HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE CENTER - PDP - 41-05A - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILTed Shepard -Timberline Center #4.1-05 and 41-65A Pa e
From:
<InteriorsExtra®aol.com>
To:
<tshepard@fcgov.com>
Date:
11 /28/2005 3:30:53 PM
Subject:
Timberline Center #41-05 and 41-05A
Dear Ted,
I am opposed to the convenience store modifications for this proposal.
It is another duplication of services that are not in keeping with city plan.
There is a 24 hour grocery store with 24 hour fuel services less than
one-half mile away. There is also a car wash (a brand new one at that) less than
one-half mile north. I am ail for having choices, but we only need so many
of the same exact business within one-half mile. There Is also a convenience
store just east of Timberline on Prospect Road. I consider this duplication
of services to be poor planning by the city. These standards were established
for a reason and they need to be adhered to in order to prevent becoming a
corridor of duplication.
I am also opposed to the drive -through restaurant for the same
reasons. There is a drive -through restaurant at the convenience store area on
Prospect Road just east of Timberline Road and another at the corner of Timberline
and Horsetooth Roads. I see us becoming a city of drive-throughs,
convenience stores and fuel stations. I don't like what I see and I live in the
neighborhood that is going to have to drive past it and look at it constantly. i
would like to see us take the high road arrdi(eep this city from looking like all
of the other commercialized suburbs that permeate this state. Let's keep
this the Choice City by design.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any concerns or
questions please feel free to contact me a@(970)221-0367 business/home or on
my cell phone @(970)691-5720.
Peggy Grice
2254
Eastwood Dr.
Fort Collins
80525
007
49
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF WELD )
4
5 I, Linda K. Stevens, a Court Reporter and Notary
6 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
7 excerpt of the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting recorded on
8 December 8, 2005, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
9 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my
10 supervision to the foregoing 48 pages; that said transcript
11 is an accurate and complete record of the excerpt of
12 proceedings so recorded.
13 I further certify that I am not related to,
14 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
15 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
16 the case.
17 Attested to by me this 27th day of January 2006.
i
18
19
20
Linda K. Stevens
21 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
22 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
23 My Commission Expires:
24
25
48
1
MS.
DEINES:
Craig?
2
MS.
CRAIG: Yes.
3
MS.
DEINES:
Schmidt?
4
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Yes.
5
MS.
DEINES:
Lingle?
6
MR.
LINGLE:
Yes. Okay, the PDP is approved. Do
7 we want
to keep going?
Okay.
8
(End of requested transcript.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
1 the established architectural character of all buildings
2 within the center with the exception of the enclosed
3 mini -storage.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
5 MR. LINGLE: Yes. It's been moved and seconded
6 for approval. Comments? Go ahead.
7 MS. CRAIG: I'd like to commend the applicant on
8 this particular project. I'm sure, through the years,
9 you've heard me talk about employment in industrial and how
10 I worry about it because constantly, development and then
11 developers come in, and they want to take the industrial and
12 the employment and they want to turn it into residential,
13 and I'm always concerned about that. And so I'm quite
14 pleased to see that you came in, you wanted to keep this
15 industrial, and you want to use it in a way that I think
16 will support industrial as well as some employment as well
17 as some retail. So I'm commending you. Thank you.
18 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, I would -- I would like to
19 second that. Just that I think it's a very good example of
20 what we hope to see more of, which is landowners cooperating
21 through a cooperative design process in master planning
22 larger tracts of land so that they flow cohesively together.
23 I think it's really nice. Okay. Roll call.
24 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
25 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
46
1 prior to submittal of Final Compliance. The second
2 condition is sort of a housekeeping in that we did not get
3 elevations sufficient to the level of detail that I'd like
4 to see for a PDP on Building E, and that because it is a
5 drive -through restaurant, we want to pay very close
6 attention to its ultimate design and that it blends in with
7 the center and that it's not too garish, and so that's just
8 a let -the -applicant -beware kind of condition.
9 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. We're comfortable with
10 both those conditions. I'd just like the Board to be clear
11 you're approving the second option, which is the fast-food.
12 MR. LINGLE: The K-2. Okay. Is there a motion
13 for the PDP?
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Do -- Ted, do we need to put that
15 K-2 part in the motion? No?
16 MR. SHEPARD: No, you do not.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
18 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the Timberline
19 Center PDP subject to the following conditions: (A) At the
20 time of the submittal for Final Plan, the request to rezone
21 16.13 acres of the PDP from T transitional to I industrial
22 must be approved by City Council on second reading; and (B)
23 At the time of submittal for final plan, architectural
24 elevations for building E shall be provided that demonstrate
25 compatibility through cohesive and unified architecture with
45
1 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay. That modification
2 request is approved. Then the fourth one deals with
3 build -to lines for Buildings B and C.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead.
5 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request of
i
6 modification to Section 3.5.3(b)2 using the facts and
7 conclusions contained in the staff report.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Second.
9 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Additional comments? No?
10 Okay., Roll call?
11 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
12 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
13 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
14 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
15 MS. DEINES: Craig?
16 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
17 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
18 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, that modification is
19 approved. And finally, the PDP itself, and the
20 recommendation is for approval of that subject to two
21 conditions. Are -- is the applicant okay with those
22 conditions?
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Just the rezoning?
24 MR. SHEPARD: The first condition is that the
25 rezoning request goes to second reading by City Council
44
1 point, because Butch wasn't at the work session on Friday,
2 and I think some of the discussion we had there was that on
3 the modification for the gas station, I guess this has.come
4 up times before, and they've always upheld the code the way
5 it is. So as far as fairness and consistency, that was part
6 of the reason., I think, that some of us voted that way.
7 MR. STOCKOVER: (Inaudible.)
g MR. LINGLE: Okay. The third modification is
9 regarding the --
10 MS. SCHMIDT: Screening.
it MR. LINGLE: -- screening along the west property
12 line.
13 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead.
14 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request
15 for modification to Section 4.23(e)3, using the findings of
16 fact and conclusions stated in the staff report.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
18 MR. LINGLE: Discussion? Okay. Roll call.
19 MS. DEINES: Craig?
20 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
21 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
22 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
23. MS. DEINES: Stockover?
24 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
25 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
43
1
MS.
CRAIG:
-- as are put in our staff report.
2
MR.
LINGLE:
And subject to the conditions?
3
MS.
CRAIG:
No.
4
MR.
LINGLE:
No?
5
MS.
CRAIG:
Ted said that we don't need the
6
conditions anymore.
7
MR.
LINGLE:
They're --
8
MS.
CRAIG:
That's why I --
9
MR.
LINGLE:
They're satisfied.
10
MS.
CRAIG:
-- specifically asked him --
11
MR.
LINGLE:
Okay.
12
MS.
CRAIG:
-- previously.
13
MR.
LINGLE:
Okay. It's been moved and seconded
14
for approval of the second request for modification. Any
15
discussion? Okay. Roll call?
16
MS.
DEINES:
Stockover?
17
MR.
STOCROVER: Yes.
18
MS.
DEINES:
Craig?
19
MS.
CRAIG:
Yes.
20
MS.
DEINES:
Schmidt?
21
MS.
SCHMIDT:
Yes.
22
MS.
DEINES:
Lingle?
23
MR.
LINGLE:
Yes. Okay. That modification has
24
been approved.
25
MS.
SCHMIDT:
You know, David, if I could make a
42
1 MR. STOCKOVER: You know, there's a reason there's
2 no gas stations with just gas. That's not what people use.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: I use it all the time. I never go
4 in. I always just use my credit card. A lot of people do
5 that.
6 MR. STOCKOVER:. Yeah, I hear you, but it's
7 still -- if the market demanded just gas stations, we'd have
8 just gas stations, and I just -- I look at this, and I look
9 at it and look at it, and it feels right, but the wording
10 says no, and I just -- I don't -- I just don't agree.
11 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Other comments? Okay. Roll
12 call --
13 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
14 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
15 MS. DEINES: Stockover?
16 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
17 MS. DEINES: Craig?
18 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
19 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
20 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, second modification --
21 second modification.
22 MS. CRAIG: I recommend approval of the request
23 for modification to section 3.2.2(h) and section 3.5.3(b)l
24 using the findings of fact and conclusions --
25 MS. SCHMIDT: I second.
41
1 rationale now why -- why it's recommended the way it is, and
2 I guess I agree with that. I was -- I was kind of hoping
3 that maybe there was a K-3 option because I thought K-2 was
4 sort of worse, and with the hope that maybe we'd go for K-1
5 because it was the lesser of two evils, but -- I don't know
6 if there would be a K-3 option, but in light of all of that,
7 I guess I would support the denial of that modification.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay. Well, I'm going to say my
9 piece. This one, again, is very difficult.for me, but the
10 case to be made on the other side is one -trip generation,
11 and with as much other automotive and convenience -type
12 things going on there, I think it would -- I think it works.
13 I think, other than the fact that we're going against a
14 code, I think it works.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: Butch, I agree with you, and since
16 both of us come from the North College area where we have
17 six gas stations in a mile, three on one corner, you know,
18 1 -- I think we can see some of that. I guess my feeling is
19 that there are still other options to include a gas station
20 in the development without making it part of a convenience
21 store and having.to have the modification, and that's why I
22 feel comfortable going with the denial, because that is what
23 the code says right now, and there are other options
24 available to the developer if they really feel a gas station
25 is important.
40
1 MR. ECKMAN: In these motions, I assume that
2 you're incorporating the findings of fact that are in the --
3 MS. CRAIG: That's why I said --
4 MR. ECKMAN: -- the staff report?
5 MS. CRAIG: -- as Staff recommends, so I assumed
6 that --
7 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. I'm a little confused.
8 MS. CRAIG: -- covers findings of fact. Okay.
9 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, because there's a page called
10 "Recommendations" and another page called "Findings of
11 Fact."
12 MS. SCHMIDT: This would be on page 3 of the staff
13 report for the first modification, Building K-1, as "Staff
14 Recommendations and Findings of Fact."
15 MR. ECKMAN: Yes.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
17 MR. LINGLE: Yeah. I guess the only thing I'd say
18 is that, you know, I think that this diagram can be kind of
19 compelling in the red one that loops around Prospect as far
20 as some of the arguments, but the one in blue, and I can see
21 how that could just get contorted into all kinds of
22 different circular kind of motions through a parking lot to
23 get there, and it actually takes more than three-quarters of
24 a mile, but the actual separation, visually or otherwise,
25 would be considerably less. So, I -- I understand the
39
1 wait a minute. I'm on the wrong one. I'm reading Building
2 E. Yes, Building E is the drive -through restaurant on the
3 south property line, and everything there -- yeah, that --
4 yeah, everything there's been met.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So --
6 MR. SHEPARD: Including the handicap space I was
7 just referring to.
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So if we recommend approval of
9 that, we do not need to add the following conditions?
10 MR. SHEPARD: I think the document will -- if you
11 reference it in your motion, should suffice.
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. LINGLE: Anyone -- do you want to -- pardon?
14 MS. CRAIG: Can we have a motion on each --
15 MR. LINGLE: Yeah.
16 MS. CRAIG: -- modification?
17 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, and then we can discuss each
18 one after we have a motion, if you'd like.
19 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I'll start. I recommend denial
20 of the request for modification to Section 4.23(b)3(c)5
21 regarding the three-quarter mile separation for building K-1
22 as per Staff's recommendation.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Second.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. That's been moved and
25 seconded. Any discussion?
38
1 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes.
2 MS. DEINES: Lingle?
3 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay, the rezoning has been
4 approved. We can move to the PDP, and Ted has that laid
5 out. The page isn't numbered, but it starts with
6 "Recommendations," and it's very -- yeah, it's very
7 organized, so I don't know if we want -- if people want to
8 make comments, if we want to do them on an individual basis
9 or just in general. They're -- they're not necessarily
10 related, but -- so it looks like we're -- we should deal
11 with the modifications first and then the PDP at the end.
12 MS. CRAIG: I only checked on one of them, Ted. I
13 gather there's quite a few conditions, A, B, C and D. Were
14 all of those met, or do we need to be addressing some of
15 those?
16 MR. SHEPARD: Under number 2?
17 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
18 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah.
19 MS. CRAIG: I'm sorry.
20 MR. SHEPARD. Yes. Let's see. A, met. B, met,
21 except I will recommend that the handicap access stall be
22 located at the terminus of the sidewalk, especially the
23 van -accessible space, so we get the benefit of a
24 16-foot-wide space there for pedestrians to walk
25 through. I don't think that's going to be a problem. Oh,
37
1 look? was -- was what they proposed more in line with what
2 Staff would like to see?
3 MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
4 MS. CRAIG: Okay, thank you.
5 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Any comments? Yes.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just going to go move to a
7 motion for the rezoning.
8 MR. LINGLE: Rezoning, okay.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Start with that, I guess.
10 MR. LINGLE: Yeah.
it MS. SCHMIDT: I move approval of the rezoning for
12 the Timberline Center, number 41.05, from transition to I.
13 MS. CRAIG: I'll second.
14 MR. LINGLE: Based on the findings of fact?
15 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. All right. It's been moved
17 and seconded to recommend approval of the Timberline Center
18 Rezoning number 41.05. Any additional discussion? Okay.
19 Roll call?
20 MS. DEINES: Craig?
21 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
22 MS. DEINES: Schmidt?
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
24 MS. DEINES: Carpenter? She's not here.
25 Stockover?
36
1 speak to this item? Yes, sir. You can use this podium if
2 you'd like.
3 MR. SHEPARD: And any other citizen that would
.4 like to speak, make their way up to the next podium, please.
5 MR. ROONEY: My name is Justin Rooney. I live in
6 the Rigden Farm area. I'd just like to point out the fact
7 that in the King Soopers area, the gas station in question,
8 the crow flies, there is no convenience area. I mean, to
9 get anything like milk or anything like that, you'd have to
10 walk into King Soopers, get your gas, drive and park again,
11 and the other one isn't actually on Timberline, so you have
12 to go off of Timberline onto Prospect. So, I think, overall,
13 it services the neighborhood very well.
14 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to
15 speak to this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back
16 to the Board. Comments? Yeah. Sally?
17 MS. CRAIG: I just want to double check with Ted.
18 Ms. Ripley said that they did fix the issue on the
19 modification -- which one is it? -- 3.2.2(h), or is it
20 3.5.3(b)1?
21 MR. SHEPARD: It's the second modification,
22 3.5.3(b)l --
23 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
24 MR. SHEPARD: -- regarding Building E.
25 MS. CRAIG: Uh-huh, and did you get a chance to
35
1 neighborhood, but there are trees along the south -- or the
2 east side of our property right now that's part of the
3 easement, I guess, of the railroad. The City has marked a
4 bunch of those trees, and I guess I'm wondering, if they're
5 going to take those out, I'm certainly hoping they're going
6 to put something back in there and not just leave it blank,
7 so does anybody know what's going on with that? No?
8 MR. SHEPARD: No, I don't know.
9 MR. DURST: Okay.
10 MR. SHEPARD: It's not related to this project,
11 I -- that's what I can tell you, but if it's a City project,
12 we can have Tim Buchanan answer that question for you --
13 he's our City Forester -- or Doug Moore from our Natural
14 Resources Department, but I -- I've been in close contact
15 with Doug on this, and he has not indicated to me that trees
16 are slated to be removed out there, but I can't swear to it.
17 MR. DURST: Oh. Because some of them have a white
18 X on them, and there's, like, stakes with orange flags on
19 them, and I'm kind of wondering what's going on out there,
20 so --
21 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Sounds like the Staff can put
22 you in touch with who you need to talk to there.
23 MR. DURST: Okay. That's my only comments, I
24 guess.
25 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to
34
1 zone, but -- and I put this in parentheses -- only if a
2 component of a convenience shopping center. So keep that in
3 mind. The gas station by itself doesn't have to be part of
4 a convenience shopping center in the I zone, but a retail
5 store does, so they're not as easily pushed together as you
6 would think. .
7 MR. LINGLE: Other questions at this time? All
8 right. Then we'll open it up for public comment. Does
9 anyone want to speak to this item tonight? okay, sir, if
10 you'd come down to the podium, give us your name and address
11 for the record, and then sign the log, please.
12 MR. DURST: My name's Alan Durst, and I live on
13 2136 Eastwood Drive. It doesn't show on there, I guess, but
14 I'd be close to behind the storage units, I guess. I wasn't
15 able to come to the neighborhood meetings. I can't remember
16 when they were, but which one of these facilities is the
17 tire shop? I didn't catch it when they were pointing to
18 them. I was blocked by the lady that was showing it.
19 MR. SHEPARD: It's that one.
20 MR. DURST: That little one, okay. So that's going
21 to face west?
22 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, the -- the bays will face west.
23 MR. DURST: The only thing I'm a little concerned
24 about is tire shops, they make quite a bit of noise, and I
25 want to make sure that it is pretty far away from our
33
0
1 a convenience shopping center, at least the one on North
2 College.
3 MR. SHEPARD: And you have to remember that
4 different zones have different requirements. The Dunlop
5 Texaco at Prospect and Lemay is a gas station. The fuel
6 islands at Safeway and King Soopers are considered gas
7 stations, and they're accessory uses in a neighborhood
8 center. The is in the industrial zone, and so different
9 zones have different requirements, so it's sort of hard to
10 compare and contrast but --
11 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I was just wondering, because
12 Ms. Ripley said if it was a plain gas station, it would be
13 allowed.
14 MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: So if -- if they wanted to put in a
16 gas station without a convenience store, they could do that.
17 MR. SHEPARD: They could, and it would not have to
18 be part of a convenience shopping center. It is a permitted
19 use by itself in the industrial zone.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: So if they wanted to put it
21 somewhere in this plan that they have here, would that be
22 permissible?
23 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, it would. And just keep in
24 mind that as Linda was reading off some of those uses, that
25 a resale -- a retail store is permitted in the industrial
32
1 gasoline sales and convenience sales are being combined in
2 the same use; whereas, if those were separate uses, there
3 would be no separation requirement. Is that just a glitch
4 in the code, or is that intentional, or --
5 MR. SHEPARD: Not -- not a glitch. The industry
6 has brought forward this phenomenon called the convenience
7 store with fuel sales. That, to us, is such a predominant,
8 distinct land use that it merits its own definition, and
9 it's -- it has its own impacts, its own trip generation, and
10 it needs its own circulation, things of that nature. A gas
it station is different. The fueling station that we're seeing
12 these days now is like at Safeway or at King Soopers, where
13 you have the little pay kiosk, and then you've got the --
14 the fuel islands. The gas station is different from a
15 convenience store fuel sales. Convenience stores have
16 anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 square feet of floor area.
17 There is a lot of the retail sales going on there, and
18 combined with the gas, it does generate its own kind of
19 unique characteristics. I don't think it's a glitch. I
20 think we recognize that it's a very generously capitalized
21 retail phenomenon.
22 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess, are there any sort of
24 stand-alone gas stations anymore? I mean, even -- I'm
25 thinking of the one that connected with Albertson's, that's
31
1 MR. OVERLANDER: -- they want us to get to that
2 signal.
3 MS. CRAIG: Which is understandable. I understand
4 that. Okay, thank you, Mike, and thank you, Sherry. You
5 were very helpful.
6 MR. LINGLE: Questions? Ted, I've got a couple
7 questions. One is, can you explain the -- Linda's diagram
8 that shows the, you know, the bird -- the as the crow flies
9 versus as you would actually drive it, what's the rationale
10 in the Land Use Code.for the separation being measured as
11 the crow flies?
12 MR. SHEPARD. Well, it's my understanding -- and
13 Paul, jump in here -- is that we wanted a very
14 straightforward, unambiguous methodology so there wouldn't
15 be any disagreement about driving the city streets, taking
16 shortcuts, well, if I go on Route A, I get there in X amount
17 of feet, but if I take Route B, I can go this way, and we
18 thought that crow flies, it's clear, and I think it was
19 inherited from the Land Development Guidance System as well.
20 Paul, is that your recollection?
21 MR. ECKMAN: Uh-huh
22 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah.
23 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. And then the other
24 thing is about the contention that the only thing that's
1 25 triggering that separation requirement is the fact that
ELI
1 Does the applicant pick that up, and then they're reimbursed
2 when it's developed to the south?
3 MR. OVERLANDER: It's my understanding from Matt
4 Baker's office that they intend to build that stub with the
5 three streets around the police station. If, for some
6 reason, that is incorrect, we have a letter of intent from
7 that property owner to the south that he will dedicate that
8 right-of-way, and we'd build that street.
9 MS. CRAIG: And you would build it?
10 MR. OVERLANDER: Right.
11 MS. CRAIG: So some way, somehow, if --
12 MR. OVERLANDER: Some way, somehow, yeah.
13 MS. CRAIG: -- we allowed your project, that
14 connection will be made.
15 MR. OVERLANDER: Staff recognize that we need
16 that --
17 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
18 MR. OVERLANDER: -- connection, so we got the
19 letter of intent, even though it sounds like that a part of
20 the agreement with getting the three streets built around is
21 to get the continuity up to this parcel.
22 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
23 MR. OVERLANDER: Because the City does not want
24 another full -movement access similar to our PDP --
25 MS. CRAIG: Exactly.
29
1 MS. WAMHOFF: Sure. The plan is for Nancy Gray and
2 the three -- basically, Nancy Gray and then the other two
3 roadways and Timberline that surround the police
4 department --
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
6 MS. WAMHOFF: -- project will be built at the same
7 time that Timberline is, through the same contract, so that
8 will all go in at the same time as the Timberline
9 improvements are done.
10 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And we're feeling that's going
11 to happen?
12 MS. WAMHOFF: They have -- they have already started
13 some of the work out there already and are starting to work
14 on the relocation of some utilities and stuff, stuff that
15 probably is not as much noticed by everybody driving by yet,
16 but they've been trimming some trees, doing some other prep
17 work and getting it ready so the -- that work will be --
18 it's actually started, but the start -- it will be visible
19 here probably in the spring once they get to stuff that
20 people will see.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I didn't totally understand on
22 this -- is it called Joseph Allen now? I know that there's
23 a blank piece of property between the police station and
24 this proposed project. Is that piece going to be connected
25 so that they can get to Nancy Gray, and if it is, what?
28
1 either are complete or in the process or --
2 MS. WAMHOFF: The way the code reads is once it's
3 a funded project, this project could move forward.
4 Timberline Road is considered a funded project, so in that
5 sense, yes, it could go forward. I think -- the problem
6 that I think Mike talked about is the fact that the services
7 are not going to be there. Your electrical services, your
8 other utilities and stuff are not going to be in place to
9 serve this development for them.to be able to get a permit
10 that way until the Timberline Road improvements go in. And
11 so that's -- it's -- it's not necessarily because the road
12 is not built, because the code says once it's -- the money
13 has been allocated for the roadway, it can be approved and
14 go forward, the project can. It's the fact that physically,
15 it needs these improvements in place to get their
16 electrical, their water, those type of things, in order for
17 them to get a building in place.
18 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Do you know what the time line
19 is on the Nancy Gray as far as that intersection goes?
20 Because it -- from looking at the TIS on this particular
21 project, it looks like it's pretty important in the
22 short-term, and I just want to make sure that our time lines
23 are meeting so we don't approve a project that we put in,
24 and we really don't have the infrastructure to facilitate
25 the traffic it's going to bring in.
27
1 back from the other property owners with the assessment from
2 the Special Improvement District. t
3 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
4 MS. WAMHOFF: So the only money that the City
5 really is putting forward, in my understanding, right now is
6 the Street Oversizing portion that would normally go to this
7 street.
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And so this applicant isn't
9 required to come up with money under this SID?
10 MS. WAMHOFF: I -- yes, they -- they would be
11 paying that, and I think they're already working that out
12 that they're giving their money as they're coming forward
13 with this, that they are paying for their portion of that
14 project. They've been working through some different
15 agreements with our Street Oversizing Program in -- as
16 Timberline plans and project is going forward to get the
17 improvements out on Timberline to work for the -- the street
18 going in and all -- everything like that. So they've been
19 coordinating with that already to get that going forward.
20 So they're already -- I don't know if they've given the
21 money to the project yet, but they will be funding some
22 money toward the Timberline improvements.
23 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And I want to double check,
24 Sherry. It was stated before that this project couldn't
25 even pull a building permit until these improvements are --
26
1 improvements have to be installed prior to, maybe CO as
2 opposed to building permit, but I can't answer that question
3 directly. I'm not knowledgeable of that agreement.
4 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Now, you did bring up the fact
5 that this is -- this is an SID, Ted, and you might be able
6 to answer this. I assume with an SID that the development
7 community puts in the infrastructure, and then the property
8 taxes or the owners within the SID pay them back. That's
9 not what I'm hearing here. I'm kind of hearing that the
10 City is going to pay for this infrastructure. Am I
11 confused? Is this connected with Bob? Is that why this
12 is --
13 MS. WAMHOFF: I may be able to help clarify that.
14 The SID, the major portion of the money for the project, was
15 put forward by two of the developments that are already
16 going forward in the area, the Side Hill Development on the
17 east side of Timberline, and then the property that the
18 police station is going on. They've contributed money in
19 order to get the roadway improvements done.
20 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
21 MS. WAMHOFF: The City is participating in the
22 portion of the street oversizing funds that are going --
23 that would be paid anyway toward the middle portion of the
24 roadway, but it's their -- the other two developers are
25 basically fronting the money, and then they will get paid
25
1 in place or under construction before anything other -- you
2 know, before anything can really happen. We can be under
3 construction, but we can't -- if Timberline Road weren't
4 built, we can't do this project.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. You can't pull a building
6 permit?
7 MR. OVERLANDER: If you approved us today, and we
8 turned around a Final Compliance set tomorrow that was
9 approved, I don't think we probably could.
10 MR. ECKMAN: I don't think they would have met
11 their adequate public utility requirements.
12 MS. CRAIG: That -- that's part of, I think, why I
13 need to talk to Staff. I'm assuming it would be Traffic to
14 start with, or --
15 MR. OVERLANDER: Sherry would know the most unless
16 someone from Oversizing is here.
17 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. Sherry was here earlier. Is
18 she still here?
19 MR. SHEPARD: We're searching the back room as we
20 speak for either Eric Bracke or Sherry Wamhoff'.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
22 MR. SHEPARD: And I don't know the precise details
23 as to the arrangement that Street Oversizing did with these
24 property owners. It is sort of a de facto SID, and I think
25 Mike's general characterization is correct that the
24
1 the parcel south of the police station -- have all already
2 contributed money to get this street built with the curb and
3 gutter and the medians and the landscaping. I think the
4 only thing that the developments themselves put in is the
5 street trees; is that correct? I don't think the Oversizing
6 Project puts in the street trees between the walk and the
7 curb, but other than that --
8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So --
9 MR. OVERLANDER: -- as far as my drawings for the
10 PDP, basically show Timberline as an existing street six
11 lanes wide, and in reality, they will get built, hopefully
12 simultaneously, but nothing can really -- I don't know that
13 we can necessarily even pull a building permit until
14 Timberline is built.
15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. And that's where Staff will
16 help me --
17 MR. OVERLANDER: Right.
18 MS. CRAIG: -- so I'll get somebody --
19 MR. OVERLANDER: And --
20 MS. CRAIG: -- from Staff.
21 MR. OVERLANDER: -- you know, all of the services
22 are coming in with Timberline Road. Electricity isn't in
23 this corridor right now. That's coming up with the Timberline
24 Road Project, so it's going to be very similar, to the police
25 station in concept, that all of this has to pretty much be
23
1 MR. OVERLANDER: The road section that will be
2 built all the way through Drake to the north side of this
3 project will be the full six -lane roadway. The outside
4. lanes will double as right -turn lanes until such time as six
5 lanes go all the way through to Prospect.
6 MS. CRAIG:, Okay. So when your project goes in,
7 you'll be building to the six lanes; they just won't be
8 marked as six lanes, but the width will be there?
9 MR. OVERLANDER: Our project is contributing the
10 same as Side Hill and the police station to the Timberline
11 Road Project that Street Oversizing is building, so that is
12 going out for bid here about the first of the year, and
13 those plans put the curb where we've got it shown. Those
14 plans will actually build the sidewalk and build the street
15 returns for Bear Mountain Drive to come into the site, so
16 everything is -- is set for the ultimate section through
17 that entire stretch.
18 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So are you saying that the
19 applicant will be putting in the median for this project or
20 that the City will be putting it in?
21 MR. OVERLANDER: City Project will be constructing
22 it. The applicants are paying their oversizing fee to the
23 City ahead of time. I think that fee's already been paid,
24 which typically doesn't.happen until building permit. So
25 all of these developments -- Side Hill, the police station,
22
1 presentation?
2 MS. RIPLEY: Yes. I did forget to mention one
3 thing, and I knew it came up at work sessions, so I wanted
4 to let the Board know that bike lanes are planned on both
5 Bear Mountain and Joseph Allen. There will be bike lanes on
6 both streets. They just weren't labeled on the -- the
7 graphics that you have. So we're --
8 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
9 MS. RIPLEY: -- open for questions.
10 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Are there questions of either
it Staff or the applicant? Yeah. Sally?
12 MS. CRAIG: My questions have a lot to do with
13 traffic and the time line, et cetera, but to start with,
14 Ted, I wanted to double check. On Timberline, the Master
15 Street Plan shows it to be six lanes, and I was just double
16 checking that their street curb is far enough over to
17 include that third lane right-of-way. Is that right? How
18 does -- how does that work? Because I -- I'd hate to see
19 these trees all put in, and about the time they're maturing,
20 we decide to put in another lane.
21 MR. OVERLANDER: Hi. I'm Mike Overlander with
22 North Star Design. I'm the civil engineer for the project.
23 1 also was one of the civil engineers that worked on
24 Timberline Road.
25 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
21
1 MR. STEINBICKER: Yes.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: -- is, where on the map does that --
3 does that face? Is that going to be the view from
4 Timberline?
5 MR. STEINBICKER: That would be this structure
6 right down in here, and if you look at,it, what I tried to
7 create is -- look at my west elevation on Timberline, and it
8 starts the same orientation, so this is the bank, proposed
9 bank and drive -up, the gas station/C-store, the other
10 retail -related auto sales types of use, the tire shop,
11 which, again, none of those doors would be facing to the
12 street, and lastly, another auto -related, potentially a lube
13 type of -- again, what we're trying to do here is this
14 building is approximately 120 feet long, but realizing the
15 service side of that is only one portion of that, that's our
16 higher element. The other portion can be more the office
17 and service waiting areas, those kinds of things. So, a
18 variation in the massing where it was appropriate for the
19 uses that were internal to the project or the building. So
20 this is consistent with, again, these uses, of course, right
21 across here, and -- and would follow the site plan
22 accordingly.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
24 MR. STEINBICKER: Thank you.
25 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Linda, does that complete your
20
1 to become a user-friendly, pedestrian -based kind of facility
2 that clearly, from the plan, can be interlaced with users
3 coming here and then walking to various services.
4 I guess the last thing we'd just have you take a
5 look at is the streetscapes, which, unfortunately, are
6 misapplied here. Those are both referencing a west
7 elevation, which, on the site plan, would be this elevation
8 of the storage units and this elevation, which, of course,
9 would be the additional west elevation of Timberline, so
10 those are misapplied. I imagine you figured that out. But
11 what we've tried to create here was just a general
12 streetscape, again, Ted working with us, trying to give you
13 a flavor of the scale, the continuity of -- of the project,
14 but also some diversity in the heights. A good example
15 would be the bank with the one-story drive -up facility but
16 combined with a one- and two-story office type of use. And
17 with that, I didn't talk in great detail about it, but the
18 storage wall detail, we did walk -- work with a consultant
19 on that who had built several other projects and talked to
20 him about the quality of it and the massing of it, the
21 materials, and how we could interface that with the rest of
22 the retail and office development portion. And unless you
23 have some questions right now -- I guess you do.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: I just have one. Where the diagram
25 of the tire center --
19
1 regard, Ted was very helpful to point out certain aspects of
2 some newer developments that have taken place, and we
3 definitely intended to and believe we did create a
4 continuity of the project in a combination of materials,
5 scale, massing, so that this really could develop into more
6 of a retail/mixed-use project that had more of a
7 campus -style approach, meaning to say, again, compatibility
8 of the scale of the buildings, compatibility of color,
9 materials, landscaping even.
10 So the -- the scale, the heights of the buildings,
11 parapet variations that you can see on some of these
12 buildings, this being one of the smaller buildings, the K
13 location on your site plan, some of the office retail in the
14 back combining one- and two-story elements, roof
15 combinations and materials. We've tried to solicit some of
16 the more residential character of things, starting off with
17 asphalt shingles as kind of a base composition, and color
18 range, which, again, some of that detail is in this legend
19 area here, but then also being able to utilize some updated
20 of -- updating of materials, meaning metal roofing as
21 accents, sunscreens. You'll see this -- some indication
22 here over some of the window patterning being repeated here,
23 one-story metal roofs top and bottom, again, as accent to
24 bring in some character, bring in some scale, some shadowing
25 to the building. Certainly, it was our intent to bring it
18
1 would be nice to have those setbacks more closely match
2 rather than have one building be 15 feet away and the other
3 one be 25 or whatever it is. So that's -- that's the
4 modification request of build -to line for those.two
5 buildings.
6 With that, if you have any specific questions for
7 me right now, we can cover that; otherwise, I'll have Steve
8 Steinbicker talk to you about the architecture plan for the
9 center. Should I go to Steve? Okay.
10 MR. STEINBICKER: Good evening. Steve
11 Steinbicker, Architecture west. I appreciate the
12 opportunity to talk tonight. I'll make it brief and go over
13 some basic design concepts, and then please feel free to
14 offer some more questions to me as further clarification.
15 I think Linda started off at the beginning just
16 mentioning that it was a unique opportunity, having two
17 clients that were both interested in a high -profile,
18 high -quality project, maybe a little smaller than what you
19 can see here, but I've got some blow-ups if you'd like to
20 take a look at those closer up. You could, if you want to
21 pass them around. It might show the detail a little bit
22 more. I think one of the important things is we did begin
23 with Staff sometime ago, as -- as Linda pointed out, and we
24 met with Planning Staff specifically to talk about
25 architectural standards and quality and criteria. In that
17
1 that should be.
2 The third modification has to do with a reduced
3 setback along the west edge of the storage facility. The I
4 district requires that the industrial district land use
5 be -- if you're adjacent to a zoning district that's not I,
6 you're supposed to have a 30-foot landscape buffer. In our
7 particular case, we -- we are showing about 20 feet, which
8 gives us enough room to plant some trees and do some
9 buffering. Since there's a railroad right-of-way that is in
10 excess of -- what was it? It's in your Staff report. It's
11 very wide, 200 feet or more before you get to a residential
12 neighborhood, we felt that we'd rather have a little wider
13 setback along Joseph Allen Drive here, and that would be in
14 the best interests of the community to have -- have more
15 green on the public street and 10 foot less green back there
16 along the railroad. Staff is supporting that modification.
17 And then the last modification has to do with
18 these two buildings right here and the build -to line. The
19 Land Use Code requires us to pull our buildings out to the
20 street to at least 15 feet from the street. We've done that
21 along Joseph Allen, but right here, we wanted to pull the
22 building further to the east to allow some paving on the
23 south side of that building to allow outdoor dining
24 opportunities. And then to match it on the other side and
25 great -- create kind of an enteruria there, we thought it
16
1 on that one.
2 The other three modifications are a little bit
3 simpler. The first one has to do with the fast-food
4 restaurant located on the south end of the site, in this
5 location right here, and the modification is to allow the
6 connecting walkway, which needs to come from the public
7 sidewalk, so the public sidewalk here on Joseph Allen would
8 have a connection here, and it's to allow the sidewalk to
9 cross a driveway in order to connect to the front of the
10 fast-food restaurant. And Staff is supporting that
11 modification with four conditions, all of which we agree
12 with, and most of which are actually shown in the plan now.
13 We've provided a very direct, or as direct as we can get,
14 access to the front. We've added a pedestrian access in
15 this location that previously wasn't there that connects
16 this building to this building. We've changed where we
17 showed outdoor dining to be on the south end of the
18 building, which is something Ted suggested, and we
19 absolutely agree with, is a much better location on the south
20 here or -- or to the east, anyway. And the fourth one was
21 adequate screening, protecting and buffering whatever
22 happens to the south in the future. we've got about 12 feet
23 there. We can do fencing, we can do landscape buffering, we
24 can do a combination of both, and we're happy to work with
25 Staff during the final process to figure out exactly what
15
1 people to do. We want them to make one stop and do as many
2 things as they can to save on trips and to save on air
3 pollution.
4 So I think that those two factors, the fact that
5 we are separated by the other -- there's nothing else on
6 North Timberline, on the road itself. You don't see them.
7 There's no visual proliferation in this area of C-stores.
8 And secondly, why are we -- why are we saying that it's
9 wrong to encourage those two uses to occur together, when
10 it's obviously something people use, it's convenient. So,
11 I -- I think it's a very appropriate use for this particular
12 corner.
13 However, if the Board does not approve the
14 modification, we want to move along with the project, and
15 the alternative use would be a fast-food restaurant on the
16 same corner, basically on the same pad. Sandy, could you
17 flip -- oh, God, it's running. I didn't know that happened.
18 Wonderful. Okay. So this -- this shows the C-store -- or
19 the fast-food alternative, so that very same place in the
20 development now is occupied by some additional parking, a
21 drive -through lane and a fast-food restaurant. So, in
22 meeting the task of the modification, is it equal to or
23 better than, I -- I feel like a C-store is equal to or
24 better than a plan with a fast-food restaurant in the same
25 location, but that's for you to judge tonight, and I'll stop
14
1 colors and signage, and they were -- they were pretty bad.
2 We've come a long time -- we've come a long way since then.
3 The C-stores that you see being developed in our community
4 now are regulated in a variety of ways. You can't build
5 them in every zoning district. Most of the time, they have
6 to be part of the center. The architecture is regulated, the
7 landscape is regulated. Certainly, the access is regulated.
8 So it's kind of a different animal now altogether. But I do
9 agree that we should have a separation requirement. I just
10 believe that in this particular case, a modification is
11 appropriate and desirable.
12 I mentioned that we're -- we're close to two. If
13 you measure the distance by how you drive, we would actually
14 meet the requirement, but there's one other thing that is
15 unique about this site in this situation, and that is that
16 in the I industrial zone, you can do a gas station with no
17 separation requirement. If we wanted to do a gas station,
18 this would not be an issue. We wouldn't be talking about
19 it. You can also do retail in the I zone. The fact that
20 the two are combined is what creates this issue; the fact
21 that it's a C-store, the fact that somebody can fill up
22 their gas tank and in the same stop pick up a jug of milk to
23 take home, that's what you're saying can't be allowed here.
24 And in my mind, that makes no sense because we have so many
25 policies that -- in our city saying that's what we want
13
1 a mile only by the way the crow flies, but the code is very
2 specific. It says you're supposed to measure the distance
3 not by how you would travel there in your car but how -- a
4 straight line from spot to spot the way a crow would fly.
5 So, if you were to measure the distance by how you actually
6 drove there,.we would actually meet the requirement. The
7 same is true -- the next closest fueling station is on
8 Prospect a little further to the east in the Spring Creek
9 Center, a fairly new station over in that area. The same is
10 true there. If you measure the distance by the way one
11 would drive, we meet the distance requirement, but as the
12 crow flies, we don't. I think it's important to understand
13 that both of those stations are off of Timberline Road, so
14 if you were driving north on Timberline Road looking for a
15 place to fill your gas tank, you wouldn't necessarily even
16 see those.
17 So I think, you know, one of -- one of the issues
18 is proliferation of C-stores. You know, that's -- that's
19 been.an issue since forever. Before the Land Use Code, we
20 had a similar separation requirement back in a document that
21 specifically governed how you did convenience centers. Back
22 then, in the early 180s, a C-store wanted to go in every
23 arterial corner. They were ugly. They wanted to pave the
24 whole corner. They wanted to have continuous curb paths.
25 They were not such attractive buildings. They used garish
12
1 Steinbicker talk about the architecture because I think it's
2 an important part of this project. we've worked hard to
3 make it integrate all the uses into one center. But before
4 I do that, I want to go over the modifications with you
5 because they're kind of complex, but I want to walk you
6 through them, and then I'm going to let Steve talk about the
7 architecture just for a minute, and then we'll be open for
8 questions.
9 The first modification has to do with the
10 convenience store that we're proposing right here, right at
11 the corner of Bear Mountain and Timberline Road. The reason
12 we're requesting a modification is the standard that
13 requires C-stores with fueling stations to be three-quarters
14 of a mile from the closest fueling station. So in -- Sandy,
15 do you have that? I'm going to -- you have in your packets
16 this next exhibit that I wanted to use tonight, and what -- .
17 and I've also got some extras tonight, so if you need us to
18 hand you out one, please let us know. We've got some extras
19 here. Why don't you just give him one?
20 What this -- what this diagram illustrates is
21 where we're proposing to put the C-store, and where the
22 fueling station further south -- the one to the south is the
23 fueling station at the King -- the new King Soopers grocery
24 store in Rigden Farm. They have a fueling station as part
25 of that development, and we're closer than three-quarters of
11
1 and yet we're cognizant of the fact that if they all became
2 sit-down restaurants, the parking and our access could
3 potentially fail. So, I just want to make it clear to the
4 Board that we're cognizant of that, Staff was cognizant of
5 that, and that gets tallied up as we go through this, and
6 right now, the restaurant use is capped at 6,000 square foot
7 in addition to the fast-food restaurants proposed. I can
8 clarify that more if you have questions later.
9 The buildings are all facing streets, with the
10 parking and circulation to the interior of the site. Along
11 Timberline Road, the closest building is 30 feet from
12 Timberline, the furthest one is 80. The average setback
13 distance along Timberline is 60 feet, so a generous setback
14 or detention is located on Timberline Road. In addition to
15 that generous setback, we've got street trees in the parkway
16 as well as evergreen trees and ornamentals that will screen
17 the little bit of parking that is visible. Drive-throughs
18 would be screened, and in addition, that plant material kind
19 of softens the architecture.
20 Inside, the center is designed to be convenient
21 and safe for vehicles and pedestrians. We've provided
22 crosswalks and sidewalks through parking areas where we
23 would like to encourage people to walk through and -around
24 the center, where they would likely want to move from one
25 use to another. Architecturally, I'm going to have Steve
I
10
1 site plan that works well for both of them. They have a
2 shared access point right here in the middle. It is a
3 three -corner access point, meaning that it's right in, right
4 out, and left in. Once a person is in the center, if they
5 want to travel back to the north, they either circulate
6 through the project to the north or go back to Joseph Allen
7 Drive to get out to Nancy Gray Boulevard, where they would
8 access the traffic signal. Because of all the Timberline
9 improvements and the police service center being built, the
10 expectation is that Joseph Allen Drive will be built through
11 this vacant parcel back to where it becomes the west edge of
12 the police service center. So it -- the combination of that
13 circulation street back to a signal and this three -corner
14 movement works well for the development and doesn't encumber
15 Timberline Road with too many access points.
16 Another point to -- as I described that we've got
17 five buildings here that are mixed use that can be -- they
18 can have restaurant uses in them, office or retail. The
19 restaurant uses would -- are limited to about 6,000 square
20 feet. So if this develops out, Staff will be keeping track
21 of that. Traffic impact study updates would have to be
22 shown that we don't exceed our traffic impact. So, we're
23 trying to provide as much -- can you still hear me? Okay.
24 We're trying to provide as much flexibility since we don't
25 have -- the developers don't have tenants for each building,
9
1 of property tucked back there by the railroad but yet being
2 very accessible is just an ideal place for that service in
i
3 our community.
4 Our client and our design team have been working
5 with the City for the past year on this project, and
6 initially, it was very challenging to work out an access
7 point for this development. As you're aware, the City has
8 been planning improvements to Timberline Road from this
9 location and further north, including the
10 Prospect/Timberline interchange. In fact, the owners of
i
i
11 these properties as they develop will -- they're part of the
12 special improvement district that is allowing that
13 construction project to proceed. So they're participating
14 in that, not only for their development, but it will make
15 things better for the rest of the citizens that drive
16 Timberline Road as well.
17 Initially, the coordination with the City revolved
18 around where can we put this access -- access point that
19 will work for the development and also be in sync with the
20 proposed improvements on Timberline Road. That's when Craig
21 Howe, who owns this portion of the property, and Kris
22 Fleischli, who had purchased the remainder, became partners
23 in this development and decided it was in both their best
24 interests to develop the project together rather than
25 independently, so they joined forces, and we came up with a
8
1 spoke -- Ted mentioned, and a drive -through banking
2 facility. Those are the land uses that we think are very
3 compatible in the neighborhood for the growth that's
4 occurring -- currently occurring here and planned to occur
5 in the future. The residents across the street as well as
6 the ones that already live there, this convenience shopping
7 center provides a lot of convenience for them as well as
8 restaurant opportunities. And in addition to that, all of
9 the people that are now employed in the Timberline corridor,
10 this is an added service area for their use as well.
11 To the west of the property, we're proposing a
12 storage facility. I think it's an ideal location for a
13 mini -storage facility. It's located not very far off of
14 Timberline Road, the major arterial, so it's convenient to
15 all the office and industrial development in the corridor as
16 well as people that live in the area, but it's also pretty
17 convenient for anyone in Fort Collins to get here because of
18 its location close to a major arterial. It's nice that it's
19 set off because it's not -- it's attractive, but it's not
20 the kind of thing that is the most beautiful building in the
21 world, so we like the idea that it's set back. It's
22 buffered very well from the residential neighborhood,
23 Parkwood East back here, by a very wide railroad
24 right-of-way in addition to fencing and landscaping that
25 would be required in any case. So we think that that piece
7
1 Can you hear me? Okay. We'll stick with this.
2 This proposal is for a mixed -use land development.
3 If we start -- I really apologize for this. I would put it
4 on your list for things to do in the future, is to try to
5 get a better system in here. I don't know. It's -- it's
6 frustrating, and we -- we've learned to bring boards because
7 this isn't the first time this has happened.
8 Okay. Anyway, starting at the northeast side of
9 our development, we're proposing automotive land uses, so
10 these four uses right here to the northeast are auto -related
it land uses. The types of things that you'll see happening in
12 there might be a tire store, a lube shop. We're proposing a
13 car wash in this area.
14 Have you got it? Does that work? Okay.
15 And then along Joseph Allen Drive, up in this
16 area, the far northeast corner, is an office building, a
17 small-scale two-story office building. These three other
18 buildings are mixed -use buildings -- that could be retail,
19 office or restaurant or a combination of those uses -- as
20 well as the two buildings to the interior of the site are
21 planned to be mixed -use as well. To the south, we're
22 proposing a fast-food restaurant adjacent to the vacant
23 parcel, and then to the south, along the Timberline
24 frontage, two uses share the Timberline frontage; one being
25 a convenience store, and that's the -- the K-1 we've
2
1 providing civil engineering services, Matt Delich, traffic
2 engineering, and Steve Steinbicker is our architect for this
3 project.
4 As Ted explained, this is a 22-acre project, at
5 least for the development. A smaller portion of that is the
6 rezoning request. It's situated on North Timberline Road.
7 North of this site is existing industrial development. The
S Side Hill residential PUD is across Timberline Road from
9 this proposed project. South of here, we have one vacant
10 parcel, and then we have what will eventually become Nancy
11 Gray Boulevard, which will be a signal -light intersection,
12 and south of that is the police service center on the west
13 side of Timberline Road. West of our site, we have a
14 railroad track and railway -- railroad right-of-way that
15 buffers this project from the Park -wood East neighborhood.
16 Are you having any luck? Okay. I'm going to put up our
17 board so I can talk to you about the PDP.
18 MR. SHEPARD: And while she's doing that, I did
19 give you some supplemental material before tonight's
20 meeting.. It is a list of definitions that might be
21 pertinent tonight out of Article V of the Land use Code, so
22 you have them as a quick reference. Since there are a lot
23 of land uses involved in this project, I thought it might be
24 handy to have those definitions on hand.
25 MS. RIPLEY: Does this work? Is it working? Now?
5
1 through that very succinctly, and I'm here to answer any
2 questions after you listen to the staff's presentation -- or
3 the applicant's presentation.
4 MR. LINGLE: Could I ask a question before that,
5 Ted? K-1 is their preferred site plan. If we -- if we go
6 along with your recommendation and deny the modification
7 request, then we get K-2 by default?
8 MR. SHEPARD: That is correct.
9 MR. LINGLE: Okay. And then if -- if that
10 happened, are there any limitations on how many
11 •drive -through restaurants can be a part of a convenience
12 shopping center?
13 MR. SHEPARD: No, there are not.
14 MR. LINGLE: Okay, thank you. All right. Is the
15 applicant ready for presentation? Maybe?
16 MS. RIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I
17 think we're ready. we brought our own CD tonight, and for
18 some reason, we're having a little trouble getting it
19 loaded. I'm going to start with introductions, and then, if
20 it's not loaded, I did bring some boards just in case, so
21 we'll go forward with those if we have to. I'm here -- my
22 name is Linda Ripley with VF Ripley Associates, and I'm here
23 tonight representing Kris Fleischli and Craig Howe, who are
24 co -developers of this project. Our other team members here
25 tonight are Mike Overlander with North Star Engineering,
4
1 all but one of them, and that would be the first one, and
2 that is the one that pertains to the separation requirement
3 for convenience retail stores with fuel. And so the other
4 three, we are recommending approval; however, that
5 separation one, we are recommending denial. One of the
6 modifications we are recommending approval with conditions,
7 and those conditions are outlined in your staff report as
8 well. I wanted to mention to the Board that we've had a
9 neighborhood information meeting, and the meeting discussed
10 both the rezoning and the PDP. There didn't seem to be any
11 issues with the rezoning itself. Some of the issues
12 relating to the PDP are outlined in your staff report, and
13 the minutes, the summary of the meeting, are enclosed as
14 well.
15 And you do have a letter from a citizen, an
16 affected property owner, from a Peggy Grice, and that letter
17 is located in your packet; however, it's the very last
18 attachment located behind the traffic study. I'm afraid
19 that you may have missed it if you didn't entirely read the
20 traffic study, and so I wanted to call your attention to
21 that in particular. And she expressed that .she couldn't be
22 here tonight. That's why she wrote the letter. There is a
23 lot of information on this project, and by the time you get
24 to the end of this, you'll be taking lots of different
25 votes, and I've laid out the staff report to guide you
3
1 here as well. It is the PDP itself. This is a larger
2 parcel. It is owned by two co -applicants, and it comprises
J
3 approximately 22 acres, and this is a request for a
4 mixed -use project that would be totally in the I zone, and
5 one of the conditions of approval relates to that zoning
6 being in place prior to submittal of final compliance. And
7 the land uses are roughly divided among three categories:
8 Convenience shopping center, auto -related services and
9 enclosed mini storage.
10 Specifically, the uses are listed in your staff
11 report. The convenience shopping center allows two specific
12 uses that would not otherwise be allowed in the industrial
13 zone, and that is retail stores and drive -through
14 restaurants, and that issue is outlined in your staff report
15 as well. So you'll have two options before you tonight
16 based on one of the modifications relating to building K-1
17 and building K-2. I'm sure the applicant will go into great
18 detail on that. The -- there are two new public streets
19 being proposed. The east/west street is Bear Mountain
20 Drive. The north/south street is Joseph Allen Drive.
21 Access will also be gained via Nancy Gray intersection with
22 Timberline Road, which will be signalized. The intersection
23 of Bear Mountain and Timberline Road will not be signalized.
24 There are four modifications, and they're outlined
25 in your staff report, and Staff is recommending approval of
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 MR. LINGLE: Okay. we're back, and we are ready
3 for discussion. Agenda items numbers 5 and 6 are related
4 issues, the Timberline Center rezoning and the Timberline
5 Center Project Development Plan, so what we're going to do
6 is have a combined staff report on those two items as well
7 as this combined applicant presentation on those two, but
8 when it comes time for making decisions, we'll be -- we'll
9 be casting separate votes on those two items. So, Ted?
10 MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is
11 the rezoning first. This is a request to rezone 16.13 acres
12 that are located within and part of Timberline Center, owned
13 by one of the two applicants, to take the parcel out of the
14 T transition zone into the industrial zone. The parcel is
15 located on the west side of Timberline Road approximately
16 one-half mile north of East Drake Road. The Union Pacific
17 Railroad right-of-way forms the western boundary. The
18 request complies with the City's Structure Plan Map, and a
19 Project Development Plan accompanies this rezoning request.
20 And the zoning property out of the T is governed by Section
21 4.9 of the City Code, and there are some specific standards
22 related to the timing of that such that they're not
23 restricted to the twice -per -year -schedule. Staff is
24 recommending approval of the rezoning.
25 The next item in my presentation will be brief
1
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
December 8, 2005
Items #5 & 6
Timberline Center Rezoning &
Project Development Plan
Members Present: Sally Craig, Brigitte Schmidt,
Dave Lingle, William Stockover
City Attorney: Paul Eckman
In addition, Building E is also incorrectly referred to as a fast food restaurant
when it is really a drive4n restaurant.
This incorrect reference occurs on the following lines and pages:
Line 22
Page 7
Line 7
Page 11
Line 15
Page 15
Line 19
Page 15
Line 24
Page 15
Line 3
Page 16
Line 10
Page 16
Line 11
Page 46
2. Three -Comer Versus Three -Quarter
This is a reference to describe the limitations on turning movements at an
Intersection. A "full -movement" intersection allows all turns for all four legs of the
intersection. A "three-quarter" intersection, however, is restricted such that there
is no left -in turn movement allowed from the arterial (Timberline Road) onto the
local street (Bear Mountain Drive).
The transcript contains an incorrect reference calling the three-quarter
intersection a three -comer intersection.
This occurs on the following lines and page:
Line 3 Page 10
Line 13 Page 10
3. "Enteruria" Versus Entry Feature
The transcript describes that one of the buildings will feature an "enteruria" when,
In fact, this building will simply include an "entry feature."
This occurs on the following line and page:
Line 25 Page 17.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner 77
DATE: February 1, 2006
RE: Timberline Center Appeal — Clarifications in the Transcript
There are unintentional errors in the transcript of the December 8, 2005 Planning
and Zoning Board that need to be clarified to help City Council in their
consideration of the Timberline Center Appeal of the Request for Modification.
These are as follows:
Fast Food Restaurant Versus Drive-in Restaurant
The Land Use Code defines three specific types of restaurants. These are:
• Standard Restaurant (also known as a sit-down)
• Fast Food Restaurant (also known as a carry -out)
• Drive-in Restaurant (also known as a drive -through)
The Timberline Center Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) indicates that Building
K-1 is the convenience retail store with fuel sales. This building is the subject of
the Request for Modification that was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The P.D.P. also provides a back-up plan. In case City Council upholds the
denial, then Building K-2 would be substituted as a replacement. Building K-2 is
a drive-in restaurant. In the transcript, however, Ms. Linda Ripley incorrectly
refers Building K-2 as a fast food restaurant.
The distinction is important because a fast food restaurant is prohibited from
having a drive-in facility. Although both fast food and drive-in restaurants are
permitted in the Industrial zone, the drive-in restaurant is permitted only within
the convenience shopping center sub -component of the P.D.P.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 5B0 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
Verbatim transcript
of the December 81 2005
Planning and Zoning Board hearing
One (1) e-mail from
an affected property owner to
the Planning and Zoning Board
for the December 8, 2005
public hearing
a
A. We would like to begin construction in the Fall of 2006.
14. What is planned for the vacant land to the south?
A. This land is owned by Mr. Brock Chapman and is zoned Employment.
15. The most westerly building concerns me. How far away is this building
from Parkwood East?
A. This building would be 20 feet from the west property line. Then, the
railroad right-of-way at this point is 165 feet wide. Then, between the
railroad right-of-way and Parkwood East is a stormwater detention pond
that is not uniform in width. This pond is wider to the south and then
tapers down in width as it proceeds north.
16. Will the carwash be a self -serve facility open 24-hours?
A. No, it will be a full -serve facility like Ritchies on South College Avenue and
not open on a 24-hour basis.
17. 1 am concerned about reliance on just deciduous shade trees for
screening this project from the neighborhood. Evergreen trees will be
needed as well for screening in the winter.
A. We agree and will provide evergreen trees to help screen the mini -
storage.
18. Is this the site of the old pipe plant that used to make all the noise at
night?
A. Yes. The pipe plant moved to Utah.
4
A. The site is generally flat and slopes from west to east. The stormwater
detention pond is on the low end and located on the east side of the site.
We do not plan on any major cuts or fills or raising of the site so the grade
that you see there today is very close to the finished grade for the
buildings.
8. Will there be a new traffic signal at your Timberline Road access drive?
A. No, this intersection is planned to feature three-quarter turning
movements. That is, there will be right -in, right -out and left -in allowed, but
no left -out turns.
9. Will there be a traffic signal at Nancy Gray Avenue?
A. Yes, Nancy Gray will be signalized as it is classified as a collector street
on the east side of Timberline in Sidehill subdivision, and is needed for the
new Police Services building on the west side.
10. 1 am concerned about partial improvements to Timberline Road. Will it
swing in and out from two-lane to four -lane? It is hazardous to narrow
down an arterial street to two-lane traffic.
A. Timberline Road will be widened to four lanes all the way to Prospect
Road.
11. Have you prepared a traffic study? I am curious about how much traffic
this project will be adding to Timberline Road.
A. The Transportation Impact Analysis has not been prepared yet. It will be
available to the public as soon as we submit it to the Current_ Planning
Department.
12. 1 am concerned about all these gas stations going in. How many do we
need? We already have one in Rigden Farm and one at Prospect and
Timberline. I have the same concern with quick-lubes, carwashes and
convenience stores. Why do we continue to duplicate these services so
close to each other? How many can the neighborhood support? It seems
that this project will generate an excessive amount of these types of
businesses.
A. Our market analysis tells us that the Timberline Road corridor will carry a
sufficient number of trips to support these uses. Our site is roughly three-
quarters of a mile away from the two existing gas stations that you
mentioned.
13. What is your construction schedule?
3
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1. What are the sizes of the buildings?
A. One building is one-story in height and contains 7,200 square feet. We
have a two-story building that contains 14,500 square feet. Other
buildings range from 3,500 to 4,100 square feet. Since some of the end -
users are not known at this time, these sizes are estimates.
2. 1 am concerned about the appearance of the project as viewed from
Timberline Road. What is planned for the area along Timberline?
A. This area will be primarily turf and contain the stormwater detention pond.
In addition, between the sidewalk and curb, there will be a row of shade
trees. The buildings along Timberline will feature foundation shrubs.
3. 1 live in Parkwood East and am concerned about the lighting associated
with the enclosed mini -storage. What can you tell me about security
fighting in this area of the plan?
A. We have not prepared the Lighting Plan as of yet but it will be a part of the
submittal package to the City.
4. Would you consider building up a parapet screen wall on your western-
most building in order to shield the security lighting from the
neighborhood?
A. We have not considered a screen wall at this time.
5. 1 am familiar with the enclosed mini -storage facility next to Golden
Meadows and I am aware of the fight intrusion and impacts on the
neighborhood. I know that for one family, they had to install customized
window treatments that would not allow light to penetrate.
6. What will be the exterior building materials and color of the mini -storage
facility? We are concemed about the quality of the aesthetics as seen
from Parkwood East.
A. The exterior will be of higher quality than the interior buildings. We
anticipate that the exterior materials will be a combination of masonry and
stucco to match the other buildings in the center.
7. What about grading? As viewed from the neighborhood, what is the site
elevation? Sometimes mini -storage facilities are raised up so there will be
no flooding. Will we be looking up at the mini -storage facility?.
2
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
PROJECT: Timberline Center Commercial Project
DATE: September 12, 2005
APPLICANT: Mr. Kris Fleischli
Mr. Craig Hau
CONSULTANTS: Linda Ripley, V-F Ripley and Associates
Sandy McFeron, V-F Ripley
Tricia Kroetch, Northstar Engineering
Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West
CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard
The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. The project is
located on the west side of Timberline Road between Prospect Road and Drake
Road. It is approximately 18.5 acres in size and backs up to the Union Pacific
railroad tracks. The property is currently zoned Transition and the applicants will
request placement into the Industrial zone.
As proposed, the project includes a mix of uses including convenience shopping
center, retail stores, standard, fast food and drive-thru restaurant, offices, retail
stores with vehicle servicing, vehicle minor repair and service establishments,
and enclosed mini -storage. There would be multiple buildings that are one and
two -stories in height. These buildings would be designed in a similar
architectural style with regard to building materials, rooflines and color scheme.
Timberline Road is scheduled to receive major improvements along the front of
the Timberline Center property. With the new improvements, Timberline Road
will receive a center median with a left -in entrance into the project. The project
will also have a right -turn into the project and a right-tum exiting the project onto
Timberline Road. Primary vehicular access to the site is from Timberline Road.
Alternate access is from Nancy Gray Road onto Sagebrush Drive (scheduled to
be renamed to Joseph Allen Drive). This project will create a new road
connecting Timberline Road to Sagebrush Road called Bear Mountain Drive.
Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team
Why a ?14 mile separation distance?
This is a matter of community design based on multiple considerations. The main
idea is to avoid the possibility of having these developments occur along arterial
streets at any and every arterial or collector intersection, thus resulting in 3 per
mile (one at each arterial street Intersection and one at the collector street
intersection midway between the arterial streets). This has always led to a
concept of a separation greater than 2/3 mile, because collector streets are
sometimes constructed at a shorter interval. % mile is a round number, slightly
greater than 2/3 mile and that has served the community well since 1988.
Many communities have adopted separation requirements for a whole host of
land uses, e.g. - adult -oriented businesses, motels, churches, schools and
billboards, but have generally not done so for retail uses. The location of certain
care facilities, such as group homes, is typically governed by state law rather
than local zoning ordinances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Land Use Code team does not proposed any code changes at
this time. Rather, the team has a comfort level that procedures and criteria for
Modification of Standards (Section 2.8) provide sufficient flexibility for property
owners, applicants, investors, developers, small businesses and mufti -national
corporations to pursue reductions in the current separation requirements.
along major streets has aesthetic and urban form implications as well as
traffic impacts.
2. City Plan is structured to provide mixed use neighborhoods on the
condition that the non-residential uses are carefully limited in terms of
automobile -oriented uses, and building placement, orientation, scale and
character.
Neighborhoods are one of the primary building blocks of the community,
with the neighborhood center as the foundational element. Neighborhood
Centers are carefully defined, with the spacing requirement being one
important component.
3. As previously noted, the present commercial separation standards were
not new with the adoption of City Plan in 1997. Rather, they are a
continuation of two well -established precedents from the previous LDGS:
A) the % mile separation of "Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
Centers" (adopted 1988);
B) the location of these developments at collector/arterial street comers,
and not arterialiarterial street comers, with good "back side" access from
surrounding neighborhoods.
Those previous precedents were established based on a thorough
analysis and public discussion of issues; they were reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board and adopted by City Council. They have been
thoroughly tested in practice.
4. Reducing vehicle miles traveled has long been a goal from both a land use
and transportation perspective. The length of trip for the every day items
such as milk, bread, gas, etc. should not result in excessive driving. Thus,
small convenience centers envisioned by the L-M-N neighborhood center
should be allowed in close proximity to neighborhoods. The key tradeoff,
however, is that such a commercial intrusion, while convenient, should be
used sparingly, lest the proliferation lead to a diminishing quality in the
neighborhood. The two convenience centers at East Horsetooth Road
and Lochwood Drive, and West Harmony Road and Seneca Street are
often cited as good examples of the scale and quality in relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood. The frequency of their placement is well -
received in that they demonstrate the delicate balance between frequency
of location and aesthetic quality.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code requires the separation of certain commercial land uses in
order to best support the neighborhood structure embodied in Clty Plan and to
reduce the negative visual impact of commercial 'strip" development along major
streets. More specifically, the LUC sets a minimum % mile separation between
neighborhood commercial centers that include retail or restaurant uses and are
located on an arterial street, and also between convenience retail stores with fuel
sales.
Staff has been asked to evaluate the present commercial separation
requirements and determine whether a Land Use Code Amendment is
appropriate.
Background
The latest commercial separation requirements found within the Land Use Code
are really a continuation of long-standing limitations on the location and intensity
of commercial use. The City of Fort Collins has a long history of restricting
commercial land uses; it dates all the way back to 1929 when the City adopted its
initial zoning ordinance. More modem regulations are rooted in the Land Use
Policy Plan, adopted in 1979, and the City's previous land use regulations,
known as the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). While the LDGS
opened up the possibility for commercial development to occur in all zone
districts, performance criteria were established which often prevented
commercial development, particularly along arterial streets.
One could argue that the present land use regulatory climate is actually less
restrictive than it has been in the past. The current code requirements open up
some new possibilities for certain neighborhood -scale commercial uses such as
modest office facilities, business services and day care centers. These
possibilities are expanded primarily due to the adoption of mixed use zone
districts as a part of City Plan.
Why did the community adopt commercial separation requirements?
These code limitations have always been a response to proliferation of
commercial developments along arterial streets and that fall outside of
established commercial districts. The limits address those commercial
uses which tend to generate high traffic volumes, have high visibility, and
strong corporate image needs, such as retail and restaurants. Proliferation
The applicant has, however, raised legitimate questions about the City's adopted
policies and code standards that would justify further analysis and discussion of
the commercial separation requirements.
Since staff was recently directed by City Council to review all use separation
standards within the LUC as part of the fall 2005 Land Use Code amendments, it
would be most appropriate and efficient to analyze the applicant's request as part
of this larger land use policy discussion. The schedule for this next cycle of the
biannual Land Use Code amendments would result in any code changes
becoming effective approximately January 1, 2006.
Although it is staffs preference to delay further evaluation of issues surrounding
the separation standards, the applicant has the right to submit a modification
request at the present time.
cc: Ted Shepard
Gregory Byrne
Paul Eckman
Peter Barnes
Pete Wray
• A driver can? see. the two closest fueling spots because they are located
off of Timberline Road. Therefore, visual proliferation shouldnI be an
issue.
• A fast food restaurant is allowed at this location with no separation
requirement. Are C stores Inherently less attractive than fast food
restaurants?
• Our intent is to have a well planned and architecturally coordinated
commercial center. Meaning that it is the developer's intent to use
matched or similar building materials, roo8ines and architectural details. A
well -coordinated and visually -coordinated color scheme is also planned.
We respectfully request that the City staff consider all of the facts and make an
interpretation as (to) whether or not we meet the Land Use Code because fuel
sales and retail sales are both allowed without a separation requirement. If staff
determines that the proposal does not meet the Land Use Code, then we would
like staff to re -consider whether or not they would support a Modification to the
"separation" requirement because of the mitigating factors stated above."
Note: five requests for Land use Code interpretation have been previously
submitted (#1-99, #4-99,#1-00,#1-02 and #2-03) addressing commercial
separation requirements of the Land Use Code, yet none have been applicable
to a property located within the Industrial -I zone district.
INTERPRETATION:
In response to the questions raised above:
Are the separation requirements met with the applicant's request?
No. Based on the strict application of the separation requirements found in
Section 4.23(B)(3)(c) and the method of measurement described in Section
1.4.10, the proposed location for the Timberline Center convenience store would
be less than the required % mile (3,960 feet) distance from the recently
constructed King Sooper's fueling station near Drake and Custer Drive and the
existing convenience store within the Spring Creek Center near Prospect and
Specht Point Roads. Therefore, the proposed Project Development Plan would
not comply with the standard.
Would staff support a request for modification to the separation requirement?
No. Based on the adopted City Plan policies and supporting text found within the
Land Use Code, staff would not support a modification at this time. A
Convenience store with fuel sales on the subject property will be oriented
primarily to the motoring public and not as a "complementary and supporting use"
to the industrial area as is explicitly stated in the Purpose section of the Industrial
District (4.2.3(A).
Commu.-._.y Planning and Environmental ,ervices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
DATE: July 1, 2605
SUBJECT: Administrative Interpretation #8-05 pertaining to the commercial
separation standards found in Section 4.23(B)(3)(c) of the Land
Use Code for Convenience retail stores with fuel sales within the
Industrial (1) zone district and application of such standards to the
Timberline Center PDP.
BACKGROUND
A request has been received to clarify the commercial use separation
requirements for Convenience retail store with fuel sales within the Industrial (1)
zone district. This particular question relates to the application of such standard
to the potential future Timberline Center PDP located along the west side of
Timberline Road approximately half way between Drake and Prospect Roads.
Gasoline stations, and retail uses less than 25,000 sq. ft. in gross leasable area,
are permitted within the I District with no separation requirement, yet
Convenience retail stores with fuel sales must be separated by at least % mile
(3,960 feet).
The applicant has submitted the following argument within the interpretation
request:
"Apparently it's okay to purchase fuel at the proposed location, but allowing that
fuel customer to purchase a jug of milk in the same trip is not acceptable. On the
other hand, our City Policies in general promote one -stop shopping because it
saves on vehicle miles traveled. We believe this inconsistency was not
intentional. Gas stations are allowed because it is the I -Industrial District. The
Zoning District that supposedly accommodates uses that are less attractive. To
deny the location of a C-store based on visual concerns seems inappropriate for
several reasons:
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
The result is that the setback distance along Bear Mountain Drive is 13 feet beyond the
required 15 feet. Therefore, the north side of Building B and the south side of Building C
do not meet the required 15-foot setback for 30% of the building's length.
The request is for a modification to allow a greater setback along Bear Mountain
Drive for Buildings B and C. The setback varies from 27 feet to 28.5 feet, but is not
15 feet for 30% of it's length.
Justification
A justification for this request per the Modification Criteria (Section 2.8.2(H) (1) is that
the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard. We believe the proposed project meets this criterion in the
following ways:
1. Setting the building back an additional 13.5 feet allows for more landscaping and
patio area for outdoor dining on the south side of Building C creating a more
attractive streetscape.
2. Setting Building B back an additional 13.5 feet would allow for an attractive
symmetrical streetscape appearance.
3. A connecting walkway is provided in the most convenient location to allow
pedestrians to enter the building without crossing driveways or parking lots.
lea
W ri�P'�SyA8BOC1AT6H INC
Le nasca pe Archileclore Urban Design Planning
Modification Request
Timberline Center PDP
Build -To Lines
November 23, 2005
This request is for a modification to the "build -to" line requirements as outlined in the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The modification being requested is from section
3.5.3 (B)(2)(a) and (b), Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking. This
regulation reads as follows:
(a) To establish "build -to " lines, buildings shall be located and designed to
align or approximately align with any previously established
building/sidewalk relationships that are consistent with this standard.
Accordingly, at least thirty (30) percent of the total length of the building
along the street shall be extended to the build -to line area. Ifa parcel, lot
or tract has multiple streets, then the building shall be built to at least two
(2) of them according to (b) through (d) below, i.e. to a street corner.
and;
(b) Buildings shall be located no more thanfifteen (I5) feet from the right-of-
way of adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has
on -street parking.
Pro-ect Descri lion
The Timberline Center property consists of 18.5 acres and is located south of Prospect
Road and north of Drake Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Timberline Center
will be a well -planned and architecturally coordinated commercial center consisting of
retail, restaurant, office, storage and auto related uses.
Modification
The west side of Building B is located approximately 11 feet from Joseph Allen Drive
right-of-way line, meeting the "build -to" line standard for an adjoining street smaller than
a full arterial street. The north side of Building B is located approximately 28 feet from
the Bear Mountain Drive right-of-way line not meeting the required 15-foot set back for
an adjoining street smaller than a full arterial street. The west side of the Building C is
located approximately 12 feet from the from Joseph Allen Drive right-of-way line,
meeting the "build -to" line standard for an adjoining street smaller than a fuU arterial
street. The south side of Building C is located approximately 28 feet from the Bear
Mountain Drive right-of-way line not meeting the required 15-foot set back for an
adjoining street smaller than a full arterial street.
Phone 970.224.5828 Fax 970.224.1662
401 Weal Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Fort GOltina, CO 80521-2604
vtripley.cpm
requested equally well as a plan which complies with the standard for which a
modification is being requested. Adjacent to the west propertyline is Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The railroad right-of-way varies from 174'
wide to 400' wide further to the north. In addition, the Parkwood East
neighborhood has a 65 foot buffer along the railroad right-of-way.
Mini storage units are proposed on the west side of the Timberline Center
development between Sagebrush Drive and the railroad right-of-way. The
back of the storage units will be generously landscaped and building mounted
lighting will have cut off shields hiding the light source and allowing no light
spillage beyond the property line.
2. The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the Land Use
Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan; and will continue to advance the
proposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
X
v r RiP1py.sC`CIATE6 INC
LancIseape Architecture Urban Design Planning
Modification Request
Timberline Center PDP
Landscape Buffer
November 23, 2005
This request is for a modification to the "Screening" requirements as outlined in the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The modification being requested is from section 4.23
(E)(3)(a)(2), Development Standards, Building Design, Screening. This regulation reads
as follows:
(2) A minimum thirty-foot landscaped yard shall be provided along all
arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin
a residential land use. If a boundary line abuts upon or is within a street
right-of-way, then the required landscaped yard shall commence at the
street right-of-way line on the district side of the street, rather than at the
district boundary line. This requirement shall not apply to development
plans that comply with the standards contained in Section 3.5.3.
Project Description
The Timberline Center property consists of 18.5 acres and is located south of Prospect
Road and north of Drake Road on the west side of Timberline Road. The western
boundary of the project runs in a north/south direction, paralleling railroad property.
Timberline Center will be a well -planned and architecturally coordinated commercial
center consisting of retail, restaurant, office, storage and auto related uses.
Modification
The west side of the site is designed for mini -storage. This is a low traffic and pedestrian
use. The storage units will be set back from the west property line 20.5 feet.
The request is for a modification to allow a 20.5 foot setback along Timberline
Center's west property line.
Justification
A justification for this request per the Modification Criteria (Section 2.8.2(H) (1) is that
the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard. We believe the proposed project meets this criterion in the
following ways:
Setting the building 20.5 feet from the west property line in this situation will
still promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
Phone 970.224.5828 Fax 970,224.1662
401 West Mountaln Ave. Suite 201
Fort COMM. CO 80521-2604
vtriploy.corh
complies with the standard. We believe the proposed project meets this criterion in the
following ways:
The center as a whole is designed to encourage pedestrian movement throughout
the site. Walkways are placed at convenient locations to provide direct,
convenient and safe pedestrian access to all uses in the center. Crosswalks are
provided to increase awareness where pedestrians and vehicles share the drive.
2. The drive-thru is placed behind the building away from the interior of the center.
This separates the vehicular use from the "pedestrian" side of the development.
V , ^iP1c=_y pl:,.8 INC
Land SCape Architecture Urban OeSlgn Vlanniny
Modification Request
Timberline Center PDP
Pedestrian Connectivity
November 23, 2005
This request is for a modification to the "Orientation to a Connecting Walkway"
requirement as outlined in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The modification
being requested is from section 3.5.3 (B)(1). This regulation reads as follows:
(1) At least one (1) main entrance of any commercial or mixed -use building
shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian
frontage. Any building which has only vehicle bays and/or service doors
for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment, strorage or
similar rooms (e.g. self-service car washes and self -serve mini -storage
warehouses) shall be exemptfrom this standard.
Project Description
The Timberline Center property consists of 18.5 acres and is located south of Prospect
Road and north of Drake Road on the west side of Timberline Road. Timberline Center
will be a well -planned and architecturally coordinated commercial center consisting of
retail, restaurant, office, storage and auto related uses.
Modification
The Timberline Center development is proposing a drive-thru restaurant with a single
drive-thru lane along the southern property line between Timberline Road and Sage
Brush Drive. The front of the restaurant is oriented to face towards the interior of the
convenience shopping center with the drive-thru lane wrapping around the back side of
the building. Sidewalk access from Sage Brush Drive into the convenience center is
provided at several convenient locations along the public street sidewalk. However, in
order to access the main entrance of the fast food drive, the pedestrian will cross an
interior driveway. A cross walk is provided to make this crossing as safe as possible.
The request is for a modification to allow a drive-thru restaurant with a connecting
walk crossing a drive-thru lane.
Justification
A justification for this request per the Modification Criteria (Section 2.8.2(H) (1) is that
the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than would a plan which
Phone 970.224.5828 Fax 970.224.1662
401 West Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Fon Collins. CO 60521-2604
vtnPley.00rn
Prospect Road and Specht Point Road. We understand that the purpose of the separation
requirement is to limit the proliferation of c-stores in Fort Collins, primarily because of
their visual impact (see attached map illustrating separation distances). In this particular
case, we believe that there are circumstances that make a strict application of the LUC
illogical and not necessarily in the community's best interest.
• A gas station is allowed in the I District with no separation requirement.
• Retail stores are allowed in the I District with no separation requirement
Apparently it's okay to purchase fuel at the proposed location, but allowing that fuel
customer to purchase a jug of milk in the same trip is not acceptable. On the other hand,
our City Policies in general promote one -stop shopping because it saves on vehicle miles
traveled. The City Structure Plan states "the goal is to work towards more complete
neighborhood over time, so more of our daily needs are met closer to home. This will
reduce our dependence on driving as well as help avoid further degradation of our city's
air quality. We believe this inconsistency was not intentional. Gas stations are allowed
because it is the I -Industrial District. The Zoning District that supposedly accommodates
less attractive uses. To deny the location of a C-Store based on visual concerns seems
inappropriate for several reasons:
A driver can't see the two closest fueling spots because they are located off of
Timberline Road. Therefore visual proliferation shouldn't be an issue.
A Fast Food restaurant is allowed at this location with no separation requirement.
We don't believe C-Stores are inherently less attractive than fast food restaurants.
Our intent is to have a well -planned and architecturally coordinated commercial
center. Meaning that it is the developer's intent to use matched or similar
building materials, rooflines and architectural details. A well -coordinated and
visually coordinated color scheme is also planned.
The convenience store would be easily accessible by a 7 foot detached walk to be built
with the Timberline Road improvements a connecting sidewalk to the store.
V r F1i Pi4,=y."CiCJATE5 INC
La ndscepe Archllectu re uroan pvsign Planning
Modification Request
Timberline Center PDP
Convenience Store Separation
November 23, 2005
This request is for a modification to the convenience store separation requirements as
outlined in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The modification being requested is
from section 4.23 (B)(3)(c)(5), Permitted Uses, CommerciaURetail. This regulation reads
as follows:
(S) Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided that they are at least
three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three quarters [314] of a
mile) from any other such use and from any fueling station.
Project Description
The Timberline Center property consists of 18.5 acres and is located south of Prospect
Road and north of Drake Road on the west side of Timberline Road. The western
boundary of the project runs in a north/south direction, paralleling railroad property.
Timberline Center will be a well -planned and architecturally coordinated commercial
center consisting of retail, restaurant, office, storage and auto servicing and maintenance
spaces.
Modification
The Timberline Center development is proposing a convenience store (c-store) with fuel
sales at the comer of Timberline Road and Bear Mountain Drive, a new road to be
created with this development.
The request is for a modification to allow a convenience store with fuel sales at this
location.
Justification
A justification for this request per the Modification Criteria (Section 2.8.2(H) (1) is that
the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard. We believe the proposed project meets this criterion in the
following ways:
In this case, the proposed c-store is located approximately 3,700 feet from the King
Sooper fueling station located on Drake Road just east of Timberline Road and
approximately 2,700 feet from the Spring Creek Center C-Store located on the corner of
Phone 970.224.5828 Fax 970.224.1882
401 West Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2804
vIriploy.com
The landscape plan for the project will utilize the following xeriscape principles:
Plant material with low to moderate water requirements
Limited turf areas
Effective use of soil amendments
An efficient irrigation system
Appropriate maintenance
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to working with you
during the development review process.
Sincerely,
//
V 5 2J/
Sandy McFeron
VF Ripley Associates, Inc.
encouraged from place of residence to transit, schools, activity centers,
work and public facilities.
Policy T-5.2 Connections
The Timberline Center development will be clearly visible from the street and
accessible from the surrounding developments. The project will provide a
network of sidewalks connecting pedestrian and bicyclists to different parts of the
development.
PRINCIPLE T-9: Private automobiles will continue to be an important
means of transportation.
Policy T-9.2 New and Existing Roadways
The extension of Joseph Allen Drive and the new road created with Timberline
Center will be designed and constructed to ensure an acceptable level of service
in and out of the development and onto Timberline Road.
PRINCIPLE CAD-3: Commercial developments create a powerful
Impression of the city, both individually and taken together as a whole.
While corporate franchises and chain stores will remain vital and
recognizable, commercial developments will be designed to contribute to
Port Collins' distinct visual quality and uniqueness.
Policy CAD-3.1 Modification of Standardized Commercial Architecture.
Policy CAD-3.2 Compatibility with Surrounding Development.
Timberline Center will be a well planned and architecturally coordinated
commercial. The buildings will be similar in architectural style, detail, building
materials, rooflines and color scheme.
PRINCIPLE CAD-4 Security and crime prevention will continue to be
Important factors in urban design.
Policy CAD-4. Crime Prevention and Security.
Policy CAD-4. Lighting and Landscaping.
Timberline Center will be designed and landscaped to provide a safe
environment for customers and employees by providing appropriate lighting
around buildings and parking areas and avoiding creating hidden areas within the
landscaping.
PRINCIPLE ENV-3: Drinking water provided by the City's Water Utility will
meet or exceed customer expectations for quality, quantity and reliability.
Water Conservation will be strongly encouraged.
Policy ENV-3.3: Water Demand Management
of the building more accessible and visually more appealing to pedestrians
coming from the parking lot. Unfortunately, this means that a pedestrian
approaching the site from a public street sidewalk would have to cross a
driveway to reach the building entrance. The sidewalk allows the
pedestrian to mach the building in a logical convenient way that is safe.
The approach is identifiable, direct and incorporates a painted crosswalk.
3. The third modification is a request to allow a 20.5-foot setback along
Timberline Center's west property line. The west side of the site is
designed for mini -storage. Adjacent to the west property line is the Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way. In addition, a 65-foot buffer exists between
the nearest lots and the railroad right-of-way.
4. The fourth modification is a request to allow a greater setback along Bear
Mountain Drive for Buildings B and C. The set back as proposed will vary
from 27-feet to 28.5-feet in lieu of 15-feet for 30% of the building length.
We believe Timberline Center will be a valuable asset to the community providing
support for the employment uses in the Timberline corridor and providing
convenience for residential neighborhoods in the vicinity.
City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed
Timberline Center Project Development Plan
PRINCIPLE LU-1: Growth within the city will promote a compact
development pattern within a well-defined boundary.
Policy LU-1.1 Compact Urban Form
This project is located in an area that is rapidly growing. This project will be an
infill project to what is already currently developed and new projects currently in
construction. The uses proposed by this development will be an asset to the
surrounding area.
PRINCIPLE LU-2: The city will maintain and enhance its character and
sense of place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts,. corridors, and
edges.
Policy LU-2.1 City -Wide Structure
This project will compliment the surrounding land uses and promote a compact
development with a unique identity.
PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a viable
transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in balance with all
other modes. Direct pedestrian connections will be provided and
space in a variety of sizes. The facility is screened on all sides with building
walls and/or security fencing. The facility is generously landscaped around the
entire perimeter with evergreen trees on the north, south and west sides and a
combination of evergreen, deciduous and ornamental trees on the east side
along Joseph Allen Drive.
Primary vehicular access to the site is from Timberline Road. A three -quarter -
movement access consisting of right -in, right -out, left -in turning movements is
centrally located along the Timberline frontage. The access is controlled by a
median in Timberline Road proposed as part of the Timberline Road Interim
Improvements scheduled for construction this fall. Secondary access is from
Nancy Gray Street located to the south onto Joseph Allen Drive. This project will
extend Joseph Allen Drive to the north property line and will create a new public
street connecting Timberline Road to Joseph Allen Drive.
The site plan is organized to create a pedestrian friendly environment with a
centrally located, efficient field of parking, which allows the user to access
several businesses without moving his car. Pedestrian circulation is enhanced
both functionally and visually with crosswalks, landscaping and periodic plaza
spaces for outdoor dining and/or just taking a break.
Modifications:
1. While all of the land uses are permitted in the Industrial Zone district, the
project as designed does require four modifications. Justifications for the
Modifications are submitted as separate documents and are only briefly
described here. The first Modification Request has to do with the
separation requirement for Convenience Stores. While the proposed
location at the southwest comer of Timberline Road and Bear Mountain
Drive does not meet he separation distance, ironically a gas station and/or
a retail store would be allowed at the same location in this zone district. It
appears that fuel sales are okay, but if a customer can also pick up a jug
of milk in the same trip at the "convenience store", than the separation
requirement comes into play.
If the Planning and Zoning Board denies the Modification Request for
relief from the convenience store separation requirement, then the
applicant would propose a drive-thru restaurant in it's place. Rather than
come back through the process with that change we have submitted an
alternative plan showing a drive-thru restaurant in lieu of the convenience
store at the comer of Timberline Road and Bear Mountain Drive.
2. The applicant is also proposing a retaiVrestaurant use at the south end of
the project with a drive-thru component. The drive-thru restaurant is a
permitted use in the Industrial Zone District. The site plan is designed to
allow the drive-thru component to go behind the building, leaving the front
X
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Pfenning
November 23, 2005
Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Planning Objectives for Timberline Center Project Development Plan
Dear Ted:
The Timberline Center property consists of 18.5 acres and is located south of
Prospect Road and north of Drake Road on the west side of Timberline Road.
The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way borders the property on the west. A
narrow piece of undeveloped land is located south of the property and the new.
Police Service Center is proposed to be located south of that property along
Nancy Gray Street. A traffic signal is planned at the intersection of Nancy Grey
Street and Timberline Road in the future. Side Hill, a residential community, is
under construction across Timberline Road to the east and industrial uses exist
to the north.
The northern portion of the property is currently zoned Industrial District (1), while
the southern portion is currently zoned Transition District (T). The applicant is
concurrently requesting rezoning of the southern portion to the industrial District
(1). (see the Re -Zoning Justification attached)
Timberline Center will be a well -planned and architecturally coordinated
commercial center consisting of retail, restaurant, office, storage and auto -related
land uses. A convenience shopping center with associated auto -related land
uses is proposed east of Joseph Allen Drive. This area includes a total of 77,600
square feet of development in 10 buildings. In addition to the convenience
shopping center and auto -related uses a 9,000 square foot bank and a 4,100
square foot convenience store are proposed with this development. With the
exception of a 2-story office building and a 2-story bank, the buildings are
predominantly one-story with the potential for some second story office space.
The buildings are planned to be similar in architectural style, detail, building
materials, rooflines and color scheme.
A storage facility is planned west of Joseph Allen Drive adjacent to the railroad
right-of-way. The storage facility includes 80,500 square feet of self -storage
Phone 970.224.5828 FaX 970.224.1662
401 Weal Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Port Collins. CO 80521-2604
vinpley.corn
IIIIIIIII�IIII oil
YIg'II!!I!Iilllll _
��� ��� Illllvlll lllilllll! _�lim011lul I� IIII1�I .� imam �� R� �� �.� �.� ��I�l0 �s� �elru_Ii
OFFICE/RETAIL
OFFICE/RETAIL
w 111. re
n III i .
_ I I/III lIIIIIIIIIIIII! IIIII IIIIIIJVIIIIIIII,duluulll h,,.
IIIIIUII° iiii I II - _I I lu'�/\�'
����-=��-�II♦���� - II .. Bon■ - w■Bonn
11RE SERVICE LUBE SERVICE
EAST STREET ELEVATION FROM TIMBERLINE ROAD
EAST STREET ELEVATION FROM SAGE BRUSH DRIVE
Roo( T
KANi / �aaq R/lat 4
ENLARGED STORAGE BUILDIND WALL
...W-1
RETAIL/SERVICE
m w.ra
A4NR! fM4E9
.ETK 11001W0
TNI / a1M0YL
s�R / plml
9MII1[TC lIULm
T/ - .qIC
WSl11Y
im Nl / BRm OYM
S,a6A0XT.wR
AIOIII / OEai
6MIMTC SIUIC
1M1 / .1dM
FLEISCHLI
TIMBERLINE CENTER
ELEVATIONS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
� , i , mo !NM MIIFCF AK
r(�an) asuxs m emm
(IYO mY-nn ,opl/mph
No Text
No Text
= tj. <[� i f
�(il81 ° e¢ oa lea iJ[E :E11� !Ba 2J�1NE3J ,S ��
LLi��d I lei 3le�Ilk °!i :).�!! arvnaaawr.i ��k '' ` "
< :a!Q�a :lJill) !!aI
QQI 6rQ�d it riff .•: 1lttQ[ : HIM ! R( r 1 ! t t
1, IiiE �1���11ie�� t��j� t ,f:;j ��ct!�;i, i��'��i'; iEj � I�! � E ! E E E E � i t I � a 1 �•$
ii i,tltiiit !hr,'a I�:r; t�t:i#it �iu{ei �Ei tii` a t}t
l ii j • i
!i°!r i I.jll� r� h:!�i:14 ! ri Etrit! ii; t 1: ; i
IL rill i i r• I'i �l !rr = 1.la,El.r i E� •ir [ ; i� '! r r r i i
a E ri riL;r!ity� I..ti riit «1'!r tr' t �1; E 1, Ilri Mll !i l
n,•rl, r� i ialr,af at �Ii r� airr x° g!,fiia f ii L t a €
:itE'tEE�t1E�E!=E#lrtEEE�r:EE�:' [ II t`
9 it I;iil 9iii�9ililr if
i�i;B�16PP�l�I
p �Mr• E ; j i} Et�! iGBi i 9 I l d� a j I E i
F frl I
IEEl � � • j
c•! �` !la=ls El' i
11 t1!!EIil ,i iil t 6 rl ie 2 E I E r E¢ 3 1 E
!/11.
If I ill ii !i Ili �lii E ��IEriii �a�i! 1 �I� E F tY� pi i g 1
¢- n t t[ tat r a!
nse nv� _
Hal
on il
If
I 5 i11E "[ � � [ •.m �1 I i
' R I
g
�� �I •ja eI I� Q��l i€ • ,„f - p@,i ` �s�' '' I .�00
siQ€
I
ii c erwa wue,AN move
E ' 1 QSi • ell a i— I II 4I f-X i j
' EI
VEEP —
If i[ l e I, , a I ------- 1 Q _i y!r� III I {
I II
l�
dl ! •s el I aq [ i I i' l r��I[€,1 I i' _ � � I h :I '
y'r
a. nov xrr Ip�I 'I�I'
�ia.fi 1 it
i• i I I I
---------------- -- --
uc ----- i
r�xec+u enow®wlmv[ry •I ! ... scmina�
INpNP1161C Mrwym
rrawn 1 1
I wAwt _ I I
,
! •qw
rwwiww
I !
�I �I �� M• \ •v ■ A
1 la o
r wlu .
StMr141r �•••••I•' a,..NO� mueq;pl,/,.V, �
II U m
_ wv 1
wmrlo.n+c Mlwro
Pnmenn
+
W11F
7
GENERAL
NOTES
. w_ _. .._
_ ..
_._i ■— . _
_ .—.... _
_ _
,..w-�..,�._,. mow..+--...,_.
ar
RiiC
t YOM]O
—
.
'mow
LAND USE STATISMS
Mn=
s
VFRlpley
rwlor..mrm,
P IIO.M•
II MF�
PtAWNG GERTIFX E
..rm. E' '• g I i ..-,...',� .,.gym,. LEGEND
}f�
—
` - D43'G,L
: ( r_ m OWNERS CERTFICATM a/
I I ---=- I ... �� WZ
/ I
1 CC
_ ... i1 • —
lI —�
OWNERS CERTIFICATION
0 20eo _
ddd Mt b tlA q.bey 14v.
imherline Center 11/18/05 N
Third Modification
1 inch equals 300 feet
EPIC !
MMN
EL
0 N
Oa
C<L w
III C
VACANT LMN
SIDEHILL
NANCY GRAY A
POLICE
FACILITY 1
T
T
MN
#41-05A Timberline Center PDP 10112/05 N
Type II
1 inch equals 600 feet
4. Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification to Section
3.5.3(B)(2) regarding the build -to lines for Buildings B and C.
5. Staff recommends approval of Timberline Center P.D.P., subject to the
following conditions:
A. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the request to rezone 16.13
acres of the P.D.P. from T, Transition to I, Industrial must be
approved by City Council on Second Reading.
B. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, architectural elevations for
Building E shall be provided that demonstrate compatibility through
cohesive and unified architecture with the established architectural
character of all buildings within the center with the exception of the
Enclosed Mini -Storage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff makes the following recommendations regarding Timberline
Center P.D.P.:
1. Staff recommends denial of the Request for Modification to Section
4.23(B)(3)(c)(5) regarding the % mile separation for Building K1.
2. Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification to Section
3.2.2(H) and 3.5.3(B)(1), regarding the relationship of the building to the
connecting walkway for Building E, subject to the following conditions:
A. The connecting walkway and crosswalk to Building A to the west
shall be redesigned so that the walkway does not make two 90-
degree angles but continues in a straight alignment similar to the
connection to the bank to the east. The three parking spaces
should be eliminated or redesigned in such a way as to not
discourage or convolute pedestrian travel. Such redesign would
further compliance with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) — Walkways.
B. The north -south walkway that connects Building E to Building F
shall be redesigned so that pedestrians have an unobstructed
walkway to the building entrance.
C. The area associated with the drive-thru lane, pick-up window and
cashier window shall be buffered more effectively to mitigate the
impact on future development. This area shall upgraded with a
dense planting of evergreen trees so that future uses in the
Employment zone are properly screened. This screening
enhancement would further compliance with Section 3.2.1(E)(6) —
Screening.
D. `The patio area shall be moved to the east near the front entrance.
The patio should feature a sufficient amount of trees, planted in
grates if necessary, to shade the customers. Such redesign would
further compliance with Section 3.2.2(C)(3) — Site Amenities.
3. Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification to Section
4.23(E)(3) regarding screening along the west edge of the Enclosed Mini -
Storage buildings.
7. A Request for Modification to Section 3.5.3(B)(2) — Orientation to Build -To
Lines for Streetfront Buildings — has been submitted for Buildings B and C.
Staff concludes that the Modification Request results in a plan that would
not be detrimental to the public good, and that because of the additional
space gained by the patio area, and that connecting walkways are
retained to Joseph Allen Drive, the plan is equal to or better than a plan
that would otherwise comply with the standard.
Also, from the perspective of the overall length of the Bear Mountain
streetscape, the plan does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective
of the entire development plan.
8. Architectural character elevations have not been submitted for Building E,
a drive-thru restaurant.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS
In reviewing the request for Timberline Center P.D.P., Staff makes
the following conclusions and findings of fact:
1. A request to rezone the property from T, Transition, to I, Industrial
accompanies this P.D.P.
2. The land uses within the P.D.P. represent a mix of secondary and service
oriented uses allowed within the Industrial zone district with one exception.
3. Building K1 is a Convenience Retail Store with Fuel Sales that is not
separated from the nearest similar use by the requisite % mile. It is within
this specified distance of two such facilities. A Request for Modification to
this standard has been submitted.
Staff concludes that the Modification Request is detrimental to the public
good; and the plan as proposed, would not be equal to or better than a
plan that would otherwise meet the separation requirement.
4. The P.D.P. complies with the Land Development Standards of the
Industrial zone district with one exception. A Request for Modification to
Section 4.23(E)(3) — Screening — has been submitted for the western edge
of the Enclosed Mini -Storage buildings.
Staff concludes that the Modification Request results in a plan that would
not be detrimental to the public good, and that because of the additional
separation gained by railroad right-of-way and City -owned natural area,
the plan is equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with
the standard.
5. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards
with two exceptions.
6. A Request for Modification to Section 3.2.2(H) — Drive -In Facilities and
Section 3.5.3(B)(1) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and
Parking — has been submitted for Building E.
Staff concludes that the Modification Request results in a plan that would
not be detrimental to the public good, and would be equal to or better than
a plan that would otherwise comply with the standard but only upon
satisfaction of four conditions.
Fourth Modification — Buildings B & C
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
5. Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request, and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)1. provides for an exception to this standard
in order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio
or garden between a building and the sidewalk.
B. The connecting walkways will continue to be preserved linking the
public sidewalk to building entrances without crossing an
intervening drive aisle.
C. The matching setback lines will provide a more attractive
streetscape design than if the buildings were offset.
D. The magnitude of deviation of 13 feet will not diverge from the
standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire length of Bear
Mountain Drive
E. The Modification would result in a plan that is equal to orbetter
than a plan that would otherwise comply with the two standards.
Fourth Modification — Buildings B & C
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
Buildings B and C are at the corner of Joseph Allen Drive and Bear Mountain
Drive. Although both buildings comply with the build -to line along Joseph Allen,
both buildings are setback from Bear Mountain by greater than 15 feet.
2. Description of the Modification:
Both Buildings B and C are setback from Bear Mountain by 28 feet. Therefore,
they are out of compliance by 13 feet.
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has submitted written justification for this Modification which is
attached. The applicant states that the Modification will serve the standard
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard.
Briefly, the applicant contends:
• For Building C, setting the building back allows for more
landscaping and patio area for outdoor dining on the south side of
the building.
• For Building B, setting the building back in a likewise manner
creates a symmetrical streetscape along Bear Mountain which is
more attractive than asymmetrical building placement.
• Connecting walkways are still preserved.
• The build -to line along Joseph Allen is also preserved.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
The long sides of the buildings along Joseph Allen Drive will continue to meet the
build -to line. The introduction of viable outdoor dining on a south -facing patio will
lend a measure of pedestrian friendliness to a center that otherwise provides a
significant number of auto -related services.
FOURTH MODIFICATION —BUILDINGS B & C
RELATIONSHIP OF BUILDINGS TO
STREETS, WALKWAYS AND PARKING
ORIENTATION TO BUILD -TO LINES
FOR STREETFRONT BUILDINGS
SECTION 3.5.3(13)(2)(a)(b)
The Standard at Issue:
This standard requires that buildings on corner lots be brought up to the corner
so that the building is not more than 15 feet from the right-of-way. The code
reads as follows:
(2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Build -to lines based
on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall
be established by development projects for new buildings and, to
the extent reasonably feasible, by development projects for
additions or modifications of existing buildings, in order to form
visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented street fronts with no
vehicle use area between building faces and the street.
(a) To establish "build -to" lines,. buildings shall be located
and designed to align or approximately align with any
previously established building/sidewalk relationships that
are consistent with this standard. Accordingly, at least
thirty (30) percent of the total length of the building along
the street shall be extended to the build -to line area. If a
parcel, lot or tract has multiple streets, then the building
shall be built to at least two (2) of them according to (b)
through (d) below, i.e. to a street comer. If there is a choice
of two (2) or more corners, then the building shall be built
to the comer that is projected to have the most pedestrian
activity associated with the building.
(b) Buildings shall be located no more than fifteen (15) feet
from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is
smaller than a full arterial or has on -street parking.
Third Modification — Mini -Storage Buildings
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has submitted written justification for this Modification which is
attached. The applicant states that the Modification will serve the standard
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard.
Briefly, the applicant contends:
• The total separation distance from Parkwood East Subdivision
would be 240.5 feet due to the railroad right-of-way.
• The total separation distance from Parkwood East Apartments
would be 420 feet due to the railroad right-of-way.
• Within the 20.5 foot setback, there will be significant landscape
screening.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
Obviously, the railroad right-of-way and City of Fort Collins natural area provide
additional buffer well beyond the 30-foot landscaped yard. This distance is a
significant separation.
5. Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request, and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. Combined with the setback, the railroad right-of-way and City
Natural Area, the total separation distance from Parkwood East
Subdivision is 240 feet and from Parkwood East Apartments is 420
feet.
B. The 20.5 foot setback along the western property line will be
landscaped.
C. Because of these intervening parcels, the Modification would still
result in a plan that is equal to or better than a plan that would
otherwise comply with the standard.
THIRD MODIFICATION — MINI -STORAGE BUILDINGS
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SITE DESIGN AND SCREENING
SECTION 4.23(E)(3)(a)2.
1. The Standard at Issue:
Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2. is a development standard in the Industrial zone district.
It is intended to buffer zone districts that are of lesser intensity. Since the west
property line abuts the R-L, and M-M-N zones, the standard is applicable and a
30-foot landscaped yard is required. The applicant is providing a 20.5 foot
setback resulting in a 9.5 foot deficit. The code reads as follows:
A minimum thirty-foot deep landscaped yard shall be provided along all arterial
streets, and along any district boundary line. that does not adjoin a residential land
use. If a district boundary line abuts upon or is within a street right-of-way, then
the required landscaped yard shall commence at the street right-of-way line on the
district side of the street, rather than at the district boundary line. This
requirement shall not apply to development plans that comply with the standards
contained in Section 3.5.3.
The west property line divides the zone districts and abuts railroad right-of-way.
The residential developments, Parkwood East Subdivision and Parkwood East
Apartments are separated by Timberline Center by this right-of-way.
The western property line of Timberline Center is 920 feet in length. For 380 feet
of this length, the railroad right-of-way is 150 feet wide. For 540 feet of this
length, the right-of-way is 400 feet wide to accommodate railroad spurs. In
addition, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas owns a strip of land between the
railroad right-of-way and the Parkwood East Subdivision that is 70 feet wide.
(See attached map.)
The interpretation of the standard is that the western property line of Timberline
Center abuts a district boundary line but does not adjoin a residential land use.
Therefore, the 30-foot landscaped yard is applicable in this case.
2. Description of the Modification:
There are three enclosed mini -storage buildings along the west property line.
They are set back 20.5 feet versus the required 30 feet.
Second Modification — Building E
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
to shade the customers. Such redesign would further compliance
with Section 3.2.2(C)(3) — Site Amenities.
5. Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification subject to the four conditions as
outlined above. In evaluating the request, and in fulfillment of the requirements
of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. Building E is located internal to a multi -building industrial service
center and does not have street frontage. It is located 220 feet
west of Timberline Road and 140 feet east of Joseph Allen Drive.
B. While the placement of the drive-thru lane on the rear of the
building subordinates the vehicle use area to the pedestrian area,
such location also shifts the impact onto the abutting parcel to the
south.
C. The Modification, as conditioned by Staff, would result in a plan that
is equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with
the two standards.
Second Modification — Building E
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
pedestrian or bicyclist. City Plan encourages commercial districts to level the
playing field so opportunities for alternative modes are safe and practical.
As designed, Building E does not promote the needs of pedestrians or bicyclists.
Staff is also concerned about placing an intense vehicular use area along the
district boundary line shared with the Employment zone.
Staff would be able to support a Modification, but only if the design includes the
following upgrades in order to be considered equal to or better than a plan that
would otherwise comply with the standard:
A. The connecting walkway and crosswalk to Building A to the west is
offset and indirect for the sole purpose of providing three parking
spaces. This area shall be redesigned so that the walkway does
not make two 90-degree angles but continues in a straight
alignment similar to the connection to the bank to the east. The
three parking spaces shall be eliminated or redesigned in such a
way as to not discourage or convolute pedestrian travel. Such
redesign would further compliance with Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) —
Walkways.
B. The north -south walkway that connects Building E to Building F
shall not terminate in a parking stall. Space shall be provided
between stalls so that pedestrians have an unobstructed walkway
to the building entrance.
C. The south property line is a district boundary line with the
Employment zone. The area associated with the drive-thru lane,
pick-up window and cashier window shall be buffered more
effectively to mitigate the impact on future development. This area
shall be upgraded with a dense planting of evergreen trees so that
future uses in the Employment zone are properly screened. This
screening enhancement would further compliance with Section
3.2.1(E)(6) — Screening.
D. The outdoor patio is located at the rear of the restaurant. Since this
is also the service and loading area and includes mechanical
equipment, this is not an attractive or practical location. This
location is also close to the stacking lane and idling cars. The patio
shall be moved to the east near the front entrance. The patio shall
feature a sufficient amount of trees, planted in grates if necessary,
Second Modification — Building E
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that
directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without
requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings
or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route.
2. Description of the Modification:
Building E is designated as a drive-thru restaurant and is a component of the
convenience shopping center portion of the overall P.D.P. The building is
located at the southern edge of the project where the south property line abuts
the Employment zone. Access to the building is from internal parking lot drive
aisles as there is no public street frontage. Due to the circulation needs for a
drive-thru restaurant, the building is unable to provide an entrance that opens
directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. Therefore, Building
E does not meet the two applicable standards.
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has submitted written justification for this Modification which is
attached. The applicant states that the Modification will serve the standard
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard.
Briefly, the applicant contends:
• The center as a whole is designed to encourage pedestrian
movement throughout the site. Walkways are placed at convenient
locations to provide direct, convenient and safe pedestrian access
to all uses in the center. Crosswalks are provided to increase
awareness where pedestrians and vehicles share the drive.
• The drive-thru is placed behind the building away from the interior
of the center. This separates the vehicular use from the
"pedestrian" side of the development.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
Staff acknowledges the fact that Building E is located internal to the center and
not along a public street. The fundamental goal of the standard is to design a
viable shopping area where the needs of the vehicle do not overly dominate the
SECOND MODIFICATION — BUILDING E
RELATIONSHIP OF BUILDINGS TO
STREETS, WALKWAYS AND PARKING
SECTION 3.5.3(B)(1)
And
DRIVE-IN FACILITIES
SECTION 3.2.2(H)
1. The Standards at Issue:
While there are two standards at issue, they both essentially require that
buildings not become islands surrounded by private drives due to drive-thru
facilities. The two code sections and a definition read as follows:
3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. At least one (1) main entrance of any
commercial or mixed -use building shall face and open directly
onto a connecting. walkway with pedestrian frontage. Any building,
which has only vehicle bays and/or service doors for
intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment, storage or
similar rooms (e.g. self -serve car washes and self -serve mini -
storage warehouses) shall he exempt from this standard.
(H) Drive-in Facilities. Any drive-in facilities, if permitted by the zone
district regulations set forth in Article 4, shall be secondary in emphasis
and priority to any other access and circulation functions. Such facilities
shall be located in side or rear locations that do not interrupt direct
pedestrian access along connecting pedestrian frontage. The design and
layout of drive-in facilities for restaurants, banks, or other uses shall:
(1) avoid potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts;
(2) provide adequate stacking spaces for automobiles before and after use of the
facility;
(3) provide adequate directional signage to ensure a free -flow through the
facility; and
(4) provide a walk-up service option as well as drive-in.
First Modification — Building K1
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
The commercial separation requirements have been recently reviewed by City
Council at their October 26, 2005 worksession. After review of the separation
requirements, Council indicated support of the status quo. The report to Council
is attached as supplemental information on this issue.
5. Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends denial of the Modification. In evaluating the request, and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4) Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. Convenience retail stores with fuel sales are allowed in the
Industrial zone for the purpose of complementing and supporting
industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing and
distribution and the like. Building K1 of Timberline Center,
however, is oriented to the major arterial, not an industrial area.
B. The plan as proposed would contribute to the proliferation of
convenience stores with fuel sales by being located less than
mile from two existing facilities.
C. The plan as proposed would. not be equal to or better than would a
plan that complies with the standard.
First Modification — Building K1
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
• A gas station (without a convenience store) is a permitted use in
the Industrial zone (and does not have to be a component of a
convenience shopping center). It is a Type One use and there is
no separation requirement.
• A retail store is a permitted use in the Industrial zone (but only if a
component of convenience shopping center). It is a Type Two use
and there is no separation requirement.
• But the combination is not allowed thereby preventing a customer
from jointly purchasing convenience grocery items while fueling a
vehicle. Linking trips, and reducing miles traveled relieves road
congestion and contributes to improving air quality.
•. There is no visual proliferation issue since the two existing facilities
would not be seen from Timberline Center.
• A fast food restaurant is a permitted use in the Industrial zone. It is
a Type Two use and there is no separation requirement. From a
visual perspective, both a fast food restaurant and convenience
retail store with fuel sales are comparable.
• The center will be unified with cohesive architecture that is
attractive thereby minimizing the visual and aesthetic concerns
typically associated with convenience stores and gas canopies.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
It is important to review the purpose statement of the Industrial zone district:
(A) Purpose. The Industrial District is intended to provide a location for a variety
of work processes and work places such as manufacturing, warehousing and
distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and
industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary
and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, child care centers and
housing.
The purpose statement clearly expects that convenience shopping is to be
complementary and supporting to primary industrial uses. Timberline Center, at
22 acres of non -primary uses, however, is a destination unto itself expressly
designed to attract and capture traffic associated with a major arterial street. It is
not an industrial -serving use that is subordinate to and complements an industrial
district. From its prominent location along both the major arterial and the local
street, it is clear that the convenience store with fuel sales is oriented primarily to
the motoring public and not as a "complementary and supporting use."
FIRST MODIFICATION — BUILDING K1
3/4 MILE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR
CONVENIENCE RETAIL STORE WITH FUEL SALES
SECTION 4.23(B)(c)5.
The Standard at Issue:
Section 4.23(B)(c)5. is the permitted use list for the Industrial zone district. The
uses listed in this section are subject to review by the Planning and Zoning
Board. This use is specifically qualified such that it must be at least % of a mile
from any similar use. The code reads as follows:
"5. Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided that they are at
least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three quarters [%] of
a mile) from any other such use and from any fueling station."
Although permitted uses per se cannot be modified, any separation or proximity
standard associated with a permitted use is eligible to be modified in accordance
with Section 2.8.1 — Modification of Standards — Purpose and Applicability. All
measurements are determined to be "as the crow flies" in accordance with
Section 1.4.10 — Rules for Measuring Distances.
2. Description of the Modification:
Building K1 is designated as a convenience store with fuel sales on sheet 1 of 5
of the Site Plan. It is within'/. mile (3,960 feet) of a similar facility in Spring Creek
Center (2,700 feet) at Prospect Road and Specht Point Road, and Rigden Farm
(3,700 feet) at Drake Road and Timberline Road. Therefore, it does not meet the
requisite separation distance.
3. Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has submitted written justification for this Modification which is
attached. The applicant states that the Modification will serve the standard
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard.
Briefly, the applicant contends:
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 10
• Screening along the west edge of the mini -storage will be
enhanced by clusters of evergreen trees.
• Lighting levels along the west edge of the mini -storage will be
reduced.
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
• In the short range (2007) and long range (2025) future, given full
development of the P.D.P., and an increase in background traffic,
the key intersections will operate acceptably with the geometry
recommended in the Transportation Impact Study.
• Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal
transportation guidelines, with the exceptions of the Parkwood East
neighborhood and Edora Park and Epic. These exceptions are due
to the lack of a public street crossing the U.P.R.R. tracks.
• Bike lanes are provided on Timberline Road and Joseph Allen
Drive.
4. Neighborhood Information Meeting:
A neighborhood meeting was held to discuss both the rezoning and the
subsequent P.D.P. on September 12, 2005. A summary of this meeting is
attached. In general, the project was well -received with concerns expressed
about traffic on Timberline Road, overall aesthetics, and the screening and level
of security and perimeter lighting associated with the enclosed mini -storage.
Briefly, these concerns have been addressed and mitigated by the P.D.P. in the
following manner:
• Timberline Road is classified as a major (six -lane) arterial. It will be
constructed to an interim four -lane cross-section. A traffic signal
will be installed at the intersection with Nancy Gray Avenue.
Joseph Allen Drive will connect to both Nancy Gray Avenue and .
Drake Road. The non -signalized intersection with Bear Mountain
Drive will be restricted such that left turn exits from the site onto
northbound Timberline Road will be prohibited.
• The site will be unified with common architectural materials,
features and accents. For example, for all but the enclosed mini -
storage, buildings will include fully or partially pitched roofs.
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
existing industrial buildings to the north or future Police Services to the
south. The P.D.P. is architecturally unified by use of common materials,
colors and accent features. The vacant six acres to the south is zoned
Employment and can potentially provide a transition between the large,
single -use Police Facility and the finer grain buildings of Timberline
Center.
M. Section 3.5.3(B)(1) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets,
Walkways and Parking — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway
Buildings D, H, J, K1, L, M, N and the mini -storage office are exempt from
having to comply with Section 3.5.3 by virtue of being in the Industrial
zone district. All buildings associated with the convenience shopping
center (Buildings A, B, C, E, F, G, and K2), however, must comply.
For those buildings that must comply, only Building E is out of compliance.
The applicant has submitted a Request for Modification which is reviewed
in a separate section of this report.
N. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(a) — Relationship of Buildings to Streets,
Walkways and Parking — Build -to Lines
For those buildings that must comply, only Building E is out of compliance.
The applicant has submitted the aforementioned Request for Modification.
O. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
necessary to maintain the adopted levels of service standards. Key
findings from the Transportation Impact Study are as follows:
• Currently, the Timberline/Drake intersection operates acceptably
with current control and geometry. The Timberline/Prospect
intersection operates unacceptably with current geometry. A
capital improvement project that includes this intersection is
currently underway.
• In the short range (2007) background future, signals will likely be
warranted at the future Timberline/Nancy Gray intersection.
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
H. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways
Internal sidewalks bisect to the primary parking fields so that pedestrians
are able to walk between Buildings E and F as well as between Buildings
G and H.
Section 3.2.2(H) — Drive-in Facilities
There are two drive-in restaurants (Buildings E and K2) and a bank with
drive -through lanes (Building J). For all three, the location of the drive-thru
facility is to the side or rear.
J. Section 3.2.2(K) (2) — Parking — Minimum Number of Spaces
For a center, excluding mini -storage, the maximum number of parking
spaces cannot exceed five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable
area or 490 spaces. The plan provides 487 parking spaces thus not
exceeding the allowable maximum.
K. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
Parking lot lighting will feature down -directional and sharp cut-off fixtures.
There are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. In
particular, lighting levels are reduced along the western edge of the
project to minimize light intrusion on the Parkwood East neighborhood.
L. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(E)(F) — Building Project and Compatibility
This standard is designed to ensure compatibility of new buildings with the
surrounding context. At present, the only context is the existing industrial
area to the north which was developed in the County and should by no
means be used to measure compatibility. In the near future, however, the
new City Police Facility will be constructed 300 feet to the south. This
building will be three -stories and contain approximately 96,000 square
feet. Its architecture is contemporary and its mass, bulk and scale will
present a dramatically different streetscape image than the mix of one and
two-story buildings in Timberline Center.
In determining compliance with this standard, Staff concludes that it is
more appropriate for the buildings within Timberline Center achieve
internal compatibility across the entire 22 acre site rather than with the
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
Landscaping along the western property line contributes to this buffering.
In order to mitigate the proximity of these uses, a generous amount of
evergreen trees are placed between the mini -storage buildings and the
western property line.
C. Section 3.2. 1 (E) (4) (a) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
Parking lot perimeters are primarily screened by buildings due to the
inward orientation of the buildings in relationship to the streets. For
Building H, the parking lot perimeter abuts the north boundary of the site
and this edge is screened with a row of shrubs and six shade trees.
Screening along the south, where the drive-thru restaurant abuts the
vacant Employment zone, screening is provided by a row of shrubs and
five shade trees.
D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
Excluding the mini -storage, the project has 487 parking spaces which
require a minimum of 10% interior landscaping in the form of islands. The
parking lots are landscaped in a manner that exceeds the required
minimum.
E. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) — Screening
Areas of low visual interest such as trash collection and loading and
service areas are screened with materials to match the predominant
building field material.
F. Section 3.2.2(B) — Access Circulation and Parking
The primary access and circulation system is by two public streets.
Private drives allow circulation among buildings and parking lots. The
internal sidewalk circulation system provides for direct connections among
buildings and to the public streets.
G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) — Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle parking is provided at each building. Total bike parking exceeds
the required minimum of 5% of car parking or 24 spaces. Bike rack
locations do not conflict with vehicle use areas or impede sidewalks.
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Modification of Standard which is reviewed in a separate section of this
report.
2. Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) — Orientation
For those buildings not subject to the build -to lines of Section 3.5.3, this
standard requires that buildings along streets that directly connect to other
districts (Joseph Allen Drive) be oriented so that the building face abuts
upon the landscaped yard and not consist of a blank wall.
3. Section 4.23(E)(2)(c) — Building Character and Color
This standard requires that new building color shades be neutral, with a
medium or dark color range, and not white, bright or reflective.
4. Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)3. — Screening — Modification Needed
This standard requires that an 80-foot landscaped yard be provided along
any boundary line that adjoins a residential area. This buffer yard may be
reduced to 30 feet if the residential area is separated by a public street.
The applicant has submitted a Request for Modification to this standard
which is reviewed in a separate section of this report.
3. Article Three — Applicable General Development Standards:
A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) — Landscaping and Tree Protection
The P.D.P. provides full tree stocking around the buildings. Street trees
are provided along all three public streets. Foundation shrubs are
provided around the building with the logical exception of along storefronts
and entrances.
B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) — Buffering Between Incompatible Uses
The mini -storage is separated from Parkwood East Subdivision and
Parkwood East Apartments by 65 feet at the narrowest point.
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Auto -Related Services
Office
D
8,000
2-story
Vehicle Minor Repair (carwash)
H
4,600
1-story
Bank
J
9,000
2-story
Convenience Retail Store with Fuel
K1
4,100
1-story
Retail Store with Vehicle Servicing
L
7,500
1-story
Retail Store with Vehicle Servicing
M
6,800
1-story
Vehicle Minor Repair
N
4,600
1-story
Enclosed Mini Storage
Office
Storage — 15 buildings
AA 1,200 1-story
86,820 1-story
Since the P.D.P. contains uses that are subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board, the entire P.D.P. is considered a Type Two review.
B. Convenience Retail Store with Fuel Sales — Modification Needed
Building K1 is designated as a convenience retail store with fuel sales. Such use
can be allowed only if separated from nearest similar use or any fueling station
by 3/4 of a mile. The use, however, is within 3/ of a mile from two existing similar
uses. The applicant has submitted a Request for Modification to this standard
which is reviewed in a separate section of this report.
C. Industrial Zone Development Standards
1. Section 4.23(E)(2)(a) - Building Design - Modification Needed
This standard requires that buildings containing standard and fast food
restaurants and convenience shopping centers comply with the build -to
lines as prescribed in Section 3.5.3. Buildings B, C and E do not comply
with these standards and the applicant has submitted Requests for
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
The property was first considered for annexation, as part of the 435-acre
Timberline Annexation, in 1992. At that time, the request was a voluntary
annexation. While Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended
approval, City Council denied the request.
In 1997, Timberline Annexation was approved and placed into T, Transition zone
district. At this time however, the parcel was an enclave and the annexation
proceeded under the regulations governing enclave annexations.
A request to rezone 16.13 acres from Transition to Industrial accompanies this
request. This rezoning must be approved on Second Reading by City Council in
order for the P.D.P. to gain legal validity.
2. Article Four— Industrial Zone:
A. Land Use
There are a variety of land uses contained within the P.D.P. that can generally be
divided among three categories: convenience shopping center; auto -related
services and enclosed mini -storage. One of these uses, convenience shopping
center, contains sub -components that are allowed only as being a part of a
convenience shopping center. In other words, retail stores and drive-thru
restaurants are permitted in the Industrial zone but only as being a part of
convenience shopping center. All uses, and their building designations, are
summarized as follows:
Land Use Building Sq. Ft. Height
Convenience
Shopping Center
Retail/Standard or Fast Food Rest. /Office A 14,500 2-story
Retail/Standard or Fast Food Rest. /Office B 14,500 2-story
Retail/Standard or Fast Food Rest. /Office C 7,200 1-story
Drive-Thru Rest. E 3,500 1-story
Retail/Standard or Fast Food Rest. /Office F 7,200 1-story
Retail/Standard or Fast Food Rest. /Office G 7,200 1-story
Drive-Thru Restaurant K2 3,500 1-story
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
December 8, 2005 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
Should the Modification to the separation distance be denied, the second site
plan, labeled sheet 2 of 5, removes the convenience retail store with fuel sales
and replaces it with a Drive -Through Restaurant (Building K2).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approval with Conditions of the P.D.P.
2. Denial of the Request for Modification to Section 4.23(13)(3)(c)5. regarding
less than 3/ mile separation for convenience retail stores with fuel sales.
3. Approval with Conditions of the Request for Modification regarding the
orientation of Building E.
4. Approval of the Request for Modification regarding a reduction in the
landscaped yard for the Enclosed Mini -Storage Facility.
5. Approval of the Request for Modification regarding an increase in the
build -to line for Buildings B and C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
One condition of. approval requires that the rezoning from Transition to Industrial
must be approved on Second Reading in order for the P.D.P. to gain legal
validity. The second condition requires that Building E (drive-thru restaurant)
achieve architectural compatibility with the entire center.
The P.D.P complies with the General Development standards of Article Three
and the Land Development Standards of Article Four with four exceptions.
These four Modifications are addressed individually. A neighborhood meeting
was held and the P.D.P. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: T; Existing Outside Storage and Miscellaneous Light Industrial?
S: E; Vacant
E: L-M-N; Vacant (Side Hill Second Filing)
W: R-L; Parkwood East Subdivision
W: M-M-N; Parkwood East Apartments
ITEM NO. 6
MEETING DATE! /08/05
STAFF Tull Sha„,rat
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A
APPLICANTS: Mr. Kris Fleischli & Mr. Craig Hau
c/o V-F Ripley Associates
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNERS: Timberline Development Timberline Autoplex
c/o Mr. Kris Fleischli c/o Mr. Craig Hau
P.O. Box 1046 601 Breakwater Drive
Loveland, CO 80539 Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a P.D.P. for a mixed -use project located in the Industrial
zone. Land uses can be roughly divided among three categories: convenience
shopping center; auto -related services and enclosed mini -storage. Specifically
the uses include a convenience shopping center, general office, bank, retail
stores with vehicle servicing, vehicle minor repair, standard restaurant, fast food
restaurant and enclosed mini -storage. Contained within the convenience
shopping center are two uses that would not be allowed unless considered part
of such a center. These are retail stores, and drive-thru in restaurants. Total
gross leasable square footage is 179,200 square feet.
The parcel contains 21.84 acres and is located on the west side of Timberline
Road approximately one-half mile north of East Drake Road. The Union Pacific
Railroad right-of-way forms the western boundary. Two new public streets would
serve the site. A request to rezone a portion of the site from Transition to
Industrial accompanies this P.D.P. request.
Four Modifications are requested. Chief among these is a request to include a
convenience retail store with fuel sales which is not separated from the nearest
one by the requisite distance of three-quarter mile.
The applicant has submitted two site plans for consideration. The first, labeled
sheet 1 of 5, includes the convenience retail store with fuel sales (Building K1).
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0-W (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Agenda Materials provided to
the Planning and Zoning Board
for Consideration of the
Project Development Plan
_,
ram,, � n
because they wanted to preserve and protect the % separation rule and believed that
approving a Modification in this instance would be a precedent setting event that would
make it more difficult to deny future requests for similar Modifications.
We believe the Board failed to consider the unique circumstances in this case. The fact
that both retail sales and fuel sales would be allowed on the site as separate uses make
this request very unusual. It is also significant that the fueling stations in closest
proximity are more than % of a mile away when you drive to them in your car. We
believe the Board failed to consider these relevant and unique circumstances. We
believe the denial was based on fear of similar requests coming up in the future rather
than being judged on the factors specific to this case.
Consultant
VF Ripley Associates, Inc.
401 West Mountain Avenue
Suite 201
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Phone:224-5828
Kris Fleischli
Owner/Developer
Timberline Development, LLC
PO Box 1046
Loveland, CO 80539
Phone: 218-77.ei / 7
The second unique factor is that a gas station is allowed in the Industrial District and does not
have to meet the separation requirement. Retail is also allowed in the Industrial District as long
as it is located in a convenience shopping center. So both components of a C-Store with fuel
sales would be allowed in this location without meeting a separation requirement if they were not
combined. This seems to be an inconsistency in the Land Use Code. Our policies are Gear
about supporting one -stop shopping to save on fuel and protect air quality. This is why we
believe this case is unique and deserves your support for the requested modification.
The C-store would be part of the unanimously approved Timberline Center. The project as a
whole was complemented as being a well -designed commercial center providing a variety of
needed goods and services for people that live and work in the Timberline corridor. The project
includes retail, office, restaurant and auto -related uses as well as a storage facility. A C-store
with fuel sales would complement the mix of uses and be a convenience for people working at the
new police service center as well as other locations at the north end of the Timberline corridor.
The alternative, which the Planning and Zoning Board approved by default, is a fast food
restaurant on the same site. We believe the PDP with the C-store is equal to or better than the
PDP with two fast food restaurants.
Grounds for Appeal:
We believe there were many factors that contributed to the denial of this request that were
unfortunate and not appropriate, including the fact that there were only four out of seven Board
members present at the meeting. The deciding vote was 3:1. For your convenience we have
grouped our specific grounds for appeal under the following headings:
• Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied.
We believe the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly consider the criteria to be
used in deciding whether or not a modification could be granted. In order to approve a
modification the Board needs to determine that granting the modification would not be
detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted will promote the purpose of
the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than a plan
which complies with the standard. Other criteria are available but do not apply in this
case.
If the Board believed a C-store in this location would be detrimental to the public good,
they did not express this view clearly at the hearing, nor did their discussion explain why
the PDP with a C-store was not equal to or better than the PDP with two fast food
restaurants. Before casting his vote in favor of denying the Modification Request, Dave
Lingle admitted he thought the fast food alternative was worse, implying that the C-store
was a more appropriate use given the two alternatives.
A C-store provides the opportunity for a customer to purchase fuel at a convenient
location and to purchase convenience goods in one stop. The City promotes one -stop
shopping because it saves on fuel and fewer trips means less air pollution. A fast food
restaurant on the other hand will have a drive-thru lane with idling cars contributing to the
air pollution problem. Fast food restaurants do provide an alternative choice for busy
people especially in an employment corridor like Timberline Road. However, since the
proposed Timberline Center already includes a fast food restaurant, we believe the plan
with a C-store is inherently better than the plan that the Planning and Zoning Board
approved with two fast food restaurants.
• The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant
evidence offered.
While we found it rather difficult to interpret the reasoning behind the denial of the
Modification, it appeared to us that the three members supporting the denial did so
\/ 1F-r11Pi4e)yA99 .TES INC
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Planning
December 20, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson and City Council Members
City of Ft. Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Re: Written Notice of Appeal
Timberline Center P.D.P., #41-05A — First Modification — Building K1
Dear City Council:
X
DEC? g W
This letter is a request to appeal a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board on
December 8, 2005. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Timberline Center Project
Development Plan, but denied a request for the First Modification — Building K1. This appeal
addresses the denial of the Modification which was a request to allow a convenience store with
fuel sales to be located on Timberline Road approximately one half mile north of Drake Road
even though it does not meet the V44 mile separation requirement for convenience retail stores with
fuels sales.
Background:
The separation requirement has been enforce in Ft. Collins a long time. Originally it was part of a
document that regulated C-store development in general. Back in the late 80s, C-stores were
multiplying rapidly, snapping up every arterial corner, not only in Ft. Collins but also in
communities across the country. Back then they were problematic in a variety of ways.... they
were typically planned with continuous curb cuts, lots of asphalt, no landscaping and cheap
structures with garish eye-catching branded colors and signage.
As a community, we have come a long way since then. C-stores are regulated in a variety of
ways in our development review system. They are only allowed in certain zone districts,
sometimes they must be a part of a convenience shopping center, access is strictly regulated,
and architectural style and colors are also strictly regulated. The result is that C-stores are very
different places today. The grimy asphalt corner with garish signs has given way to well -
landscaped, attractive facilities that fit into appropriate settings.
The separation requirement has been successful in preventing a proliferation of C-stores on
every corner. However, in this particular case we believe a Modification to the standard is
appropriate and desirable. Two factors combine to make this request unique.
The attached graphic depicts where the proposed C-store is situated between the two closest
fueling stations. If the separation requirement were measured along travel distance on public
streets, we would meet he requirement. We fall below the % mile separation because the LUC
requires measurement be taken the way the crow flies.
The proposed location is in the middle between two existing fueling stations, and
both existing fueling stations are located off of Timberline Road, not visible to the consumer. We
believe a fueling station at this location provides a reasonable and convenient choice for people
living and working in the Timberline corridor, without creating visual proliferation.
Phone 970.224.5626 Fax 970.224.1662
401 West Mountain Ave. Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 60521-2604
Vrlpley.com
City Clerk
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hail
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public heating on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on December 8, 2005, regarding the Timberline CenterPDP, #41-
05A —First Modification —Building K 1. You may have received previous notice on this item in
connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750).
Any written materials that any party -in -interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding
the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 1
[Section 2-54 (b) of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City
Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 31. Agenda
materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and
any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party -in -interest, will be available
to the public on Thursday, February 2, after 12:00 noon in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's
website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515 (TDD 970-224-6001) for assistance.
�ti�b Q
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
January 27, 2006
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 La Porte Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6515 - FAX (970) 221-6295
City Clerk's Notice
of Appeal Hearing
mailed to parties -in -interest
on January 27, 2006, which
includes the Appellant's
Notice of Appeal
February 7, 2006 -9- Item No. 36
food or beverages to be served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle without the
need for the customer to exit the motor vehicle.
Alternative Actions City Council May Take:
A If the Council finds that an unfair hearing was conducted, the Council must
remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board for rehearing.
B. If the Council finds that the hearing was fair, then Council should determine
whether the Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code with
regard to the requested modification of Standard and either:
• Uphold;
• Overturn or,
• Modify the Planning and Board Decision or,
• Remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board for rehearing to
consider additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
• City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing mailed to parties -in -interest on January 27, 2006
• Appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal dated December 29, 2005
• Agenda Materials provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for the Project
Development Plan.
• One (1) e-mail from an affected property owner to the Planning and Zoning Board for the
December 8, 2005 public hearing.
• Verbatim transcript of the December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
February 7, 2006 -8- Item No. 36
7. Child care centers.
8. Veterinary hospitals.
9. Convenience shopping centers.
10. Recreational uses.
11. Vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage.
12. Sales and leasing of mobile homes, farm implements, heavy excavation
equipment.
13. Adult -oriented uses.
14. Drive-in restaurants (only if located in a convenience shopping
center).
15. Day shelters, provided that they do not exceed ten thousand (10,000)
square feet and are located within one thousand three hundred twenty
(1,320) feet (one -quarter [Y.] mile) of a Transfort route.
16. Adult day/respite care centers.
• Section 5.1.2 - Definitions
Convenience shopping center shall mean a shopping and service center situated on seven
(7) or fewer acres with four (4) or more business establishments with separate exterior
entrances, located in a complex which is planned, developed and managed as a single
unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of
adjacent employment areas. The principal uses permitted include retail stores; business
services; convenience retail stores with fuel sales (possibly including an accessory one -
bay automatic carwash); personal business and service shops; standard or fast food
restaurants (without drive -up windows); vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance
uses; liquor sales (for on- or off -premise consumption); beauty or barber shops; dry-
cleaning outlets; equipment rental (not including outdoor storage); limited indoor
recreational uses; pet shops; and uses. of similar character. Secondary uses may include
professional offices; limited banking services such as branch banks (with limited drive -
up facilities) and automated teller machines; multi -family dwellings; medical offices and
clinics; small animal veterinary clinics; child care centers; and elderly day care facilities.
Convenience stores with fuel sales (also known as convenience store with fuel sales) shall
mean a convenience retail store which also sells gasoline or other fuel products.
• Restaurant, drive-in shall mean any establishment in which the principal business is the
sale of foods and beverages to the customer in a ready -to -consume state and in which the
design or principal method of operation of all or any portion of the business is to allow
February 7, 2006 -7- Item No. 36
(1) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) The granting of a modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined
and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial
benefit to the city by substantially address an important community need
specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan
or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict
application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including physical conditions
such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, the strict application
of the standard would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that
such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant; or
(4) The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards to be modified except
in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the
entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land
Use Code.
Any Modification shall be supported by a specific finding showing how the Project
Development Plan (PDP) meets the requirements and criteria of any of the four
justifications.
Permitted Uses in the Industrial Zone
(c) Commercial/Retail. None of the following permitted commercial/retail uses shall
exceed twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet in gross leasable area:
Animal boarding.
2. Standard and fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive -through
facilities).
3. Bars and taverns.
4. Bed and breakfast establishments.
5. Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided that they are at
least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three quarters
13/41 of a mile) from any other such use and from any fueling station.
6. Retail and supply yard establishments with outdoor storage.
February 7, 2006 -6- Item No. 36
• The location of the convenience store with fuel sales within Timberline Center is unique
in relationship to the two existing stores in Rigden Farm and Spring Creek Center.
While the store in Timberline Center would front on Timberline Road, the other two
stores do not. Therefore, the 314 mile separation should be modified since the
proliferation would not have an aesthetic impact on Timberline Road.
The Board was shown the diagram that indicated the separation distance using two
methods of measurement. The straight-line measurement results in non-compliance
while measuring along the roadways results in compliance.
The Board considered both methods but relied upon the Land Use Code in basing their
decision on the straight-line method. The Land Use Code anticipates such discrepancies
in measuring methods. Section 1.4.10, Rules for Measuring Distances, was specifically
added to the Code and clearly states that the straight-line method shall be used.
The Board did not fail to consider the evidence offered by the alternative method of
measurement. The Board found that the standard does not address the aesthetic impact
along any one particular street. Further, the Board's packet contained a copy of a Staff
Administrative Interpretation regarding a measurement issue that relied upon the straight-
line method.
Issue Staff Considers to be Irrelevant:
• Alleged Inconsistency in the Industrial Zone Permitted Use List
The appellants state that a gas station is permitted in the Industrial zone. In addition, a
retail store is permitted in the Industrial zone, but only as long as it is located in a
convenience shopping center. Both of these uses are permitted without regard to any
separation requirements. But, combining the two into a convenience store with fuel sales
triggers the 3/4-mile separation standard.
The Land Use Code clearly makes a distinction between the two aforementioned uses
and a convenience retail store with fuel sales. All three are separately listed as all three
are uses that have individual characteristics. It is not inconsistent, therefore, that a
separation standard is attached to a convenience retail store with fuel sales.
• Section 1.4.10 — Rules for Measuring Distances
When a distance is required between uses as set forth in Article 3 or 4, the distance shall
be measured in a straight line from the closest point on the boundary line of one (1)
property to the closest point on the boundary line of the other property.
• Section 2.8.2(H) - Standard for Granting Modifications
The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
February 7, 2006 -5- Item No. 36
On December 20, 2005, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the
December 8, 2005 decision of the Planning and Planning Board to deny a Request for a
Modification relating to the 3/4-mile minimum separation requirement for Convenience Retail
Stores with Fuel Sales. The appeal was submitted Ms. Linda Ripley, V-F Ripley and Associates
on behalf of and in conjunction with Mr. Kris Fleischli, owner and developer of Timberline
Development, LLC. In this appeal, it is alleged that:
The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all
relevant evidence offered:
Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied; and
A. Did the Board improperly fail to receive any relevant evidence offered by the
appellants?
B. Did the Board improperly deny the appellants' request to modify the Land Use
Code standard that prohibits a convenience retail store with fuel sales from being
within three-quarters of a mile of another such convenience store or a fueling
station?
• The plan, with a convenience retail store with fuel sales, would be equal to or better than
a plan with two drive -through restaurants.
The appellants allege that since the Industrial zone district allows drive -through
restaurants (only if located in a convenience shopping center), two drive -through
restaurants would be permitted within the center. This outcome, they claim, would
overload the center and clearly be less desirable than a center that featured only one
drive -through restaurant and a convenience retail store with fuel sales.
The Board was aware of all the permitted uses allowed under the Industrial zone. The
issue at hand, however, was not the various permutations of how these permitted uses
will be distributed. Rather, the issue related only to the separation requirement for one
particular use. Merely threatening to adjust the mix of uses within the center in favor of
one particular permitted use did not factor into the Board's discussion on the merits of
whether to grant a Modification to the 3/4-mile separation distance for the proposed
convenience retail store. In fact, one member acknowledged the potential of multiple
drive -through restaurants but voted to deny the Modification based on the separation
criterion.
PAGE 4
February 7, 2006 -4- Item No. 36
February 7, 2006 -3- Item No. 36
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a request for a PDP for a mixed -use project located in the Industrial zone. Proposed land
uses within the development can be roughly divided among three categories: (1) convenience
shopping center; (2) auto -related services and (3) enclosed mini -storage. Specific uses include a
convenience shopping center, general office, bank, retail stores with vehicle servicing, vehicle
minor repair, standard restaurant, fast food restaurant and enclosed mini -storage. Contained
within the "convenience shopping center" are two uses that would not be allowed unless
considered part of such a center. These are retail stores, and drive -through restaurants. Total
gross leasable square footage is 179,200 square feet.
It is important to note that the convenience retail store with fuel sales is not located within the
convenience shopping center component.
The parcel contains 21.84 acres and is located on the west side of Timberline Road
approximately one-half mile north of East Drake Road. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way
forms the western boundary. Two new public streets would serve the site. A request to rezone a
portion of the site from Transition to Industrial accompanies this PDP request.
Four Modifications are requested. Chief among these is a request to include a convenience retail
store with fuel sales which is not separated from the nearest one by the requisite distance of
three-quarter mile.
The applicant has submitted two site plans for consideration. The first, labeled sheet 1 of 5,
includes the convenience retail store with fuel sales (Building Kl). Should the Modification to
the separation distance be denied, the second site plan, labeled sheet 2 of 5, removes the
convenience retail store with fuel sales and replaces it with a Drive -Through Restaurant
(Building K2).
Pic� GE a�
PROJECT LOCATION
February 7, 2006 -2- Item No. 36
PROJECT LOCATION
ITEM NUMBER: 36
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: February 7, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the December 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Denial of the
Modification of Standard Relating to the Separation Requirements for Convenience Retail Stores
with Fuel Sales within the Timberline Center Project Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provision of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration, either:
(1) remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board or
(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision.
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering
the Timberline Center Project Development Plan (PDP). A component of this PDP. was a
Request for Modification to Section 4.23(B)(c)5. which requires a minimum of three-quarters of
a mile (3,960 feet), measured in a straight line, as the distance between retail stores with fuel
sales and any fueling station. The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and
Staff. The Request for Modification was denied. The PDP was approved. The site is located on
the west side of Timberline Road, approximately one-half mile south of Prospect Road, and is
zoned I, Industrial.