in addition to the unresolved transportation issues, makes it difficult
for him to support.
Member Lingle moved to deny the. request for the additional use of a warehouse in the Urban
Estate Zone District acknowledging that the Poudre School District withdrew their request for an
additional use of a professional office in the same zone district. The motion is based upon the
fact that adding a warehouse to the UE zone is found to not comply with the compatibility
standards of Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. Member Smith seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5:0.
Member Lingle asked Eckman assuming the motion was for the denial of the ODP, what type of findings
do we need to have for that, if any? Eckman said you might include in your findings that the warehouse
use has not been approved. Eckman.further added this ODP could be conditionally approved for the
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 18
Member Lingle said he was having the same problem as Campana with stretching. That's a pretty
generous definition of public facilities to apply to this project. Lingle asked Shepard if the warehouse, as
a use, is currently only being allowed in certain commercial and industrial zones. He said that would
imply there's a certain level of intensity --incompatibility with other land uses that is inherent to that use.
He's wondering if staff found it appropriate to be placed in this UE zone in this particular case based on
the size of the parcel, the setbacks, and other things. Lingle asked how do you get by the underlying
incompatibility part of a warehouse use in UE?
Shepard summarized staffs thinking at the beginning of his question —they did look at the setbacks, they
did look at the size in relationship to the acreage, and they did look at the relationship of the warehouse
in terms of the houses in the subdivisions. There are opportunities to mitigate the impact. There are
opportunities to build those berms. There are opportunities to design an attractive building. There are
opportunities to recognize the fact that most of the traffic for this particular warehouse will be off peak. It
isn't a heavy trip generator so getting a little below the surface of just what is a warehouse; staff looked
this proposal and all the unique attributes and characteristics that go along with it. Shepard said as he
mentioned earlier, they didn't consider this to be a text amendment to the Code or. to be a use variance.
Staff looked at it under the spirit of the addition of permitted use that allows them to pull in the
compatibility criteria. He would agree that if you just looked at the "blanket" use and the "blanket" zoning,
a warehouse in UE sounds incompatible but placed on 100 acres at 30,000 square feet with the
architecture and landscaping that's proposed it starts to look compatible.
Chair Schmidt said she can see some of that. The rest of it, however, she finds incompatible specially
when you look at land use transitions. She doesn't think there's enough transitioning.
She said asShepard was saying, if it's this particular warehouse with this particular design and this
acreage, you could mitigate impacts but what's planned to go around it as evidenced in the ODP does
not mitigate impacts.
Member Stockover said he thinks Campana said it best —we're starting to stretch quite a bit.
He's always been a proponent of trying to make things work and he's heard many times that we can
make anything fit anywhere if we spend enough time, effort and money. It is public money and that's a
worthwhile effort. He truly feels that if a private developer brought this proposal in the Board would say
no —you're trying to do too much at the expense of the surrounding areas. He's happy we have this
before them today before they're gone too far down the road. If the Board approves the warehouse, then
we're just "going to creep on out." It always gets harder to say no once it's started. But when he looks at
everything there, he's overwhelmed, especially when you add Larimer County to the mix. There has to
be a central located piece of property that would be less expensive and better suited for their needs. He
suggested looking at Highway 14—it has great accessibility and is a little bit closer to town. At this point
in time, he does not feel like he can support it.
Member Smith asked Shepard if there were examples of other parcels in the UE zone district that have
had the addition of a permitted use. If so, please elaborate. Shepard said the only example would be
the small scale event center which was specifically designed to have a cap on acreage, setback
requirements, and hours of operation. That was done as a text amendment so it's across all the UE
zones —he said it's the closest analogy.
Member Lingle said a concept he works with a lot in terms of land planning is what's considered the
carrying capacity of the land. Have you done any type of an analysis in terms of what would be
reasonable for this acreage to support in terms of intensity of use given the neighborhood and the
surrounding context? Shepard said the short answer is no —they have not done that extensive of an
analysis but they also said when they adopted City Plan that all zones are basically mixed use. There
are a variety of land uses allowed in the UE. It's not a single use zone —it has other allowable uses. To
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 17
There is a 50 acre plot further south on County Road 5 closer to the Town of Timnath. They own 35
acres on County Road 1 on Wellington and a few other smaller sites. As they have evaluated those
sites, the Mountain Vista really does make the most sense for a potential future high school. If the
Mountain Vista Sub -area Plan takes off as anticipated, they are expecting that area to grow like
southeast Fort Collins has grown. They are also considering, besides the high school, a middle and
elementary school on that site. The site near Timnath situates them perfectly for a potential middle
school or a K-8 as Timnath starts to grow. This site sat well as they looked at the arterial connections
and the deliveries coming up from Denver. They came back to this site as the primary focus for the
warehouse facility.
Chair Schmidt asked how the School District might deal with the following: neighbor's concerns, the
warehouse built and functioning well; but due to the interchange needing improvements or capital
funding issues, the transportation component (Phase 2) is not developed. Or, what if the Board denied
Phase 2 use proposal because of the infrastructure problems? Holder said they can't predict that far into
the future. He agreed that's a realistic scenario. He said the Town of Timnath could approve some
things that happen out there that have impacts on Prospect Road that the Fort Collins Planning Board
would not even see (or review). He couldn't really account for everything that could happen. If they
came back in five years for Phase 2 and the TIS indicates the overpass has completely failed, that would
be up to the Planning Board to deny. That would be the recommendation they'd take back to the Board
of Education. No single entity can really afford the cost of improving the interchange —it falls under
CDOT.
Chair Schmidt asked Holder what fall back plan the District might have if that did happen five years from
now. Holder said they'd continue at the Laporte site.
Member Campana asked staff about the definition of public facility —he gets the public part but not the
facility part. He asked what the intent is to help him have a better understanding. Shepard said the
intent was there was likelihood there would be a need for public sector infrastructure (such as a water
treatment plant, a waste water treatment plant, an electrical substation, or things that needed to be near
a railroad track) to be located in certain geographic locations. An example they used at one of the
neighborhood meetings was that Larimer County Jail. It could only be expanded where the jail is
because of their particular needs for utilities and infrastructure. They have to be geographic specific and
they might not match up with the zoning "that's on the ground." Shepard said so the term public facility
was defined with that in mind and it was defined to be included in most zone districts in the event that
something that served the public interest had to be in a certain location regardless of the zoning.
Campana asked if staff believes this geographic location is essential for this use. Campana thinks we're
stretching it a little bit. Shepard said that would be where you'd have to make that decision by asking the
School District. We're going by the definition and what they're telling us they need to have in a certain
location. Holder said again it goes back to available property —a portion of this property (albeit a small
portion) is zoned industrial and our neighboring property is industrial. To the District it makes the most
sense —when they look back and do the distribution of students and deliveries. Holder said at some
point, those two zoning districts do come together. There's not a buffer between industrial and urban
estate in this area. Holder said that adequate public facilities, as far as they are concerned, are the types
of things they provide the District at large and they represent more communities than just the City of Fort
Collins though a majority of their buildings are in Fort Collins.
Holder said they are landlocked at the Laporte site. In 1960 when they built Poudre High School, they
probably never imagined how big we were going to get and there. There is no place to grow. Holder
said, and by the way they do abut urban estate in that location.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 16
Eckman noted that Colorado common law requires that there not be any change to create run-off that
would damage down stream property. He said City Stormwater Engineers, under the character, location
and extent review, do review storm water impacts and will report to the Board whether a proposed
project will cause downstream flooding.
Chair Schmidt had a question about the berms and landscaping —she was wondering why that would not
occur until Phase 2. Holder said with the Phase 1 construction of the warehouse, they would create the
partial berm to the south that would shield the warehouse. They would not install the berm on the north
because they would like to continue to farm the rest of the property as they wait to develop. There are
two wells on the north side that are currently being use to irrigate the property and there is a channel that
runs along the north part that provides flood irrigation to the south side of the property. They would not
want to destroy that infrastructure.
Holder said there was a comment about the property being in the County. It is, in fact, in the City.
Chair Schmidt asked Mr. Holder to speak to the Trilby project.. Holder said he could not really speak to
the Trilby bus facility project; he was not with the District at the time that it was built.
Shepard said the Trilby bus facility was a Site Plan Advisory Review. The Brittany Knolls neighborhood
has a higher elevation looking down on the site. Shepard said with regard to Dennis Zierick's concerns
regarding the road improvements along Trilby that's really a conundrum for the City's capital projects to
develop a mile of roadway section between College and Lemay where there is county frontage that has
not been annexed yet. Shepard went or1 to say there is a limited amount of capital money and the City
needs to decide whether to allocate funds on the southern edge of the city where there is a lot of
unincorporated area or allocate where the needs may be greater (such as widen Prospect and College or
Drake & Taft). He said there's competition and not every project makes the cut. Over a period of time,
they hope to catch up. Staff is very sympathetic to the issue but if we the road improvements on a per
project basis, we'd have a "saw tooth effect " It would be far better to get capital project funding to do the
whole area at once.
Holder said the District will be making the improvements the Traffic Impact Study is recommending
through the various phases. As Phase 1 is not required to completely develop Prospect Road along the
south portion of the property nor are they required to replace the interchange -they certainly will not be
doing those things. He said the City is not asking the District to do anything different than what they'd
ask a developer to do nor is the District asking for any special privileges. Chair Schmidt asked Holder to
outline what type of improvements would be occurring at the different phases —there was some concern
about bridges on County Road 5. Holder said the bridges are not addressed within the Traffic Impact
Study —they are outside of the area. City staff would be better prepared to address that question.
Chair Schmidt asked when we get to the Site Advisory Review Plan, will there an additional traffic study
or is the one submitted with the ODP the final version. Shepard said there would be an amended traffic
study or an addendum that would account for any increase in background traffic or any changes that
have occurred in planning from this analysis to when a Site Plan Advisory Review is submitted.
Chair Schmidt asked when we get to Phase 2 and there have, not been any improvements made to the
interchange and the traffic has gotten severely worse, would there be more opportunities to take County
Road 5 versus staying on Prospect. Could the whole traffic scenario be amended and possible additional
improvements required? Shepard said yes.
Chair Schmidt asked if the District considered other sites for this facility. Holder said they had other
vacant property such as the 100 acres Mountain Vista site behind the Budweiser plant.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 15
She wanted to thank the Board and the audience for letting them complete their presentation and also for
considering their input.
End of Public Input
Board Questions:
Chair Schmidt asked to see a copy of the letter dated December 19, 1990 from Mayor Susan Kirkpatrick
to Barry & Cheryl Nichols. Chair Schmidt read into the record: "Dear Mr. & Mrs. Nichols, thank you for
your recent letter to the City Council concerning the Galatia Annexation and Zoning Request. On
Tuesday, December 18, 1990, all seven council members voted to annex the property into the City of
Fort Collins. Council also voted to place 115.6 acres of the property into the RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential Zoning District with the following three conditions:
1. Development shall be limited to single family homes only;
2. The overall gross density of residential development shall not exceed 1 unit per acre; and
3. All development must proceed as a planned unit development (PUD) and be reviewed against the
criteria of the.City's Land Development Guidance System.
Council believes the three zoning conditions will help guarantee that development on the Galatia
property will be compatible with existing subdivision in the area and will enhance the area's overall
quality of life. The PUD condition will also allow adjacent residents to be actively involved in the public
review process as portions of the Galatia property develop in the future. Thank you for your letter and
concerns. Susan Kirkpatrick, Mayor. Ms. Kirkpatrick also added a personal note that read: "Thank you
for maintaining such a reasonable posture throughout this discussion. SK"
.Member Lingle asked Eckman about the enforcement of the conditions at the time of the annexation of
the Galatia in light of the 1997 rezoning. Eckman said in 1990 we had the Land Development Guidance
System. Now we have Land Use Code and there are no longer PUDs—they're now called PDP (Project
Development Plan) and Final Plans. The 1990 conditions were probably zoning conditions that were
imposed on the zone at that time. We did a lot of conditional zoning before we adopted the Land Use
Code (LUC). When we adopted the LUC in 1997, we tried to match the existing zone districts with the
new zone districts and we went through a transformation —some of the zone district names changed.
We eliminated, for the most part, zoning conditions so when the City Council rezoned this area the 1990
conditions went away as well. Now it would be reviewedunder the LUC except for the fact that it's a
school district project which will ultimately be reviewed under the statute. Legally those conditions, in his
opinion, no longer apply. They are not legally binding upon the zone districts today. Eckman said that
City Council in 1997 could not have changed a zone district if they were bound by what had been done in
1990. Chair Schmidt said that's probably why it was zoned UE because that is the most comparable
zone.
Member Stockover said if at the time of the letter, the school district elected not to participate in this type
of process would they have been able to do the two-thirds vote? Eckman said he thinks the statute has
been around for a very long time and he's 99% sure that the statute predates 1990. Shepard agreed.
He said they've reviewed a number of elementary schools in the mid-80s and that was the statute that
they used.
Chair Schmidt asked when the school district purchased the property. Shepard said 1999.
Chair Schmidt asked staff to speak to the storm water concerns. Holder said storm water will be
addressed through the normal city process. They are currently proposing some detention south of the
warehouse facility to handle the first phase. Ultimately, where "future school" is noted, they are planning
a regional detention that would handle the drainage for the entire piece of property.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 14
He said he spoke for many community members in saying that we are concerned that the phased
timeline presented by the applicant for build -out of the ODP, and a lack of current and uncertain future
funding by both parties could result in a single 40,000 sq. ft. warehouse being.placed on the property in
question with the potential for future abandonment of the rest of the development. You'd have to
imagine a warehouse in front of Mr. Cape's home with nothing around it for who knows how long. It
would also establish a very unfortunate precedent by placing something that's industrial in a UE zone
and then somebody could come back later and. say —oh, there's a warehouse here, I think we should
rezone all of this industry when the City Council of 1990 clearly said they meant for it to be low density
residential. He asked the Board to carefully consider all the information. He asked the Board to avoid
distraction by the details of the ODP and to see the trees from the forest. The applicant vision for the
development of this property is evidenced by the ODP is fundamentally inconsistent with the Fort Collins
Land Use Code.
Cheri Nichols lives at 1601 Meadowaire Drive wanted to speak from her values and everything that she's
learned through their involvement in this process over the last several months to conclude their
presentation. They now have appreciation for how complex the issues are and yet they're simple in
certain fundamental ways. They've come full circle from their initial reaction at the first neighborhood
meeting in November. .
They have made exhaustive efforts to learn all points of view and how to effectively participate in this
process. They've really appreciated the help and the discussion that they've received from Mr. Shepard,
Mr. Holder, and all the other people they have consulted at the School District and at the City in the
Planning Department. They have great appreciation and respect for everyone's tasks including both
boards involved.
They've come full circle and it still comes down to heavy industrial development of that nature has no
place in any residential setting. Additionally, the surround infrastructure will not bear the burden. They
have also learned that there are many foundational planning principles that address numerous issues
and these provide guidance and direction for this decision. It really requires examining the Land Use
compatibility conflicts that inherent in putting this development in a parcel that is surrounded on three
sides by residential neighborhoods.
They believe public facilities sometimes need to go in a specific place because of existing infrastructure
or compelling geographic conditions. They may not always be a good fit for all surrounding landowners.
They do not feel that this is.the case in this instance. The District has other choices. They have learned
that just because a use may be permitted in a zone, it does not mean that approval is an automatic
action. There is a decision to make.
They are asking the Board to view this with a macro lens considering all the ramifications. They don't
object to any development happening in their area, they simply hope and expect it to be compatible.
There are many land uses that could fit, including a school —they're not industrial. The School District
does not need to put this project here. This parcel is zoned UE, which they have learned can be
problematic for planners but its primary purpose is residential. This parcel has long been understood to
be transitional and rural and throughout the years, the zoning has maintained that understanding and
respect for its surroundings. They are committed and established neighborhoods with roots there and
they have made the biggest investment of their lives in their homes. They are asking the Board to
uphold the intended and guiding principles of the Land Use Code and not recommend approval of the
ODP or addition of permitted use. This would encourage the School District to explore other possible
sites that are more compatible with surrounding development.
She also had a petition that was signed the last couple of days by 51 residents of Homestead Estates.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 13
This list is much more specific than the Public Facilities definition and more accurately describes the
service functions and the inherent nature of the applicant's transportation facility.
Other relevant Industrial Permitted uses that reveal the industrial nature of the applicant's facility are:
• 2.b.5. Transit facilities with or without outdoor repair and storage.
• 2.d.10. Outdoor storage facilities.
The zoning by district matrix illustrates these points very well. Each district allows for Public Facilities and
this is the basis for the applicant's rationale for OOP approval. This is in sharp contrast with
Transportation facilities with repair and outdoor storage, which is permitted only in the employment and
industrial zones. The heavy industrial uses I described are even more restrictive. They are permitted in
the industrial zone only. Warehouses, which are being sought as an Addition of a Permitted Use, are
only permitted in the commercial, employment and industrial zones. None of the industrial uses cited are
permitted uses in the U-E District.
The type, content and service functions of the proposed Public Transportation Facility are not consistent
with the guidelines for the U-E District. Furthermore, the matrix makes a strong case that a facility of this
nature is appropriate for placement in the Industrial district only.
The "Heavy Industrial" better and more specifically describes the Transportation Facility on the OOP and
"Transit Facility" uses in the Industrial Zone than in the more general list under Public Facilities. The
Land Use Code, again, provides us with guidance in Section 1.4.9:
A. Generally... Where any provision of the Land Use Code imposes greaterrrestrictions upon the
subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the
greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more
stringent controls over the less stringent.
To emphasize why industrial uses are incompatible with residential, the purpose statement of the
Industrial District (1) says:... Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by
necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. The Land Use Code indicates in
numerous ways that industrial -based transportation facilities, both public and private are not appropriate
in a U-E Zone.
Addition of Permitted Uses:
Referencing the Industrial Uses page of the Zoning Matrix for a second time reveals that Warehouses
are a permitted use only in the Commercial (C), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Employment (E), and
Industrial (1) Districts.
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Use
(A) Required Findings... the Director or the Planning,and Zoning Board ... may add to the uses
specified in a particular zone district any other similar use,
which conforms to all of the following conditions (the first 2 are listed):
(1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted
uses in the zone district to which it is added;
They believe that the warehouse does not conform to conditions (1) and (2) of section 1.3.4
He'd like to make the point that the ODP is conceptual. There is nothing in the applicant's ODP that has
any basis in reality at this point. If they do anything in terms of building out the actual ODP, it's probably
going to be years so it's hard for them to imagine an addition of permitted use being added to something
that is really just conceptual —you really need to tie it to something they're.ready to do it seems to them.
Planning & Zoning Board
February19, 2009
Page 12
Land Use Incompatibility
"The purpose of the Land Use Code, which is to improve and protect the public health, safety and
welfare by: (A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use
Code..." We have already heard a brief history of the zoning of this parcel, which is now U-E. We were
involved in the Galatia annexation process, and afterwards, received a letter from Susan Kirkpatrick, the
Mayor at that time, summarizing the outcome and future intent for this parcel and the general area.
She wrote that Council had unanimously voted to annex the 115-acre parcel.with several conditions,
including a requirement for development to be single family, low -density residential as a PUD to ensure
that future area residents could be actively involved in the public review process. She further states, "the
three zoning conditions will help guarantee that development on the Galatia property will be compatible
with existing subdivisions in the area and will enhance the area's overall quality of life."
Since that time, development has followed this intention established by the 1990 City Council.
With this guidance in mind, our first major point is:
.The ODP does not comply with the U-E Purpose:
Division 4.2 Urban Estate District (U-E)
Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended tobe a setting for a predominance of low -density and
large -lot housing... typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and
rural or open lands.
PSD was aware that this parcel was zoned U-E District when they purchased it. Although the future
school and transportation facilities are permitted uses for this district, neither is related to the primary
purpose. The ODP fails to be consistent with the land use code or our community at this fundamental
level. The Public Facility in the ODP is actually composed of industrial uses that are inconsistent with the
U-E Zoning District.
"Public facilities shall mean transportation systems or facilities [... and other facilities listed]"
This definition is an example of a very generally defined Permitted Land Use. It has been used to
account for several of the service functions on the ODP. Transportation Facilities is described as
anything from a sidewalk or bike lane to a mass transit facility. A transportation facility could be
recreational, commercial or industrial in nature.
Although it is a Permitted Use for U-E, it should not be considered a recommended use until it has been
found to be consistent with the Land Use Code based on review of the P+Z Board.
The transportation service functions identified in the ODP include:
• transportation fleet maintenance
• covered school bus parking
• fleet fueling station
These are industrial in nature.
In section 2.d.3, Heavy industrial uses are described as follows:
• uses engaged in storage of, or manufacturing processes using flammable or explosive materials,
• or storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involved hazardous conditions.
• Heavy industry shall also mean those uses engaged in the operation, parking and maintenance of
vehicles,
• cleaning of equipment or work processes involving solvents,
• public works yards
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 11
Brandon Roeder lives at 1616 Carriage Road just south of the proposed area. He will be speaking to
more traffic issues, including safety. Currently, there are frequent traffic laws violations during existing
peak hour periods causing unsafe conditions, for example:
• Cars traveling west pass on the right around vehicles attempting to turn left onto the southbound
entry ramp to 1-25, where there are no actual traffic lanes. That has been observed more than once
by many neighbors.
• On the northbound 1-25 ramp, cars skirt around the long line waiting to turn left onto Prospect. They
turn right on Prospect and then make a U-turn right in the middle of the road to head back west to
avoid waiting in the long queue on the ramp.
The draft TIS states on page 21 that,
"As part of the analysis, the existing geometrics of the interchange were modeled with the build -
out and there were major capacity failures at the 4 key intersections near the interchange. It was
therefore assumed that improvements had been made to the interchange in the analysis for the
background traffic."
The conclusion of the report on page 29 of the draft states: "The interchange is assumed to be
reconstructed by this timeframe (2015) by other developments"
At our 2nd neighborhood meeting, Eric Bracke stated literally, that without the changes to the 1-25
interchange; it would be, quote, "a mess at the mid-term build -out."
In the Statement of Adequacy from the TIS:
"The transportation facilities will be adequate and available to serve this development... All
applicable LOS (level of standards) will be met since all transportation facilities are in place or will
be in place upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy."
These statements are unverifiable. The economic conditions and the circumstances of the possible
funding sources do not support these assumptions. If someone came up with the funding, if they started
today, an optimistic timeline is 6 years to complete the interchange, according to Long Nguyen, the
Project Engineer of the North 1-25 EIS and Eric Bracke.
A special tax district with the identified funding sources would need to be in place before the CDOT 1601
process of analysis could even begin. There are no funding sources on the horizon, including the White
Brothers, according to Dave White on December 18, 2008.
Neither the North 1-25 Corridor EIS nor the North Front Range Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Organization identified this interchange as one slated for re -construction. It was not listed because of
lack of need, but because of other higher priority projects and the competition for funding. The bottom
line is that this interchange is already heavily stressed and would likely reach capacity failure on a
regular basis at the midterm phase of this development, in 2015.
The neighbors believe that unless these infrastructure issues are addressed, adding additional traffic
loading on Prospect Road from County Road 5,, through the current 1-25 interchange to the Welcome
Center, would be an irresponsible action.
Barry Nichols lives at 1601 Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates, which is just south of the site in
question. He'd like to talk about their concerns related to zoning and land use compatibility starting with
the reference:
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 10
The current pavement structure on Prospect Road east of 1-25 is not structurally capable of withstanding
the heavy weights of the vehicles that are projected for the plan build -out. It is a county road designed
for local traffic.
• The heavy truck traffic used to place the water lines induced pavement blowouts on Prospect Road,
showing the pavement structure is inadequate.
• The draft TIS does not consider any current or future ADT (Average Daily Traffic) or ADTT (Average
Daily Truck Traffic) for any of the roads: mainline, secondary, or frontage. CDOT and ALL other.
agencies use this data to design for capacity and pavement structure.
• There does not seem to be an assessment of whether the pavement will hold up to the heavy truck
traffic inherent in this project's operation.
• Have the pavement issues been addressed in the City's Pavement Management plan?
There is significant public safety hazards associated with the potential failure of the road pavement and
bridge guardrails, particularly with large vehicles going over the small structures. They have seen a car in
Boxelder Creek when the guardrail failed just last year and the bridge remained un-repaired for several
months. They did not see in the Staff Report for the Board or the Staff Project Review document any
reference to the structural viability of the bridges along Prospect or the Prospect Road pavement. We are
concerned for thesafety of those who drive on them.
Deborah Cape lives at 4711 Kitchell Way. The Prospect/1-25 Interchange- this is where the inadequate
infrastructure capacity and traffic become the perfect storm for failure. All of the traffic pictures included
in this presentation was taken on 2 different, random weekdays, over 20-minute periods. The overpass
on 1-25 is functionally obsolete for the current traffic per CDOT Structure inspection reports cited in the
North 1-25 draft EIS. (EIS cover page on slide)
The Draft TIS done by Eric Bracke shows existing LOS figures that don't match what we experience
during actual peak hours on a daily basis. For example:
• The lack of eastbound or westbound L-turn lanes is already extremely problematic. All traffic is
backed up in either direction until the L-turns are permitted to move through the intersection.
• The large, long trucks entering and exiting the interchange since the rest area was moved create
gridlock on the overpass, the ramps and onto the interstate. The weigh station truck acceleration
lane often contains cars waiting to exit onto the ramp.
• There is inadequate room to create L-turn lanes here without complete re -construction of the
interchange, according to CDOT.
The TIS report states that the peak hours at this interchange are 7-9 am and 4-6 pm. She stated that
they; who use this interchange on a daily basis, know that the interchange experiences a shorter morning
peak, from 7:30 — 8:30, and an evening peak of 4:30 — 5:30 pm. By reporting the conclusions based on
the longer °peak", the problems that occur, even now, are under -represented or diluted by adding in the
slower time periods.
They asked at a neighborhood meeting to look at the 15-minute incremental breakdown at the I-
25/Prospect interchange during the shorter, real peak time, but have not received that information, as
yet. They can just tell you that there are already significant delays during these times every weekday.
It is not the trips generated by workers in vehicles coming to and from the facility that concerns us. It is
the size, weight, and large turning radius, slow acceleration vehicles driving to and from the PSD facility
that will ultimately lead to untenable traffic congestion and infrastructure failures.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 9
children step out and into a ditch. There are no bicycle lanes or curb and gutter. The message is if it's
city, with city taxes they get improvements. They currently have road control problems and drainage
problems; now they're going to "slam"50 more school into the mix. 90% of the District's business is on
the west side of the interstate but instead, because the dirt's cheaper on the east side, they're going to
stick it in the middle of these three neighborhoods. He doesn't understand their motivation —yes we
need a high school, yes we need an administration building, no we don't need a "grease -monkey"
operation for snowplows sitting in their back yard. He doesn't want to look at a fuel barrel when he walks
outside his back yard.
Neighborhood Presentation (Representing E. Prospect Road, Homestead Estates, Kitchell Estates,
Serratoga Falls. and Timnath Meadows Estates):
Rich Cape lives at 4711 Kitchell Way, directly north of the proposed fueling station in this proposed
development. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. As neighbors they have researched
issues, talked with each other as well as many people from various organizations. They have learned a
lot about the Land Use Code, the development approval process, transportation planning and funding, '
traffic studies, the School District's facility needs and other issues. They have worked hard to
understand the important considerations and how best to participate in this process. We hope this
presentation will more effectively use time. They ask hope this will allow the Board to fully consider and
deliberate about all the pertinent information and viewpoints. They are depending on the Board's
understanding and commitment to the guiding principles of the Land Use Code, particularly with respect
to Urban Estate zone to enable to make the appropriate recommendation for this project, -which they
believe is to find a more suitable site.
When they first learned of the project in November, three issues immediately rose to the forefront. It is
those three issues that are the basis for their concerns and opposition.
1. They are the significantly overburdened infrastructure at the 1-25 and Prospect interchange and
along Prospect Road with its current problematic traffic and safety situations would be further
worsened beyond acceptable levels by this project's operation.
2. Incompatibility of the proposed land use with surrounding rural residential acreages.
3. Concern for environmental impact on air quality, ground water, noise and light levels as well as
the dramatic negative impact on the vista.
Jim Hibbeln, 1647 Enchantment, lives southeast of the project. He'd like to present the board with a
petition signed unanimously among his 19 neighbors. Traffic and infrastructure are inextricably linked.
The following are the infrastructure challenges:
First, the three bridges over the irrigation ditches in the immediate vicinity of the project:
• The bridge on Prospect east of the Interstate over the Lake Canal Ditch has a guardrail on the north
side that meets no standard.
• The bridge on Prospect west of 1-25 over Boxelder Creek is functionally obsolete for current traffic
and as evidenced by the accident history. The bridge hydraulic capacity is inadequate for the
drainage of Box Elder Creek.
• The bridge on County Road 5 located 25 feet north of the Prospect / CR 5 intersection has timber rail
and is too close to the intersection to accommodate the planned traffic amount projected in the draft
TIS and truck turning radii.
• Structure inspection reports for the City and the County, which includes ratings and traffic counts,
were not included in the TIS or site plan and these should be referenced. The inspections are
performed on 2-year interval by CDOT contract per Federal regulation.
At the second neighborhood meeting, when the developer was asked if the District would replace the
bridge over the canal, he responded, "no."
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 8
and extent. Eckman said that if Board denies the ODP, the School Board with a two-thirds vote could
override the Planning & Zoning Board's denial.
Member Lingle apologized for belaboring the point, he just wanted to have a clear understanding. Lingle
said Shepard said with the warehouse addition of permitted use the Board is approving that warehouse
in that location at that scale. Lingle's understanding is the District could come back with a Site Plan
Advisory Review and say they need a 50,000 square.foot warehouse —not in compliance with an
approved addition of a permitted use. If the Board denied the addition of permitted use, District staff
could go back. to the BOE and with a two-thirds vote get that approved. Eckman said they could come
back with a different plan entirely —have different uses that had not even been approved. They could
make the argument that the warehouse fits the character because the Planning Board would have
approved that use for this site. The approval of the warehouse use, if that is what the Board does this
evening, would help to set the stage that warehouse uses are appropriate in the location, character, and
extent review.
Chair Schmidt asked Eckman if the District comes in with a Site Plan Advisory Review is that still limited .
to the uses approved for that zoning district. Eckman said they could return with anything so long as it
fits the location, character, and extent of the property.
Chair Schmidt asked Shepard asked what would be considered part of the facilities that would be an
acceptable use on this site. Would transportation facilities have been a permitted use? Shepard said
that's correct. They covered, at a fine level of detail, what would be in the warehouse. Auto parts are not
a part of transportation facility hence the request for permitted use.
Public Input:
Danyel McGraw lives in the neighborhood and is a bus driver for the County. She disagrees with the fact
that the use of that property will not change the traffic on Prospect. She's a cyclist and works on the
west side of 1-25. She believes it's dangerous for her and other cyclists. She would hope CDOT would
change but they don't know that they'll be changing the road anytime soon. She believes it's hazardous
When she's driving one of the County buses. The white line is non-existent in some places and if they
were to expand the road, you'd be in the ditch or on someone's private property. She believes that
Prospect needs to be changed but if they were going to do this, it would require taking over someone's
personal property.
Larry Ecklad owns 24 acre (the tree farm south of District's property). He's the largest property owner
that abuts their property. He has two questions. Does the City have any recourse as to the quality of the
development? The buffer trees appear to be 50-year sizes and there appear to be only 15 trees along a
large area. If it were a City approved plan, he believes a higher density would be required. His second
area of concern is storm drainage. He understands they have the right to build but he does not believe
they have the right to flood his property. If their drainage comes across and enters the Timnath Ditch, it
will create problems. There are extenuating circumstances in that area due to the Timnath Ditch and the
Boxelder Drainage Plan. Not only will his property be affected, there are many others in the surrounding
area that will be affected. The issue of drainage was not addressed at the public meetings. Will the City
be legally liable if his property is flooded or will it be solely the School District's responsibility?
Dennis Zierick lives on Meadowaire. This is the third meeting he's attended. Basically, he believes the
"dirt's a whole lot cheaper" in the County than it is in the City. He said they get the nice pictures and the
nice plans but they don't get any consideration for what's going to happen to the neighborhood. One
concern is the condition of Prospect. It's a good street right now but they are not required to make the
street any better. He believes they can create a bottleneck and they can make it unsafe.- The same
thing occurred on,Trilby. Five feet past Transfort property, it's two lanes. When school buses stops, the
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 7
Member Lingle asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman how the Board should evaluate the potential impacts
from the Larimer County portion of this site since the County is not.a co -applicant. Lingle said there
could be considerable site access issues with road graders, salt/sand dump trucks, snow plows and
things that are heavier and slower moving as far as in and out of the site and traffic backup. Lingle
asked if it was any different than any other ODP where some of the potential uses are speculative and
unknown. Eckman said it is the same as any other ODP where the uses are speculative—they'should
not be considered in their deliberations tonight.
Member Lingle asked if Larimer County's impact on the site had been factored into the traffic report —
there are specific references to school buses but he wasn't sure about the dump trucks. Consultant Eric
Bracke said yes, it had been factored in as a light industrial use.
Chair Schmidt asked Bracke if a school bus or a large vehicle is considered as two vehicles with regard
to the space they take in a turn or stacking lane and was that taken into consideration in a traffic -study.
Bracke said most cities do not require adjustment. COOT, however, does require you to use a
passenger car equivalent so a bus or a truck would be considered to be 1.3 vehicles. Chair Schmidt
asked when CDOT would be involved. Bracke said COOT would not be looking at this.
Member Lingle said he'd like to explore the District's rationale behind the CDP submittal and their future
plans for planning approvals. The Planning & Zoning Board has a good understanding of the
relationship with the school district in terms of Site Plan Review, their authority, and their limits but the
audience may not. Lingle asked if by voluntarily going through the ODP process, you are representing to
the City that the District is willing to abide by the ODP in terms of your future Site Plan Advisory
submittals. (Will it be a binding document?) Holder said it's really their intent to try to follow the City
process. They want to be more active player in. participating with the City. He acknowledged -the City
doesn't quite know what to do with the school district —how do they fit into the process especially if they
try to develop a modified process. They felt it was important to follow the ODP process because of the
complexities of this project and that it will be a 20-year master plan. They will bring back a Site Advisory
Plan forthe warehouse and the other functions. They would also ask the County, if they do end up
selling land to them, to participate in this process. They would like to see the whole site developed as a
true master plan —architecturally and how they work through the development review process.
Member Lingle said is it also true that you do not intend to follow the CDP with a Project Development
Plan submittal per the City's POP process. Holder said it would be a Site Plan Advisory. Lingle said in
that case, the Board could comment only on location, extent, and character. Lingle said he only outlined
that so everyone in the room understands what the Board's approval means. Holder said they truly value
the City and the Planning Board's input on this project but he cannot say that the current or a future
Board of Education may not wish to follow State statute and potentially overrule the Planning Board's
ruling. He said that is an option the Board of Education has. From a staff's standpoint, it is really their
intent to recommend the OPD/Site Plan Advisory Review to the Board of Education (BOE); The BOE
values the input staff gets from the City and State. Potentially, it would be a rare case where the BOE
would overrule the recommendations of City staff and the Planning & Zoning Board.
Member Lingle asked Eckman about the underlying zoning. If the Board were to approve the addition of
a permitted use, does that bind the School District regardless of the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR)?
Eckman said no. If the Board brings forward an ODP/Project Development Plan then we are still in the
Land Use Code. If it's a Site Plan Advisory Review that's a totally separate process from any decision
made tonight with regard to uses and the ODP. If the District is going to go off of that track and onto the
statutory track, then you look at the statute. The Board would look at location, character and extent. It
would give the Board latitude with what you do with the ODP (because it's related to location, character,
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 6
building. It is a metal building with different types of metal panels with some color and masonry
introduced. The building would also have different rooflines.
Holder thanked the Board and said he would be available for any questions.
Board Questions:
Chair Schmidt asked if they also had a site for school buses on Trilby. Holder said they do have a
southern facility on Trilby and they would probably still maintain some level of service at the Laporte
Avenue site to serve the west side of town and the mountain schools.
Chair Schmidt asked if the bus drivers would: drive to the site, park their cars, and take the school bus to
pickup the students, than return the buses. Holder said yes. Chair Schmidt asked if after the students
are delivered to the schools in the morning they come back and go out again in the afternoon. Holder .
said yes.
Chair Schmidt asked how many would be using the interstate. Holder said he couldn't really say how
many would be using the interstate. They do have buses that will be going to Wellington and Timnath.
Chair Schmidt asked if they were planning at a later date to sell or lease a portion of the land to La rimer
County. Holder said they would look at both options: He believes, their obligations are the same as the
Districts —they need to own the property that they would be building on.
Chair Schmidt referred to the map where it said future industrial warehouse, is that where you're
planning to have the office buildings. Holder said that would be the area where they would put the office
buildings in if they were to do that. He said they don't know what they're going to do with them (future
industrial warehouse) and they would certainly be willing to withdraw that from tonight's request. They
would bring it back at some point in the future when they had more information to share.
Chair Schmidt asked Shepard if they were to approve warehouses as a permitted use, if the District
wanted to add another warehouse in the future, would it already be a permitted use. Shepard said no,
the Board would be approving this warehouse at approximately this location for approximately the size
on the application. What he heard tonight was 40,000 square feet, he said the Board might want to factor
that size into their consideration —he'd not heard that number before. This is not a use variance. What
Chair Schmidt is describing is a text amendment. Schmidt said if they wanted to do another warehouse
or the office building or anything else in the future, they would need to return. Shepard said correct.
Chair Schmidt asked if the exit out on McLaughlin Lane has been changed. Holder' said they had
originally proposed making a connection there but there are a number of utilities that come in there
including the City of Greeley 60 inch water line, the ditch, and the Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line.
They've done an analysis of what it would take to cross that and it gets very expensive. They are
proposing moving that access point to a new location. An amendment was made to the Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) that addressed moving that location --staff received that amendment at the work session on
the 13t'. Holder said the ODP shows access points at those locations —they just changed the drawings
to match the ODP application.
Chair Schmidt said it seems they did not plan to do the bus portion of the plan for 20 years. Holder said
the overall program is a 20-year program. They currently have funding to start the warehouse portion.
The remainder would be tied to a future bond issue. The school would be one of the last things to be
developed and would be tied to need based on future growth.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 5
On the revised 20-year build out drawings, the only thing that has moved is the alignment of McLaughlin
to the east. That is aligned with the ODP now —that was a mistake in the drawing —what the Board had
was an earlier version. The drawing is an attempt to show the spacing of buildings on the property.
They are also designing some berms to both the north and south so they can buffer the surrounding
neighborhoods. The covered bus section is intended to demonstrate a typical home in Kitchell Estates
and what the buffer (in relationship to what the covered bus parking) would look like. It's approximately
375 feet. They are proposing the construction of a 6-8 foot buffer with landscaping along the north
portion of the property. They will also do a similar buffer to the south along Prospect Road.
During the work session there were some questions about distances from homes to the proposed
warehouse. They were not able to do a section -cut because it's a rather large area to demonstrate.
They did a quick graphic that shows it's basically a quarter of a mile from the nearest home to what
would be Phase 1 of the project.
The concerns raised at the work session and the concerns raised by neighbors in their letters have been
primarily in the areas of:
Traffic Impact of 1-25 and Prospect —the issue of traffic impact is the amount of traffic that could
potentially be on Prospect Road and the interchange of 1-25 and Prospect Road. The District has done a
traffic impact study. It's been submitted and reviewed by staff. They are not, at that time, being required
to make modifications to the interchange. We are all aware of the CDOT (Colorado Department of
Transportation) interchange studies that_are taking place and CDOT has started to propose some
designs. It's his understanding that'interchange modifications are in the neighborhood of $35-50 million
and no single project can really absorb those costs. The improvements to Prospect that are being
recommending in the phased traffic study will all be implemented as part of the project. It is their intent to
fulfill all their obligations. .
Environmental Impact --light, sound such as back-up beepers, diesel smells, groundwater contamination.
The District is obligated to follow City, State and Federal obligations.just like everyone else would be.
They want to be good stewards. They certainly would not do anything at this site that would violate any
rules or regulations. There were neighborhood concerns about sounds being emitted —particularly back-
up beepers. That is something they looked into and they cannot be turned off. Holder suggested either
through buffering or other mitigations; they will reduce the impact of those sounds.
Zoning capability —this is zoned UE and public schools are approved within that zoning district. The
other issues have been the differences between the definition of public facilities and community facilities.
City staff has interpreted all their transportation related functions on this site to be public facilities and
their non -transportation related uses (i.e. the warehouse and future office) as community facilities. Those
are not currently listed as an approved use that's why they are requesting the addition of permitted use.
The warehouse is Phase 1 and they are looking in the neighborhood of a 30,000 to 40,000 square foot
facility --they are still in the process of finalizing that building footprint. They thought it was an accessory
use and tried to argue that fact to staff. Based on City staffs recommendation, however, they have
moved forward with the request for the addition of permitted use. He understands the Board's concern
over the proposed future office. At this point, they don't really know what they're planning to do. He has
no problem with withdrawing that portion of the request from the addition of permitted use.. They would
only be asking the Board to approve the warehouse portion at this time.
Holder showed examples of the type of architectural building they are considering. They are not
intending to use a "Butler" building. They would propose a building more in line with their sustainable
design guidelines. The best example might be the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 4
Applicant's Presentation:
Ed Holder, Construction Manager for the Poudre School District, said he prepared a short presentation to
leave the bulk of the time this evening for public input. The District originally purchased the 100-acre site
at East Prospect and County Road 5 in 1999. At that time, it was identified as a future high school site.
After some input by the City (not really desiring to see a high school at this location) and after
reevaluation they've considered some other uses, including an elementary, middle or K-8 school at the
site.
One of the issues they are currently struggling with is they have outgrown their complex on Laporte
Avenue. As the district has grown, they have been very limited as to where they can expand. Their
warehouse facilities, bus fleet, and administrative functions are very compact on that site. The Prospect
site has been selected for two reasons, one because it is land the District owns and two because of it's
proximity to 1-25 and the City's main arterials. As they look at the distribution rates of deliveries that
come into the Laporte site then go out to the schools; they believe the East Prospect site, with its
warehouse and transportation facilities, would be more efficient as most of the (food service, paper
goods, etc.) come from Denver.
The ODP has been broken into three sections. The eastern section is being reserved to construct a
future elementary, middle, or K-8 school. On the remaining two-thirds of the property, they are proposing
a support services facility. Additionally, there's a small triangle on the western side of the property
bisected by an inlet canal. That section is currently zoned Industrial and they don't know what the future
plans are for that piece of property.
He referred to a drawing that had been revised since the submittal of the application. They have now
aligned the drawing with the original ODP and it is the document presented at the public meetings. He
thought it was appropriate, even though it was not a part of the OOP approval tonight, to give the Board
an idea of their plans for this particular piece of property. He said it is a 20-year plan —it is not an
immediate program that they are going out to build in the near future.
They believe it is prudent to master plan this site. For that reason,, they did not submit under the normal
Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) the District. could do by State statute. If that were the case, they
would only be showing the warehouse portion and not showing the remainder of the proposed
development. Because of the relationship they've built with the City, they felt it was important to
voluntary submit themselves to the ODP process and present what they are anticipating as a 20-year
build out. They would like to give the public an opportunity to comment.
They are proposing to move their bus fleet facility, the covered housing for the buses, housing for the bus
drivers (break room and dispatch area), the fleet services (garage for bus repairs),.the warehousing
functions and a joint fueling facility.
Holder said as they started to plan the site, they had some conversations with Larimer County and found
they were also looking to do some master planning (to try to replace their Vine Street site). As they
started to talk about the common amenities, it made sense to master plan some things together. They
both need a fueling facility. When they compared their fleet facilities needs, they both occasionally need
large engine hoists, chassis washes, etc. They would jointly share the costs of the some of the
infrastructure associated with developing the site. Holder said as Shepard mentioned, Larimer County
Road & Bridge functions may include transportation/fleet maintenance very similar to the operation they
presently have on East Vine Street. At this time, they do not have a contract to sell any portion to them.
This is strictly just a master planning effort. .
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 3
Office, based on insufficient data. In order to ensure compliance with the applicable criteria, Staff
recommends the following conditions of approval:
A. Any development of the warehouse shall comply with the requirements of the Prospect Road
Streetscape Program, at the time that public street improvements are required by the City of Fort
Collins to be constructed.
B. At the time of submittal for a Site Plan Advisory Review for the warehouse, the Poudre School
District shall conduct a neighborhood information meeting to ascertain and mitigate any impacts
covered under Section 3.5.1(1) — Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment and Section
3.5.1(J) — OperationaUPhysical Compatibility Standards.
C. At the time of submittal for a Site Plan Advisory Review for warehouse, the Poudre School District
shall provide a connecting walkway from the building entrance to Prospect Road in compliance
with Section 3.5.3(B)(1) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking or in
conjunction with the private access drive.
D. At the time of submittal for the warehouse, the Poudre School District shall demonstrate
compliance with architectural standards contained in Section 3.5.3(D) — Character and Image.
E. Approval of a Warehouse in the Urban Estate zone is further stipulated by the following:
• -Development shall be by the Poudre School District only;
• The size shall be limited to approximately 30,000 square feet;
• The architectural style, massing, height and form shall be as indicated on the architectural
rendering submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board at their public hearing.of February 19,
2009:
• The location of the warehouse shall be approximately as indicated on the illustrative Plan
submitted to the Planning & Zoning Board at their public hearing of February 29, 2009.
Overall Development Plan
In addition to the above project description, Chief City Planner Ted Shepard noted the purpose of the
ODP is to generally plan development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases
while allowing flexibility for detail planning in subsequent phases:, An ODP does not establish any vested
right to develop the property. The ODP contains both UE and Industrial zoning —there's a little sliver of
Industrial on the very west edge. An ODP does not expire; however, it can be amended as time goes on.
The westerly portion of the ODP would be devoted to various service functions for the Poudre School
District (PSD) and possibly Larimer County Road & Bridge (LCRB—although they are not a co -applicant
at this time). The easterly portion (approximately 30 acres) would be reserved for a future school,.
possibly a middle school or a junior high. For the PSD these functions could include a central receiving
materials warehouse (which is the subject of one of the additions of permitted use), the two office
buildings, transportation/fleet maintenance building, covered parking for school buses and a fleet fueling
station.
For Larimer County these functions may include transportation/fleet maintenance, storage for the Road:&
Bridge Department, as well as future warehouse and general parking and equipment staging area. This
is very similar to the operation they presently have on East Vine Street.
Staff recommends approval of Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility O.D.P., #44-
08, subject to the following condition:
The O.D.P. contains two uses not permitted in the U-E, Urban Estate zone. Therefore, in addition
to the list of permitted uses in Section 4.2, Urban Estate Zone District, only. those uses specifically
authorized by the separate action of the Planning and Zoning Board, under the provisions of
Section 1.3.4, may be added to the Urban Estate portion of the O.D.P. '
Planning & Zoning Board
February 19, 2009
Page 2
The Public Hearing for the following two items was combined
Project: Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility — Addition of
Permitted Use, # 44-08A
Project Description: This is a request to add Warehouse and Professional Office as Additions of Two
Permitted Uses in the Urban Estate zone district specifically for the PSD property
located at the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and County Road 5. The
property is undeveloped and is presently leased for irrigated agriculture. The
parcel is-99.11 acres in size and zoned U-E, Urban Estate.
Recommendation: Approval of the Warehouse with Conditions
Denial of the Professional Office
Project: Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility Overall
Development Plan, # 44-08
Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for the 99.11 acres located at
the northwest corner of East Prospect Road and County Road 5. The purpose
of the O.D.P. is to establish general planning and development control
parameters for projects that will be developed in phases while allowing flexibility
for detailed planning in subsequent phases. - An O.D.P. does not establish any
vested right to develop the property. The O.D.P. contains both Urban Estate and
Industrial zoning.
The westerly portion of the property would be devoted to various service
functions for the Poudre School District and, possibly, the Larimer County Road
and Bridge Department. The easterly portion would be reserved for a future
school. For the Poudre School District, these functions include a central
receiving materials warehouse, two office buildings, a transportation fleet
maintenance building, covered parking for school buses and a fleet fueling
station. For Larimer County, these functions may include transportation fleet
maintenance and storage for the Road and Bridge Department as well as a
future warehouse and a general parking and equipment staging area.
Recommendation: Approval with Condition
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff presentation:
Addition of Permitted Uses
Chief City Planner Ted Shepard reported the two proposed additional uses are not permitted under U-E.
Originally four conditions of approval were recommended for the Warehouse, a fifth (E) has been
added —a copy of the revision was distributed -to the Board. Staff recommends denial of the Professional,
Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Excused Absence: Rollins and Wetzler
Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Mapes, Buffington, Shepard, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Of special note:
• Item # 2, Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage, Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/D, there was a typo on
the applicant's letter it was dated 2008 (not 2009) in error. The applicant is also aware the
extension may only be for a period of one year.
• Item # 3, 726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming use,
#4-09, an amended finding for only Section 2.8.2 (h)(3). S received a phone call from a neighbor
indicating they opposed the request. They have not provided a letter or any other information.
Citizen participation:
None
Consent Agenda:
Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the
Consent Agenda. There were no requests to pull any items from the consent agenda.
1. Minutes from the January 15, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing
2. Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage, Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/D
3. 726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building Containing a Non -Conforming use, #4-09
4. Midori Subdivision — Out of City Utility Service Request
Member Stockover moved to approve the consent agenda which includes: item # 1--January 15,
2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes, item # 2--Waterglen PUD Mini -Storage,
Extension of Final Plan, # 71-93/1), item # 3--726 W. Mountain Avenue — Enlargement of Building
Containing a Non -Conforming use, #4-09, and item # 4-- Midori Subdivision — Out of City Utility
Service Request. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Discussion Items:
5. Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, # 44-08A
6. Poudre School District East Prospect Road Service Facility Overall Development Plan, # 44-08