The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - FINAL - 44-89B - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSSTAFF REPORT PROJECT: South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD, Final - #44-89,B APPLICANT: Dr. William M. Musselwhite c/o Richmond Associates 420 West Oak Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Dr. William M. Musselwhite 5001 S. Shields Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for final approval for a 3,800 square foot veterinary clinic, on .6 acres, located at 5001 S. Shields, 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes a 3,800 square foot veterinary clinic on this site. The proposed final plan is in conformance with the approved preliminary plan. The conditions of preliminary approval regarding the submission of information justifying energy conservation measures and the acquisition of off -site utility easements have been addressed. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD, Final - #44-89, B • May 7, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L-P; existing single family residence S: R-L-P; existing single family residence E: R-L-P; vacant (Clarendon Hills Subdivision - First Church of God site) W: R-L-P; vacant (proposed South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD Master Plan) The preliminary plan was approved by the Board at the November 20, 1989 Board meeting with conditions regarding energy conservation and off -site utility easements. 2. Land Use: The proposed use consists of a 3,800 square foot veterinary clinic. The existing single family residence will be retained and is on its own subdivided lot. A condition of preliminary approval was that the applicant submit detailed information justifying the proposed energy conservation measures with the final PUD application. The applicant has provided an energy analysis of the pro- posed structure, using the City's Home Energy Rating Program. This program is designed for residential structures, which have a higher required energy rating than non-residential structures; however, the same principles for energy rating apply to a non-residential structure. Under the Home Energy Rating Program, a minimum score of 70 is required. The proposed structure obtains a score of 80, which is considered very efficient. Based on this information, the condition of approval regarding energy conservation has been addressed. 3. Design: The proposed clinic has been designed to be residential in character. The structure is one-story, with a hipped roof. All activities related to the veterinary clinic are contained within the structure. Landscaping proposed includes coniferous screening along the north property line, street trees along Shields Street and a combination of berming and plant materials at the entrance to the site and for screening the proposed parking lot. Adequate parking has been provided for four employees and customers. A condition of preliminary approval required that off -site utility easements be obtained by the applicant, if utilities were connected via Hepplewhite Court in The Ridge Subdivision. The applicant is obtaining water and sewer utilities with a connection to the east of Shields Street. Therefore, off -site easements to Hepplewhite Court are not necessary. The applicant has secured the necessary off -site easements east of Shields Street. South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD, Final - #44-89, B May 7, 1990 P & Z Meeting Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD, Final is in confor- mance with the approved preliminary plan and the conditions of preliminary approval have been addressed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD, Final #44-89,B. .1 ;3. tdv* U� m +• N' ^s .rctc N wmw we ...r. - ` •, "FE CCCCVCEPR _ � NUN[ wP�aL fv, fi�'ll-p mys•. _LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPING LIEGE exPND LYx 3•sKB AP PIP H' KB pp N[ B' KH sNGx C ssc s uxc e-to'sKe G Gs[Y o CC CHH —ACT B 5 G je cBxx ecrzNxeu.sY fm sKo"o-S sP] PH o 11— HB[H[s.I I GAL. 2 ATLtLIYs[P P WTN.' oR A LMEC 0 4:1 FGT ix! of T+j- -"-�rCA- 4ANP5-AflN6 1MffoVWfW-r wlti2$ Rg�vIp.P 2pR F--T, fl-ANd M6 TFELrfL IN 1 1� R.12V'1 ulsr^IN FFEE fWNrr f:PN CITY Fvgr5Ttp-- ROOF FFAMING FLAN ZLY.E i'I =1�N pw— Rlvq 'm`rt E lOIJ�_ e.A'JF Tu.E — 4 R'2.5, y1"FDx P�YWOOO - rlm.K+ RG. i4a.+'-sT '1" 4 99F4.Ilp WK /� LROM'W —,J FVR m G�Yf'4r. I..aw rotp —Yr"�W ewC.v G1 vn N 6 — � ' ,+DA RiVXUp ka zpl, 11 >DGYP �VAfb &PSIJ e Hic _ APoR�RCioR R-n fipEA ows_ iNs� i� R-25 �+4R �%AriTKfI„E 60 i" { LOµ' 91LYGo riNlsN .I \ — 4 HI VAFW-hW''IL ,o \_ W FYI GRAVEL ,I; [aMprcTCD sue -GRAD& I}y" a 2'gyP-A.W31utA� R-4 a'wa �.'vELP.P4 FaND'T"N 64R5 1pFti COrvit c -T p s4,,) 4 * OL- Ic" -"?,a " N9 G RAF& TfF1GAL WAI { S�LiION �tMIN6 LiEGTIoN A-A DL A"s=a" WO,yr v�crloN �tiE 1e".i-m, _ NORTN E+-E VAnoN SHIELDS ELEVATION • M �J SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - MASTER PLAN - #44-89 SOUTH SHIELDS VETERINARY CLINIC PUD - PRELIMINARY - #49-89A Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the property and stated that staff recommend approval of the Master Plan. Don Richmond, gave a presentation of the project. The property was 8 acres, located on a major arterial. He believed it would be a good location for a business service type use. The proposal for the Master Plan was to develop 1.5 residential units per acre on the western portion of the property. The site was bordered on the west by The Ridge Subdivision (a density of 1 unit an acre). The property on the east of the site was Clarendon Hills Subdivision which was being developed at a density of 3 units an acre. Directly across the street was a proposed church. The east side of south Shields had been completely improved past the veterinary site to the south, approximately 300 feet, and all improvements were in on that side of the street with the exception of the sidewalk. The proposal was for a residential appearing, southwestern style architecture, clinic. Mr. Richmond discussed the landscaping, parking, lighting, signage, land use, utilities, and presented a plan which showed the landscaping and parking. Ms. Clark gave the Staff Report on both projects and showed slides of the area and thb proposed project. Ms. Clark stated that staff recommended approval with the condition that the applicant submit detailed information justifying the proposed energy conservation measures with final PUD application. Ms. Clark stated that since the applicant did not achieve the required 50% on the point chart, staff would support the requested variance. Ms. Clark stated that they also recommend a condition that the off -site utility easements be secured by the applicant prior to submission of a final PUD application. Member Burns asked Ms. Clark about the phasing of utility improvements in the area. Ms. Clark replied that some utilities were missing on the east side of Shields, so contiguity credit on the point chart could not be given. Chairman Kern asked if anyone in the audience would like to address these proposals. Bob Browning, 1316 Hepplewhite Court, commented on the density of the Ridge. His concerns were statements made on the Master Plan regarding access to the cul-de-sac through the Ridge. If no plans were contemplated, he would like to have these words stricken from the Master Plan. As far as the utilities connection was concerned, he was led to believe by the City Planning staff that any easement for utilities cutting through The Ridge would be done privately with the lot owners involved. He asked if that had changed. Ms. Clark replied that it was her understanding from Mr. Richmond that the applicant was working on securing an easement through the neighboring lots, down to Hepplewhite Court, for installation of utilities. -2- Mr. Browning asked if it would be an easement by agreement, but not by condemnation. Ms. Clark replied that was correct. Ms. Clark replied that there had been discussion on the potential in providing vehicular access to Hepplewhite Court, connecting these two properties. She stated that the reference should be deleted from the plan. It was determined the access was not needed. Mr. Browning stated that the concern was not one of content but what was documented on the Master Plan, and would like to see it stricken. Richard Lee, 1400 Hepplewhite Court, commented he was a neighbor of Mr. Browning and would re-emphasize that the wording about the vehicular access to Hepplewhite be stricken from the Master Plan. Member Shepard moved for approval of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic Master Plan with the condition that the statement referring to the access to Hepplewhite Court be deleted from the Planning Objectives. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. Member Carroll moved for approval of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic Preliminary with the conditions that the applicant submit detailed information justifying the proposed energy conservation measures with final PUD application, and a that off -site utility easement be secured by the applicant prior to the submission of a final PUD application, if the Hepplewhite Court utility route is chosen. Member Strom seconded the motion. Ms. Clark suggested that there needed to be some wording in the motion regarding approval of the variance. Member Carroll moved to allow a variance to the point chart. Member Strom seconded the motion, and went on to say that his support of the variance was based on his belief that the strict application of the criteria would be creating an undue hardship on this owner by prohibiting him from proceeding because of his failure to meet the point chart standards results from a simple matter of timing that was out of his control. Member Carroll commented that The Ridge has reached maximum development and, except for one lot, would never be in a position where more development would take place in The Ridge. Chairman Kern agreed with Members Strom and Carroll and went on to say that he felt that the owners were affected by timing. Additionally, the proposed clinic was an appropriate use so far as it served as a transition and a buffer to the remaining development. The motion was approved 7-0. 5911 b 0 0 City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy i"'.atWiiiiw Program ._ Version 2.0.2 ENERGY RATING RESULT t}.: '. _t..: {..:�c-y..:y.: ' ��-:G..y..::..:'.:q..:,'.: !...�. _m..Ji. _;:. _y. y.:y.:y.. �. _k..:y..� ... t.: S• .:_... � H6• :.'• ' *t• '�• :aG •:�!• ' ; .:;�..:s..:.t ,�...,. �;. �:..�y.:::. �y.:p. �. s.: it �x fi• =F tr :�F. -„ _s' _E• � �• t:.:.t..:�a• Owner: Addrj_S. Zip: Phcnec Builder: `od2l= WWI:. Bill M!_!sslewhite 5001 S. Shield � 0526 221 _ Signature Builders Vet Total Luarie Sub. Reference W Data File: Run Date: Rating Firma Plan Rater; Rating Date: 240018 B; tv ET TOT . DAT 12-11-1?8? Richmond Assoc. Don Richmond 1 90 :.::,..:� :3..:_r_ .� �. �:.;;_ �:..�: ,t:.y,_ ..,:.�� .� .�_ .h:.ffi:-�'�:.'�- •� �;_ .?� ;^• s�� :N y_ .�. �,_ ;` .�:.�..:c..�:.: �: ;,:.:.,::.� :t ?' : y� : ;.:.� .�...:...� .�:..�..�..� at..:�'?�'�` •� •�= �i ' � '.-='k •� •�'i •§i- h: �� ,:. T- •k •:� •� •y; .�:. ENERGV SCORM d (Least (Most Efficient) r-0 10 -- 40 5� �'� 60 70 SO 90 100 Efficient) •,%- ii- y: •p: 4:.. f, u..� h'- y:.�:.�: s:. _;: �_ .:;:..u:.h: ?r.'- h� .;_:..X .r...�,..a:_ .:,_ .� ��_ .yS a�_ •i!_ a: sl ..y:.y�:.q...�:.. �t.. ai_ _,�_ .y:..� ._,,:. 3,:..�:.y: yv ..�_ .�..�g...ys:. } .�,c �_ .yi_ d! .;.:.�:.:�..�:..p. A...� .�! •�= -i� 'its .�w .� .y_ :v:..;�:.�: ay:..yr .;r,...#. �:. �. This program offered by the 'City ,of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing the energyefficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute any w=.rr=ent,t9 express or implied, as to the presence ,_7r lack of eynergy features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and it; costs, _, or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house. 4P City of Fort Collins ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0,2 DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING Owner: Bill Musslewhite Reference #: 240018 Address: 5001 S. Shields Data File: B:VET TOT.DAT Zip: 80526 Run Date: 12-11-1989 Phone: 221 0660 Builder: Signature Builders Rating Firm: Richmond Assoc. Model: Vet Total Plan Rater: Don Richmond Devel: Luarie Sub. Rating Date: 1/11/90 BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Conditioned Space Area: 3944 sq it Total Glazing Area: 440 sq it ENERGY SCORE Air Infiltration Rate: 0.48 AC/h *********** Eff. Thermal Capacity: 44370 Btu/F * G - 80 * Util. of Direct Solar: 0.93 *********** BUILDING ENERGY SUMMAR� Load Efficiency Energy _______________ Consumed Fuel Lost _________ wergy ------------ Cost _______ __________ KBtu/sf % KBtu/sf MMBtu $/MMBtu $/sf Gas Space Heat 21.9 80.0 27.4 107.9 4.42 0.12 Gas Water Heat 6.1 45.0 13.6 53.5 4.42 0.06 Building TOTAL 28.0 40.9 161.4 0.18 COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING Heat Loss Coeff Gross Heat Loss Useful Gains Net Heat _____________ Load _______________ Btu/hr-F _______________ % KBtu/sf ____________ % KBtu/sf % KBtu/sf MMBtu Ceilings/Roofs 111.2 13 4.4 11 1.3 11 3.1 12.1 Frame Walls 101.5 12 4.0 10 0.6 5 3.4 13.3 Masonry Walls - - - - - - - - Rim/Band Joists - - - - - -- Windows/Skylights 184.9 21 7.3 18 7.3 57 0.0 0.0 Sunspace - - - - - - - - Doors 13.9 2 0.6 1 0.0 0 0.6 2.2 Foundation Walls - - - - - - - - Frame Floors - - - - - - - -- Slab Floors 148.6 17 5.9 15 0.0 0 5.9 23.2 Crawl Sp/Unht Bsmt - - - - - - - - Infiltration 315.6 36 12.5 31 0.0 0 12.5 49.2 Envelope TOTAL 875.7 100 34.6 86 9.3 73 25.4 100.0 Acrive Solar Spc Ht - - - - - - Internal Gains 0.0 0 3.4 27 -3.4 -13.6 Duct/Pipe Losses - - - - - - Furnace Losses 5.5 14 0.0 0 5.5 21.6 Space Heating TOTAL 40.1 100 12.7 100 27.4 107.9 COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING Gas 13.6 KBtu/sf = 53.5 MMBtu SoIar - - Water Heating TOTAL 13.6 KBtu/sf = 53.5 MMBtu tv ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Date: 12-11-1989 Input Worksheet: B:VET TOT.WS Reference Number: 240018 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner's Name Property Address Zip Code Telephone Number(s) Home Builder's Name Model Name or Number Development Name Energy Rating Company Building Plan Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date Site Visit Rating: Energy Rater's Name Energy Rating Date 1 Bill Musslewhite 2 5001 S. Shields 3 80526 4 221 0660 5 Signature Builders 6 Vet Total 7 Luarie Sub. 8 Richmond Assoc. 9 Don Richmond 10 1/11/9O 11 12 2. BUILDING STRUCTURE Year Constructed 13 1990 Area of Conditioned Space (sq ft) 14 3944 Housing Type (1-5) 15 2 Apartment Only: Level Type (1-3) 16 0 Floors On or Above Grade (1-2) 17 1 Foundation Type(s) (1-7) 18 1 3. CEILINGS/ROOFS Roof Entry Gross Area Line # (sq ft) [19] 19a 4141 [20] 20a 0 [21] 21a 0 Ceiling/Roof Insulation (R-Value) 19b 38.5 20b 0 21b 0 Ceiling Type (1-2) 19r 20c 0 21c 0 4. RIM AND BAND JOISTS Area Joist Location Joist Insulation (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value) 22a 0 22b 0 22c 0 23a 0 23b 0 23c 0 5. FRAME OR BRICK VENEER WALLS Wall Entry Sross Area Wall Location Wall Insulation Line # (sq ft) (1-4) (R-Value> [24] 24a 2384 24b 1 24c 21.5 [25] 25a 182 25b 1 25c 13 [26] 26a 0 26b 1 26c 0 [27] 27a 0 27b 1 27c 0 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: B:VET TOT.WS Date: 12-11-1989 Reference Number: 240018 7. WINDOWS (INCLUDING DOOR GLAZING) Area Orientation Glazing Type Wall Entry (sq ft) (1-6) (1-21) Line #(24-30) 31a 42.8 31b 1 31c 12 31d 24 32a 57.5 32b 3 32c 5 32d 24 33a 25.6 33b 5 33c 5 33d 24 34a 36 34b 3 34c 5 34d 25 35a 109 35b 1 35c 12 35d 24 36a 113 36b 3 36c 5 36d 24 37a is 37b 1 37c 5 37d 25 38a 38.4 38b 3 38c 12 38d 25 9. DOORS (OPAQUE DOOR AREAS ONLY) Area Door Insulation Storm Door Wall Entry (sq ft) (R-Value) (1.yes, 2.no) Line #(24-30) 43a 74 43b 4.4 43c 2 43d 24 44a 0 44b 0 44c 2 44d 24 45a 0 45b 0 45c 2 45d 24 12. SLAB FLOORS (ON OR BELOW GRADE) Exposed Floor Area Perimeter Perimeter Insulation (sq ft) (ft) (R-Value) 52a 3944 t2b "VA Mc � 53a 0 53b 0 53c 0 Under Slab Depth Width of Insulation Insulation Below Grade Under Slab (R-Value) (ft) <ft) 52d 0 52e 0 52f 0 53d 0 53e 0 53f 0 40 ENERGY SCORE Data Listing Input Worksheet: B:VET TOT.WS Date: 12-11-1989 Reference Number: 240018 13. INTERIOR FINISH Drywall Thickness (0.5 to 1 in.) 54 .625 Uncarpeted Floor Slab (1.yes, 2.no) 55 1 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Area (sq ft) 56 3944 Uncarpeted Floor Slab Thickness (in.) 57 4 14. ADDITIONAL MASS Mass Type Mass Area Mass Thickness (1-3) (sq ft) (in.) 58a 0 58b O 58c 0 59a 0 59b 0 59c 0 Volume of Cond. Space (cubic ft) 60 44455 15. INFILTRATION Type of Infiltration Measurement (1-3) 61 1 6 InfiItration Value (ACH or sq.in) .48 16. HEATING EDUIPMENT Heating Heating Liectrzc System Type System AFUE Furnace Input Demand Control (1-7) ()/') (1000's Btu/h) (1,yes, 2.no) 63 1 64 80 65 120 66 2 17. DUCTS AND PIPES Duct or Pipe Area in Attic above Insulation (sq ft) 67 0 Attic Duct Insulation (!.yes, 2.no) 68 2 Duct or Pipe Area in Crawl Space or Unheated Basement (sq ft) 69 O Crawl Space or Unheated Basement Duct Insulation (1.yes, 2.no) 70 2 18. DOMESTIC HOT WATER Water Heater Type (1-4) 71 1 Water Heater Efficiency (%) 72 45 DMGL9UW[9 W 2 6 NO 4824 Regency Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 March 26, 1990 City of Fort Co ins Development Services Planning Department Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark, Last week when I returned from a trip my husband hand- ed me a copy of your letter of March 8th which had been passed on to my husband by our neighbor, Art Jesser. It was in re- gard to the meeting this evening of the Planning and Zoning Board at which the South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD will be discussed. I am extremely disappointed that we have had to hear of this project second hand since our home is well within the 500 foot zone surrounding the property. Though we were sup- posed to have been notified we never have been. I had heard of the project (clinic/kennel) from a veterinarian friend who said it was south of the community college. I thought nothing of it until I read in the Ridge newsletter which came out the day after the January 23rd public meeting that the PUD is immediately adjacent to the Ridge. A few neighbors wanted to enlist my participation in fighting the project because they were upset about the devel- opment for the building sites. My more immediate concern was that from personal experience I have learned that the very idea of a dog kennel in a neighborhood is a psychologically depressing thought with regards to the value of residential property. I own Country -Aire Kennel south west of Loveland. The kennel was built long before the farm land surrounding it was subdivided into five to ten acre lots. So all the people who bought land adjacent to the kennel property knew it was there before they built their nice houses. Over the years since I bought the kennel in 1982 I have had considerable harassment from certain neighbors, who are hundreds of feet away from the kennel, regarding dogs barking. Granted, my kennel is an indoor -outdoor facility (as opposed to the totally indoor arrangement proposed by Dr. Musslewhite). How- ever, we added acoustical ceilings, more solid fencing, ever- green plantings for sound absorption, etc. In addition, we keep the dogs shut in a great deal of the time. Yet we still have had complaints from time to time, especially in the summer when people like to have their windows open. I know of one neighbor who was unable to sell his house due to its proximity to the kennel. The idea of a kennel in a residential neighborhood within the city limits of Fort Collins seems so completely incompatible with the philosophy of the groul�,plan for the city, that I find it hard to believe that it would be con- sidered. The further idea that people would want to buy building lots next to such a facility seems ludicrous. Had we not invested all we had in our dream house in the Ridge, and had we not assumed that property in the Ridge would continue to appreciate, I would not have even involved myself at all in this matter. However, when I wrote a letter to my neighbors informing them of my concerns, there was absolutely no response. I guess no one else seems to be concerned about what I see as an incompatible use in a residential area. Dr. Musslewhite, of course, assumes that I spoke out against the project due to the competition which it might pose for my kennel in Loveland. Since my kennel serves al- most entirely Loveland residents and is at tleast 14 miles south of the proposed PUD, I seriously doubt that there would be much competition. I have visited a couple of excellent totally indoor kennels (one in L.A. and one in Albuquerque) and feel that this is the wave of the future. However, both of these kennels are in commercial areas, as is appropriate for such businesses. Three years ago we had a proposal to buy a property on S. Taft Hill and Westfield across from the big boat store. We put in a proposal (along with the required fee) for using the property for dog grooming, cat boarding and dog training (in the large barn). We had the notification sent out to all the property owners within 500 feet. We were turned down by planning and zoning even though they said there were no concerns expressed by the neighbors. The statement to us was that dog -related businesses were not appropriate in a residential neighborhood, I guess because arrival and departure of dogs could stir up neighbor dogs. Thank you for reading my letter. I'm sorry that I'm unable to attend the meeting tonight due to prior committments. Sincerely, Hildegarde S. Morgan (Mrs. George A. Morgan) FEB 1 6 t9w February 15, 1990 Sheri Albertson Clark City Planners Office P.O. Box 580 300 Laporte Fort Collins, Co 80522 Dear Ms. Clark, I am writing in reference to a proposed P.U.D. that is adjacent to the Ridge and Shields. We are very much opposed to the veterinary clinic that is proposed. From information we have received, we have reason to believe that it is a rather large clinic with the possibilities of housing up to 30 dogs and with room also for cats. The potential for lots of noise is there and that is what our neighborhood is concerned about. We moved to the area because it was quiet and had a "country" flavor. We would not want that spoiled by constantly barking dogs. We are strongly opposed to any variance to low density residental zoning in our area. Thank you for your attention to this situation. Sincerely, �� "iX "J Keith and Dorothy Wilson 4801 Regency Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 Home - 223-2132 Work - Keith - 224-4479 Dorothy - 491-1738