HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD - MASTER PLAN - 46-88 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 23
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 1, 1988
STAFF: Albertson -Clark
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on August 22,
1988, Denying the Park South PUD Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record, and after
consideration, either uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 22, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD
Master Plan, finding that it would create traffic demands that would exceed
the capacity of existing and proposed transportation networks.
On September 6, 1988, an appeal of that final decision was made by Middel
Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture by Greg R. Remmenga of Sorensen
and Konkel, Attorneys for the Appellants.
On October 18, 1988, the appeal was tabled to this date at the request of
the appellant.
Description of Project
The Park South PUD Master Plan consists of a mixed -use development of
residential, office, retail and commercial uses on 31 acres, located at the
southwest corner of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Manhattan
Avenue. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
In April of 1978, Larimer County approved the original Park South PUD on
this site, which consisted of 143 single family zero lot line units. The
site was annexed to the City in July of 1978 and the County -approved plan
was accepted as part of the annexation. This approved plan is still
considered a valid plan and could be used today to obtain building permits
for the property.
The proposed Master Plan consists of residential phases for 44 single
family lots and 14 zero lot line units (based on the approved plan). The
remainder of the Master Plan consists of four phases of non-residential
uses (office, commercial and retail uses) for a total of 233,000 square
feet. Access to the site is from Horsetooth Road, an arterial street and
Manhattan Avenue, a collector street.
The proposed Master Plan was evaluated against the Land Use Policies Plan.
-2-
Based on this evaluation, staff found the proposed residential uses to be
supported by the Land Use Policies Plan and compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
The non-residential land uses were evaluated against the policies
addressing Regional/Community Shopping Centers because of the type of uses
proposed, as well as the magnitude or intensity of these uses. Policy #70
of the Land Use Policies Plan states that "Regional/Community Shopping
Centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the
required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands
which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network
of the City."
The staff evaluation of the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis concluded
that the proposed land uses and magnitude of those uses would generate a
traffic impact that far exceeds the residential collector street capacity
and would create a negative impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposed Park South PUD Master Plan was deemed incompatible with the
Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and staff recommended
denial of the proposed Master Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD Master Plan
unanimously at the August 22, 1988 Board meeting, finding that it would
create traffic demands that would exceed the capacity of existing and
proposed transportation networks.
The Appeal
The appellant has filed the appeal on the grounds that the Planning and
Zoning Board:
(a) abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without
the support of competent evidence on the record;
(b) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code,
including the Land Development Guidance System, and the Comprehensive
Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan; and
(c) failed to conduct a fair hearing in that:
(1) The Board considered evidence irrelevant to its findings which
were substantially false or grossly misleading;
(2) The Board improperly failed to receive and consider all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellants.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
Specific points of discussion are outlined in the Notice of Appeal and
staff has responded point -by -point in the attached memorandum to Council.
Scope of Council Consideration of Appealed Master Plan
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are three -fold:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence on the record?
DATE: November 1, 1988 T -3- 1 WM NUMBER: 23
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code, including the Land Development Guidance System and the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policies Plan?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered
evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false or
grossly misleading, or failed to receive and consider all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellant?
The appellants have provided a list of specific allegations that they
believe support this appeal. In making a determination on these issues,
the City Council must first consider whether the Board's decision was
arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence on the record, as
alleged by the appellant. Secondly, the Council must consider the
applicable Code provisions, including the Land Development Guidance System,
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan to determine whether the
project meets or addresses the specific standards, criteria and policies.
Finally, the Council must review and decide whether the Board conducted an
improper hearing as alleged by the appellant.
The allegations listed by the appellant in the Notice of Appeal are as
follows:
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in apparently applying all
development criteria of the Land development Guidance System in
contravention of Section 118-83(f)(2)(b), which provides that the
Master Plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the specific design
standards and criteria outlined in this section, but rather on the
basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in denying the Master Plan based
upon an alleged failure to comply with Land Use Policy #70, which
provides:
"Regional/Community shopping centers should locate near transportation
facilities that offer the required access to the center, but will not
be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing
and future transportation network of the city."
(c) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in evaluating the project as a
regional/community shopping center rather than as a
neighborhood/community center, as was warranted by the evidence.
(d) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in establishing maximum vehicle
trip per day criteria of 4,000 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan
Street south of Dennison, and 7,000 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan
Street south of Horsetooth, and north of Dennison, in contravention of
the evidence presented and generally accepted standards and criteria.
Specifically, the Planning and Zoning Board ignored the evidence
presented by the traffic engineers for the Applicants, and apparently
based its decision upon maximum criteria suggested by Rick Ensdorff,
Traffic Engineer, which is without any basis in evidence or theory.
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in defining Manhattan as a
collector street, in contravention of the evidence.
DATE: November 1, 1988 M I -4- 1j ITEM NUMBER: 23
(f) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in ignoring the undisputed evidence
produced by Applicants' traffic engineers with respect to the current
and future vehicle trips per day, all as more specifically set forth on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
(g) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in developing a "community view" of
collector street capacity, and ignoring textbook definition and expert
opinions.
(h) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in effectively condemning
Applicants' property by adopting traffic criteria that cannot be met by
a developer with any use. The Planning and Zoning Board erred in
simply denying rather than proposing reasonable limitations or
restrictions or conditions to mitigate adverse traffic impacts.
(i) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in refusing to approve any
developer proposal to mitigate adverse traffic impacts.
(j) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in finding that the project had
significant adverse traffic impacts, in contravention of the evidence,
when in fact, there are no significant traffic impacts in excess of
those impacts which will exist in the event the project is developed as
cd�rrently platted.
(k) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in determining that the proposed
Master Plan will create traffic demands which will exceed the capacity
of existing and future transportation network of the City, in
contravention of the evidence presented.
Summary Chronology
May 4, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on proposed master plan.
June 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to inform of concerns regarding
traffic generated by the proposed master plan.
June 24, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the June 27
Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the July 25, 1988
meeting due to traffic concerns.
July 14, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the July
25, 1988 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the August
22, 1988 meeting to resolve outstanding issues and meet
with neighborhood.
July 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to discuss reductions in master
plan to address concerns regarding traffic.
August 10, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on revised master plan.
August 22, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board denied the master plan.
September 6, 1988: Appeal of final decision of Planning and Zoning Board
is filed.
Ci
City of Fort Collins
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 8, 1988
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Park South P.U.D. Master Plan Appeal
On September 6, 1988, you received the appeal of Middel Enter-
prises, Inc., and Park South Venture regarding the Park South
P.U.D. Master Plan (Item No. 46-88) considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board on August 22, 1988. I have examined the Notice
of Appeal as filed by Middel Enterprises, Inc., and Park South
Venture, and it is my opinion that the Notice of Appeal is in
compliance with Chapter 2, Division 3 of the City Code pertaining
to the appeals procedure.
You are required to provide at least 14 days advance written
notice of the date, time and place of the hearing before the City
Council, which hearing should be scheduled as expeditiously as
possible. The earliest possible date for consideration by the
Council would be October 4, 1988. If scheduling at that Council
meeting is difficult because of other commitments, I would recom-
mend that you schedule the matter on October 18, 1988. Any
scheduling after October 18, 1988, should be only with the
approval of the Appellant.
Steve and I have discussed your inquiry as to whether you must
mail all of the exhibits with the "Notice of Appeal" to the
parties involved. We have concluded that you do not provided you
include in your mailing information that the exhibits are avail-
able for inspection and copying in your office.
WPE:whm
)00 LaPorte Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-h=;20
•
•
•
Administrative Services
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
N 0 T I C E
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado on October 18 ,
19 88, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for
hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 West LaPorte
Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on August 22 19 88,
regarding Park South P.U.D. Master Plan
. The
meeting is fully accessible to handicapped persons. You should have
received previous notices on this item in connection with hearings held by
0 the Planning and Zoning Board
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the
hearing on this appeal. Written comments are also welcome. If you have
any questions, require further information, or wish to submit written
materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office or the
Planning Office in City Hall, 221-6500.
�")& �� - ".1
Wanda M. Krajic k
City Clerk
October 4, 1988
Date Notice Mailed
cc: City Attorney
Planning
NOTE: Exhibits are available for inspection and copying in the City Clerk's Office.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515
4 0 November 1, 1933 10,
On October 18, 1988, the appeal was tabled to this date at the request of
the appellant.
Description of Project
The Park South PUD Master Plan consists of a mixed -use development of
residential, office, retail and commercial uses on 31 acres, located at the
southwest corner of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Manhattan
Avenue. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
In April of 1978, Larimer County approved the original Park South PUD on
this site, which consisted of 143 single family zero lot line units. The
site was annexed to the City in July of 1978 and the County -approved plan
was accepted as part of the annexation. This approved plan is still
considered a valid plan and could be used today to obtain building permits
for the property.
The proposed Master Plan consists of residential phases for 44 single
family lots and 14 zero lot line units (based on the approved plan). The
remainder of the Master Plan consists of four phases of non-residential
uses (office, commercial and retail uses) for a total of 233,000 square
feet. Access to the site is from Horsetooth Road, an arterial street and
Manhattan Avenue, a collector street.
The proposed Master Plan was evaluated against the Land Use Policies Plan.
Based on this evaluation, staff found the proposed residential uses to be
supported by the Land Use Policies Plan and compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
The non-residential land uses were evaluated against the policies
addressing Regional/Community Shopping Centers because of the type of uses
proposed, as well as the magnitude or intensity of these uses. Policy #70
of the Land Use Policies Plan states that "Regional/Community Shopping
Centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the
required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands
which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network
of the City."
The staff evaluation of the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis concluded
that the proposed land uses and magnitude of those uses would generate a
traffic impact that far exceeds the residential collector street capacity
and would create a negative impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposed Park South PUD Master Plan was deemed incompatible with the
Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and staff recommended
denial of the proposed Master Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD Master Plan
unanimously at the August 22, 1988 Board meeting, finding that it would
create traffic demands that would exceed the capacity of existing and
proposed transportation networks.
-403-
allovember 1, 1988
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to amend the Resolution by inserting the name of Kelly Ohlson in place of
Sanford Kern and then inserting the name of Sanford Kern in place of Ed
Stoner.
Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane #4, spoke against the amendment.
Councilmember Estrada commented on the alleged evasion of the appointment
process and stated he would be supporting the Resolution.
Councilmember Winokur stated he would not be supporting the Resolution and
commented on the selection process.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would be supporting the Resolution and
commented that Mayor Stoner had not submitted an application for the
position. She spoke of the potential conflict of interest that existed
among the applicants and noted that the two remaining candidates were
realtors and indicated the board would be unbalanced.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern about the advertising process to
obtain applicants for the board.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 88-172 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, and Kirkpatrick. Nays:
Councilmembers Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 88-172 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Appeal of the Final Decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board on August 22,
1988, Denying the Park South PUD Master Plan,
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 22, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD
Master Plan, finding that it would create traffic demands that would exceed
the capacity of existing and proposed transportation networks.
On September 6, 1988, an appeal of that final decision was made by Middel
Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture by Greg R. Remmenga of Sorensen
and Konkel, Attorneys for the Appellants.
-402-
•
0 November 1, 1988
The Appeal
The appellant has filed the appeal on the grounds that the Planning and
Zoning Board:
(a) abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without
the support of competent evidence on the record;
(b) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code,
including the Land Development Guidance System, and the Comprehensive
Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan; and
(c) failed to conduct a fair hearing in that:
(1) The Board considered evidence irrelevant to its findings which
were substantially false or grossly misleading;
(2) The Board improperly failed to receive and consider all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellants.
These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code.
Specific points of discussion are outlined in the Notice of Appeal and
staff has responded point -by -point in the attached memorandum to Council.
Scope of Council Consideration of Appealed Master Plan
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are three -fold:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary
and without the support of competent evidence on the record?
2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code, including the Land Development Guidance System and the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policies Plan?
3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered
evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false or
grossly misleading, or failed to receive and consider all relevant
evidence offered by the Appellant?
The appellants have provided a list of specific allegations that they
believe support this appeal. In making a determination on these issues,
the City Council must first consider whether the Board's decision was
arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence on the record, as
alleged by the appellant. Secondly, the Council must consider the
applicable Code provisions, including the Land Development Guidance System,
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan to determine whether the
project meets or addresses the specific standards, criteria and policies.
Finally, the Council must review and decide whether the Board conducted an
improper hearing as alleged by the appellant.
-404-
0 November 1, 1988
The allegations listed by the appellant in the Notice of Appeal are as
follows:
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in apparently applying all
development criteria of the Land development Guidance System in
contravention of Section 118-83(f)(2)(b), which provides that the
Master Plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the specific design
standards and criteria outlined in this section, but rather on the
basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in denying the Master Plan based
upon an alleged failure to comply with Land Use Policy #70, which
provides:
"Regional/Community shopping centers should locate near transportation
facilities that offer the required access to the center, but will not
be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing
and future transportation network of the city."
(c) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in evaluating the project as a
regional/community shopping center rather than as a
neighborhood/community center, as was warranted by the evidence.
(d) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in establishing maximum vehicle
trip per day criteria of 4,000 vehicle trips per day or, Manhattan
Street south of Dennison, and 7,000 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan
Street south of Horsetooth, and north, of Dennison, in contravention of
the evidence presented and generally accepted standards and criteria.
Specifically, the Planning and Zoning Board ignored the evidence
presented by the traffic engineers for the Applicants, and apparently
based its decision upon maximum criteria suggested by Rick Ensdorff,
Traffic Engineer, which is without any basis in evidence or theory.
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in defining Manhattan as a
collector street, in contravention of the evidence.
(f) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in ignoring the undisputed evidence
produced by Applicants, traffic engineers with respect to the current
and future vehicle trips per day, all as more specifically set forth on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
(g) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in developing a "community view" of
collector street capacity, and ignoring textbook definition and expert
opinions.
(h) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in effectively condemning
Applicants, property by adopting traffic criteria that cannot be met by
a developer with any use. The Planning and Zoning Board erred in
simply denying rather than proposing reasonable limitations or
restrictions or conditions to mitigate adverse traffic impacts.
-405-
• 0 November 1, 1988
(i) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in refusing to approve any
developer proposal to mitigate adverse traffic impacts.
(j) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in finding that the project had
significant adverse traffic impacts, in contravention of the evidence,
when in fact, there are no significant traffic impacts in excess of
those impacts which will exist in the event the project is developed as
currently platted.
(k) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in determining that the proposed
Master Plan will create traffic demands which will exceed the capacity
of existing and future transportation network of the City, in
contravention of the evidence presented.
Summary Chronology
May 4, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on proposed master plan.
June 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to inform of concerns regarding
traffic generated by the proposed master plan.
June 24, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the June 27
Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the July 25, 1988
meeting due to traffic concerns.
July 14, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the July
25, 1988 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the August
22, 1988 meeting to resolve outstanding issues and meet
with neighborhood.
July 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to discuss reductions in master
plan to address concerns regarding traffic.
August 10, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on revised master plan.
August 22, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board denied the master plan.
September 6, 1988: Appeal of final decision of Planning and Zoning Board
is filed."
Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a
perceived conflict of interest.
City Attorney Steve Roy presented background information on the appeal
process. He stated the hearing should be conducted on the grounds stated
in the appeal, and that no new evidence should be submitted at this
hearing.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to hear the appeal on the basis that the grounds presented conform to the
requirements of the Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
-406-
C
• November 1, 1988
THE MOTION CARRIED.
William Strickfaden, appellant, described the impact of the traffic count
of 4000 versus 6000 vehicles per day on Manhattan Avenue.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to acknowledge that the Planning and Zoning Board properly received and
considered all of the evidence that was offered.
City Attorney Roy clarified the issue to be addressed was whether the
Planning and Zoning Board improperly received some relevant evidence.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to acknowledge that the
Planning and Zoning Board properly received and considered all the evidence
that was offered was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Senior City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief presentation and
elaborated on the proposed project.
William Strickfaden, appellant, spoke of the circumstances leading to the
request for the Master Plan. He explained the efforts behind the purchase
of the property and the replat design process. He presented the details of
the right-of-way traffic study and described the development and market
analysis of the property and its development potential, including a study
of the retail commercial market. He noted the determination that the
Traffic Department had made regarding the project's inability to
accommodate the traffic on Manhattan Avenue south of Dennison Avenue. He
requested Council reconsider the Master Plan since it meets all the
requirements of the Planning and Zoning process.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, explained the logical transition of
uses, the more intensive retail uses, the planning of single family
residences, an office park, and the overall development concept.
Bob Lee, transportation planner for the appellant, gave a slide
presentation of the Meadowlark collector street system. He spoke of the
August Planning and Zoning Board hearing which showed the traffic impacts
that exist in the area.
Roderick Graham, 3725 Benthaven, spoke against the Master Plan.
Clarence Palmer, 701 Arbor, representing 300 petition signers, spoke
against the Plan.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Park South
PUD Master Plan.
-407-
N0 November 1, 1988
Senior City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark responded to questions from
Council, presented a short slide presentation, and provided a chronology of
events of the land uses and traffic impact in the Master Plan.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff presented maximum traffic capacity
information and responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Maxey stated he would be supporting the motion although there
could be many interpretations from the motions and suggested some amendment
work should be done on the Land Use Guidance System to alleviate
misunderstanding. He expressed concern about an exclusive license being
issued to property on the basis of the Master Plan.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed her support for the motion and noted
the problems associated with the Land Development Guidance System and
infill project. She noted the importance of timing with these types of
projects and the purchase of property. She commented on the importance of
proper future planning for projects which includes looking to the past to
minimize mistakes.
Mayor Stoner commented on the evidence that had been submitted indicating
that the Planning and Zoning Board did not err in its final decision with
respect to the Master Plan.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
(Councilmember Mabry withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Stoner asked staff to draft a resolution for the November 15 meeting
making findings on the Council decision to uphold the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board on the Park South PUD Master Plan.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak encouraged Council to investigate the residential
parking problem in the neighborhoods near Colorado State University.
Councilmember Maxey noted his support in attempting to alleviate the
parking problem.
Mayor Stoner commented on the 2 hour parking time limit in the Mantz
Edition and referred to his conversation with Parking/Bikeway Manager Rita
Davis who indicated she would be researching the problem.
Councilmember Winokur encouraged the new division in the City's
Transportation Services Department to explore the transportation/planning
needs in the residential areas near Colorado State University.
-408-
November 1, 1988 ,
Councilmember Estrada noted the parking problem in the residential areas is
due to large numbers of residents living in multi -family units that were
once single family units, which leads to a compacting of a larger
population into an area that was not designed to easily accommodate such
large numbers.
City Manager Steve Burkett noted that staff would explore the issue and
return with some options and ideas.
Adjournment
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adjourn the meeting to November 15, 1988 at 4:30 p.m. to allow Council to
consider adjourning into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
relating to the performance appraisal of the City Manager. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
Councilmember Horak. (Councilmember Mabry out of the room)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ayor
-409-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board of August 22,
1988, denying the Park South PUD Master Plan, is hereby upheld.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Fort Collins held this 15th day of November, A.D. 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
11
•
0
RESOLUTION 88-188
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
OF THE DENIAL OF THE PARK SOUTH PUD MASTER PLAN, AND
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board, after
notice and hearing, denied the Park South PUD Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 1988, Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South
Venture filed a notice of appeal, appealing the aforesaid decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 1988, the City Council, after notice and
hearing in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City
Code, considered said appeal as filed by Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park
South Venture; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and after full consideration of the evidence as
presented to the Planning and Zoning Board, and after hearing argument
thereon, the Council made the following findings of fact:
1. The grounds for appeal as stated in the notice of appeal of
Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture conform to
the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code.
2. The Planning and Zoning Board:
a. Did not abuse its discretion, and its decision was not
arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence
in the record;
b. Did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code, including the Land Development
Guidance System and, by incorporation therein, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan of the
City;
c. Did not fail to conduct a fair hearing either by: (1)
considering evidence which was substantially false or
grossly misleading, or (2) by improperly failing to
receive and consider all relevant evidence offered by the
appellants.
3. The use as proposed pursuant to the Park South P.U.D. Master
Plan would create traffic demands which would exceed the
capacity of the street system serving said development, and,
accordingly did not meet the requirements of the Code, and
Council specifically upholds the findings and decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board with respect to the issue of said
traffic demands.
•
r�
u
®r,
r
8I S EP 0 6 9988 1
PROJECT: Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88 -� _�
CITY CLct�K
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS: Middel Enterprises, Inc. and
Park South Venture
OWNERS: Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture
1407 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clerk
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Applicants appeal the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the Park South
PUD Master Plan. The Master Plan was denied on August 22, 1988.
The Appellants, Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture,
1407 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, (303)
221-2300, were the Applicants at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, and are the owners of the subject property.
The grounds for appeal are that the Planning and Zoning
Board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence on the record; failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code,
including the Land Development Guidance System, and the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan; failed to
conduct a fair hearing in that the Board apparently considered
evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false
or grossly misleading, or the Board improperly failed to receive
and consider all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants, as
follows, to -wit:
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in apparently
applying all development criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System in contravention of Section 118-83(F)(2)(b), which provides
that the Master Plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the
specific design standards and criteria outlined in this section,
but rather on the basis of conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in denying the
Master Plan based upon a alleged failure to comply with Land Use
Policy #70, which provides:
a
0
"Regional/Community shopping centers should
locate near transportation facilities that is
offer the required access to the center, but
will not be allowed to create demans which
exceed the capacity of the.existing and future
transportation network of the City."
(c) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in evaluating
the project as a regional/community shopping center rather than as
a neighborhood/community center, as was warranted by the evidence.
(d) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in establishing
maximum vehicle trip per day criteria of 4,000 vehicle trips per
day on Manhattan Street South of Dennison, and 7,000 vehicle trips
per day on Manhattan Street South of Horsetooth, and North of
Dennison, in contravention of the evidence presented and generally
accepted standards and criteria. Specifically, the Planning and
Zoning Board ignored the evidence presented by the traffic
engineers for the Applicants, and apparently based its decision
upon maximum criteria suggested by Rick Ensdorf, Traffic Engineer,
which is without any basis in evidence'or theory.
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in.defining
Manhattan as a collector street, in contravention of the evidence.
(f) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in ignoring the
undisputed evidence produced by Applicants' traffic engineers with
respect to the current and future vehicle trips per day., all as
more specifically set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
(g) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in developing a
"community view" of collector street capacity, and ignoring
textbook definition and expert opinions.,
(h) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in effectively
condemning Applicants' property by adopting traffic criteria that
cannot be met by a developer with any use. The Planning and Zoning
Board erred in simply denying rather than proposing reasonable
limitations or restrictions or conditions to mitigage adverse
traffic impacts.
(i) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in refusing to
approve any developer proposal to mitigate adverse traffic
impacts.
(j) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in finding that
the project had significant adverse traffic impacts, in
contravention of the evidence, when in fact, there are no
significant traffic impacts in excess of those impacts which will
exist in the event the project is developed as currently platted.
•
-2-
460
BUILD -OUT (2010) DAILY TRAFFIC
•
•
LEGEND
A. Proposed Scheme 148,000 s.f.
B. No Park South (Warren Farm & HB as approved)
- C. Park South at 143 D.U. (Warren Farm & HB as approved)
D. Park South, Warren Farm, & HB all residential
•
•
• •
(k) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in determining
that the proposed Master Plan will create traffic demands which
will exceed the capacity of existing and future transportation
network of the City, in contravention of the evidence presented.
Record for appeal:
(a) verbatim transcript (attached)
(b) minutes (will be provided upon their completion by
City on or after September 8, 1988)
(c) exhibits received by the Board (will be provided
upon compilation by City on or after September 8,
1988)
DATED this 6th day of September, 1988.
QcIC
SORENSEN AND KONKEL
GreqKR: Remmenga #1 0
Attorneys for Appellants
1405 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(303) 49 3-848 4
DAIL11�fRAFFIC ON CITY COLLECTOR STREEOP
Stuart, E. of College
Swallow, W. of Railroad
Meadowlark, S. of Drake
Monroe, E. of College
Stuart, W. of Shields
Dunbar, S. of Drake
Swallow, E. of College
lie
TRAFFIC COUNT PROJECTION PROJECTION
5000 (84) 5500-6000 (88)
5700 (83) 6000 (88)
3000 (83) 3000 (88)
7000 (86)
6500-7000 2010)
6500 (2010)
4000 (2010)
10,000 (2010)
6000 (2010)
5000 (2010)
12,000 (2010)
C
0
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING .
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DATE: AUGUST 22, 1988
TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING
300 LAPORTE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ITEM #18, #46-88 PARK SOUTH PUD - MASTER PLAN
(Vaught) Chairman and members of the board, good evening. I am
Frank Vaught with Vaught -Frye Architects, representing Park South
Venture, a partnership of local people who have owned the
property since 1984. They have developed and built in southwest
Fort Collins over the last 9 years and are very familiar with
that area of town. The Park South P.U.D. was approved as a
county subdivision in April of 1978 and annexed to the City in
July of that same year. It was approved with 143 single family
lots, averaging in size of approximately 4,000 sq. ft, about 50 X
80, dimensionally, with county streets and landscaping standards.
The projected cost of a home on these lots in todays' marketplace
would range in price from about $40,000.00 to $60,000.00. This
represents, you probably can't see it from your stations, but,
this plan represents the approved county subdivision back in 1978
and what is currently on the record books. In 1978, Horsetooth
Road was a two-lane county road, JC Penney's had not been added
to the Foothills Fashion Mall. The Marriott did not exist, nor
did the Albertson's center at Horsetooth and College. Today,
Horsetooth is a major four -lane arterial street with improvements 0
that include a nice landscaped island, a park, an elementary
school exists in this square mile, an additional elementary
school has been built west of shields, a community college has
recently emerged in that part of town. The Center For Advanced
Technology is being developed today and large areas of single
family development have occurred. Southwest Fort Collins has
emerged as a vital, growing part of Fort Collins, just as
Southeast Fort Collins did previously. The Horsetooth and
College intersection has been touted as the future center of Fort
Collins and, in fact, the area around the mall and the Marriott
has been referred to as the South Fort Collins Business District.
Development that occurred over the last decade along Horsetooth
east of College has been sensibly planned with a transition of
intensity as it approaches the single family neighborhoods to the
east. The Shores Office Park is a good example of this logical
transition. It is therefore logical, we feel, that development
west of College occur in the same sensible way. We feel that the
proposed land uses that are illustrated in the Park South Master
Plan represent a sensitive transition to the existing
neighborhood for these reasons: First, the more intense retail
uses in Parcel D are clustered at the intersection of the
arterial and the collector. Secondly, the single family lots
compatible in size and price range with the exisitng single
family are planned adjacent to the single family lots to the
south and west. Third, an office park surrounds the retail to 0
0 •
buffer the existing and proposed residential lots to the west and
to the south. The Old Development Criteria Chart of Land
Development Guidance System defines neighborhood compatibility in
four areas: first, social compatibility; second, neighborhood
character; third, land use conflicts; and fourth, adverse traffic
impact. I would like to address the first three items. Every
effort has been made over the last four months to meet with the
neighborhood and listen to their concerns. We originally met on
May 4th and presented our initial master plan. Unfortunately,
much confusion developed after that meeting due to a number of
homes being mistakenly omitted from the invitation list and
erroneous newspaper reports that confused the site with another.
City staff had been very supportive of the proposal until they
completed their traffic review and upon hearing of new staff
concerns, we elected to continue the application. On June 14th,
we met with a small group representing the Village at Four
Seasons and on July 25th, we met with a larger overall
neighborhood group and had a good work session in which I feel a
lot of things were accomplished. Given the changes that occured
in the plan over those two months, we elected to have another
neighborhood meeting on August 10. At that meeting, we presented
the plan that is before you tonight and an illustrative plan that
represented a 20% reduction on the overall nonresidential uses on
the site. The illustrative plan was an effort to convert the
bubbles that you see on the master plan because those bubbles
seemed to create a bit of confusion with the neighborhood. More
of their concerns were specific in regards to land uses, set
back, buffers, types of buildings, heights of buildings,
landscaping, typically items that are discussed and defined in
more detail in the preliminary and final plan. However,
continous concerns from the neighborhood again seemed to center
around the details of the plan and the specifics of those uses.
We chose to illustrate a possible solution in order to
communicate our ideas more clearly. This plan only illustrates
a possibility, an opportunity, but it is our best guess at this
point, in terms of the types of the land uses that were
illustrated on the master plan and their location. It follows
very carefully the areas and the amount of square footage that
were represented. Appendix C of the Land Development Guidance
System is very specific regarding land use conflicts. It
suggests that mitigation can be accomplished in several ways.
First, by providing open space buffers. Second by treating those
buffers with landscaping and topographic changes. Third, it
suggests that the orientation of buildings and the buildings
themselves can cause a buffer to be created. Fourth, that
physical barriers such as walls and fences may be necessary.
Additionally, architectural compatibility can also be achieved
through orientation, materials, color, scale and prominence of
buildings. Streets and parking areas will often serve to reduce
some types of certain land use conflicts. A quote from Appendix
C states that "an entire site plan can be oreinted so that
activities and functions are aligned hierarchically, placing
those least compatible furthest from the commmon boundary and
those most compatible near that boundary. I contend this evening
• 0
that this plan does exactly that. We have included a great deal
of specific criteria on the master plan that typically is not
found at this level in order to more define the open space, the
buffers, the landscaping concepts, the building heights, the
building scale. We have gone additionally and taken the
additional steps if illustrating what our idea is today. Our
idea is of creating a community scale center with neighborhood
services. The neighborhood as it exists today is void of those
services except along College Avenue. This center will be an
interceptor not a generator. That is to say that a hospital, say
perhaps, is a generator and the flower shop across the street is
the interceptor. We feel that the services that will be provided
in this center, the community -type services, will be accessed by
the arterial, and the neighborhood services will be accessed by
Manhattan. The size of the center is critical to its success.
This type of center does not include a food store as an anchor,
but rather a junior department store. We are attempting to
anchor the center with a home furnishing store that would attract
similar uses such as a carpet store, drapery, tile wallpapaer, a
decorator center, perhaps a hardware and appliance store, lawn
and garden, a computer store, things that you might find
associated with a home furnishings -type anchor. This is a unique
proposal in that it does not exist in Fort Collins. A community
scale center is not defined in the policies plan. This is not a
regional cetner. It is not located on College Avenue. It is not
intended to attract the types of users that feel they need the
visibility and accessability that the College Avenue corridor
provides. It is inteneded to be a lower scale type of center.
These types of centers are much lower in types of traffic that
they do generate. It is not like a food store who has very high
peak hour demands, but rather a home furnishings store that is
more reduced in terms of its traffic generated. When traffic
surfaced as the major concern by staff, we responded by adding
Mr. Bob Leigh, of Leigh, Scott and Cleary, the transportation
planners, to join Matt Delich, our traffic engineer, in
analyzing the traffic impact. At this time I would like to turn
things over to Bob and let him specifically address some of our
findings.
(Leigh) "Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning
commission, I am Bob Leigh. As Mr. Vaught mentioned, I have
looked at providing some additional imput on the traffic issues
associated with this development. The specific criteria that we
have attempted to analyze in detail is the one that says is the
project designed so that the additional traffic generated does
not have significant adverse impact on the surrounding
development? Beyond going through the traffic numbers that are
generated and the level of service and analyses at the
intersection, the determination of whether or not adverse impacts
are created by the development are subjective. They are
qualititative, they are somehwat subjective. In order to
determine what criteria the City would have us use to weigh
whether or not adverse impacts were created were attempted to be
determined from staff input. On July 21, we met with Mr.
Ensdorf, the Traffic Engineer, the planner on the case, and at
that time, having had prior comment that the traffic volumes,
particularly on Manhattan, are too high. We attempted to
determine what is the comfort level that that traffic should be.
We discussed at that time, a, essentially a 20% decrease in the
floor area in the commmercial facilities at the center and
discussed what that would mean in terms of traffic reduction. At
that time Mr. Ensdorf said "you're all on the right track." So
we felt encouraged enough to go back and translate that offer
into specifics and that is basically what you have being
presented to you tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, Mr.
Ensdorf gave us some additional criteria for specifically
Manhattan, and that criteria said, in effect, that south of
Dennison, which is this street that goes into the single family
area, that the maximum traffic volume on that street that he
would recommend or gave a comfort level with was 4,000 vehicles
per hour, excuse me, 4,000 vehicles per day. On the section of
Manhattan north of Dennison, the comfort level was 7,000 vehicles
per day. Recognizing the fact there are short trips on Manhattan
associated with turning vehicles turning off of Horsetooth,
coming down to the access points along Manhattan, therefore there
would be a higher value on Manhattan north of Dennison. Those
cirteria we then attempted to weight in terms of the kind of
traffic that would be created by not only this development, but
some of the proposed developments in the surrounding
intersections. The Warren Farms areas to the north, what was
called Minerva Business Park on the east side of Manhattan. We
refer to it as the HP zoned land. I want to show you the results
of that analysis. Did you pass out both sheets? There are 2
sheets. The first one I want to talk about is the one that's
called Buildout (20-10 daily traffic). There are 5, or excuse
me, 4 situations shown on this little diagram and the legend for
those 4 situations is shown at the bottom of the page. The ABCD
values that go on the 3 sections of Manhattan, actually 2
sections on Manhattan, 1 on Meadowlark north of Horsetooth,
correspond to the average daily traffic values that would be
associated with each of those situations. The first one is what
we call the "Proposed Scheme." With 148,000 square feet of
retail in Parcel D, that is the reduction that I mentioned. A
reduction of 23,000, I believe, square feet from the original
value for that retail area. The result in traffic numbers show
that in the critical portion of Manhattan south of Dennison, we
would have between 6,500 and 7,000 vehicles per day, and
recognized that the goal or desired maximum was 4,000. On the
section of Manhattan north of Dennison, the proposed scheme with
buildout of both Warren Farm and the Minerva Business Park would
be then 11,000 and the maximum criteria is 7,000, so obviously
this is higher than Mr. Ensdorf indicated to us. When you look
at the three other schemes, the second one, Scheme B, what would
be the traffic situation if Park South stayed exactly as it is
now, that is basically an empty field, then Warren Farm and the
other HP zoned land were built out, and you can see that with
that scenario the traffic volume numbers would be higher than the
comfort level that we were given. The other two scenarios show
Park South with all single family, residential and with the
Warren Farm and the HP land build out and that, of course, again,
is higher than the comfort level. The last scheme with the Park
South, Warren Farm and the HP land accross the street on the east
side of Manhattan, then if they were all residential, then we
would be within the criteria guidelines. Obviously, this is not
the real world, and when we looked at the situation where the
Park South property were left as is, the traffic volumes would
still be higher than what was indicated to us as a comfort level.
We asked the question, "What are we to do?" "What can we do?"
Obviously, we are not meeting the City with those guidelines.
It has not offered realistic values because they would be
exceeded by what is currently approved. And obviously, if the
guidelines that were given to us by Mr. Ensdorf were enforced, we
could not do anything with this property. It would have to stay
as it is. The second thing we wanted to look at was the question
which is in your development guideline. "Will the project's
completion not generate a traffic volume which exceeds the future
capacity of the external street system as defined by the City?"
We would answer that Question "No." This development will not
exceed the future capacity of the external street system. Quite
clearly, the proposed cross section of Manhattan, which is part
of this development proposal, indicates the widening of Manhattan
to accomodate more traffic than we are showing. In my view,
probably 18 to 20,000 vehicles per day could be accomodated by
the cross section that we are suggesting. On Manhattan south of
Dennison, the existing street has the capacity to carry at least
12 to 15,000 vehicles per day, much more than the 6 to 7,000 that
are shown on your diagram in situation A with all development
built out as currently proposed and with the develoment plan for
Park South as presented tonight. We looked around the City at
examples of other collector streets where traffic volumes are in
that range of 10,000 plus or minus vehicles per day and there are
several. The second sheet that Mr. Vaught passed out to you
shows some of those collector streets that we think are
comparable. Could I have the slide that shows the air photo of
the City? I think that's a pretty good one. Here we are on
Manhattan. This photo shows the subject property. This is the
Warren Farm proposal. This is the HP zoned land on the east side
of Manhattan, Troutman, the railroad tracks, Troutman just west
of College Avenue. This is an old photo of course. Troutman
does come through and intersect with College Avenue, Meadowlark
proposed through here, through Warren Farm on up to Drake and
then on into the Center For Advanced Technology on CSU's land.
So, this particular collector system is on that has a length of
slightly over 2 miles. Is it really a collector? It is probably
a hybrid between a collector and a minor arterial because it does
clearly serve some functions. When the Troutman connector across
the railroad tracks is completed, then there will be a travel
path, Boardwalk, Troutman up Meadowlark into the Center For
Advanced Technology, somewhat of an arterial function. There are
other collectors in the city that also have that kind of
function, Swallow, Hampshire road from Prospect south to Drake,
0 •
Troutman itself, Boardwalk over on the other side of College
Avenue, West Elizabeth from the western city limits to Shields, a
distance of 2 miles, a designated collector that has the
potential to carry 5 to 10,000 vehicles per day with some
arterial function. So we would ask the question "Is a
restriction of 4 to 7,000 vehicles per day on Manhattan a
reasonable restriction? Should it be designated as a major
collector, at least in that section from Horsetooth South to
Dennison? Should that not be a major collector, and should it
not have a designated maximum capacity of somewhere in the range
of 10 to 12,000 vehicles per day -- something that reflects its
function, something that reflects its capability to serve a
commercial mode which clearly will exist at the intersection of
Manhattan and Horsetooth?" I leave you with those questions. I
think that they are very pertinent to our request to have this
particular development approved. As I mentioned, there is no way
that with the City's guidelines for traffic values on Manhattan
and Meadowlark that those quidelines can be met with the existing
approved development, let alone the development that we are
presenting tonight. Thank you. Are there any questions?
We may have some later Mr. Leigh.
Mr. Vaught, does that conclude the applicants' presentation?
Yes, it does, thank you.
Sherry, would you give us the staff review and recommendation,
please?
(Albertson -Clarke) Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on three
specific areas in the staff report. I will try not to reiterate
anything the applicant has stated. I think that they did a very
accurate and well prepared presentation. The areas that I would
like to touch on that we have covered in our staff report are the
issues of land use, traffic impact and neighborhood
compatibility. As Mr. Vaught indicated, the proposed master plan
provides for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. The
residential areas are in the southern 1/3 of the site. Staff has
evaluated the overall master plan in terms of the City's land use
policies plan and we believe that the proposed residential land
uses are supported by the Specific Land Use Policy. Those
residential uses, as shown in the master plan, are low density in
nature and in close proximity to regional community shopping,
existing schools, parking and employment. Therefore, we have
determined that the residential uses as proposed are compatible
with the surrounding land uses and supported by the Land Use
Policies Plan. We have looked at the remaining uses proposed on
the master plan in terms of the category of nonresidential. The
master plan proposed a mix of retail office and office/commercial
uses. We have listed many of those uses in the staff report for
you and those have been taken from the master plan and are also
up on the slide viewer presently. In terms of the proposed uses,
in our discussions with the applicant, as well as our review of
• 0
the plan, staff is reviewing the proposed uses in terms of a
regional community scale of shopping center. I think that staff
would agree with the applicants that many of the uses on the
proposed on the master plan are neighborhood orientated in that
they provide uses to an adjacent neighborhood. For example,
they have a dry cleaning establishment listed, professional
offices, medical offices. Those are the sorts of uses you might
find in a neighborhood shopping center in Fort Collins. For
example, the Toddy's Shopping Center at Lemay and Drake is a
neighborhood shopping center as is Drake Crossing on Taft Hill
Road and Drake. We do feel, however, though, that given some of
the uses that are proposed on the master plan as well as the
scale or intensity of those uses, that we have to look at the
proposed nonresidential uses in terms of a regional scale
shopping center. As a result, we have evaluated those uses
against the Land Use Policies Plan and we have six land use
policies that do relate to regional community uses. I would like
to go through those briefly. Those are Policies 69 thru 74.
Policy 69 - Regional community shopping centers should locate in
areas that are easily accessible to existing or planned
residential areas. Policy 70 - Regional Community Shopping
Centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer
the required access to the center, but will not be allowed to
create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing or the
future transportation network of the city. Policy 71 - New
Regional Community Shopping Centers locating within the proximity
of existing regional shopping centers shall be designed to
function together as a single commercial district. All centers
will be deisgned to encourage pedestrian circulation and
discourage multistop trips of private automobiles or force
traffic onto the streets whose primary function is to carry
through traffic. Policy 72 - Regional community Shopping Centers
should locate where they can be served by public transportation.
Policy 73 - Regional Community Shopping Centers should locate by
existing water and sewer facilities. Policy 74 - Transitional
land uses or areas such as linear green belts or other urban
design elements should be provided between residential
neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the
concept of the mixture of land uses. On staffs review, we
believe that all but one of these policies are supported by the
proposed nonresidential uses and the consideration of this site
as a regional community shopping center. Policy 70 does reflect
that such uses should locate near transportation facilities that
can offer the required access to the center but wont allow
demands that exceed the capacity of the existing and future
transportation network of the city. It is on the basis of that
Land Use Policy that Staff is recommending denial of the proposed
master plan. The traffic consultants have already indicated that
we spent quite a bit of time working on the issue of traffic
impact to analyze the proposal that was first submitted to us as
well as the subsequent revision that you have before you this
evening. It is staff's opinion that the proposed traffic that
will be generated along Manhattan Avenue along this site, as well
as south of Dennison, and the potential traffic that will be
9 •
generated to the north of Horsetooth on a future extension of
Meadowlark would be the type of traffic volume that would far
exceed the capacity of those streets. They do presently serve
residential areas and that is where staff's primary concern is.
We feel that the kinds of trips that would be generated and the
numbers of those trips would have a negative impact on those
surrounding existing residential neighborhoods. The final area
that I would like to cover is one of neighborhood compatibility.
As Mr. Vaught mentioned, we have had two formal City organized
neighborhood meetings on the project as well as several other
informal meetings that both staff and the applicant have
attended. I have included in your packet summaries of the
comments, concerns and questions raised at those neighborhood
meetings, the first of which was on May 4th and the other on
August 10. I'd like to summarize the concerns that the residents
attending those meetings brought up. Those are: buffering from
adjacent existing residences, the proposed land uses, traffic
impact and utilities. And I'd like to take just a moment to
highlight each of those particular issues and give you an idea of
how they have been addressed to this point. As Mr. Vaught
indicated, with the master plan have been several items
incorporated with the intent to address the neighborhood's
concerns about buffering from adjacent existing residences.
Typically we don't see this sort of detail on a master plan.
What we have here is a schematic that indicates a planned
landscape buffer to the two office parcels that lie along the
western portion of the property. Those are the areas that are
immediately adjacent to existing single family homes, thus the
area is, I think, of staff's and the neighborhoods greatest
concern.
......technical difficulties..........
This is something that we typically do not see in a master plan
but staff felt that this was an important consideration given the
concerns from the neighborhood. I think many of those concerns
come from the fact that this is a master plan and it does not
give specific locations of buildings, of parking spaces nor does
it give a specific commitment toward the kind of land uses.
Instead on a master plan, we have a listing of uses and in this
case I believe we have gotten much more specific in the kinds of
uses that might occur here and that has happened as a result of
the need to better define the expected traffic generation from
the kinds of uses that were planned here.- obviously if we had a
center that indicated x amount of square feet of commercial uses,
the concept of commercial is so broad that it would be difficult
for us to use that and evaluate whether a land use were
appropriate as well as determine the nature of the traffic that
could be generated from that type of project. And, as a result,
we do have a very specific list of land uses. Another major
issue that was presented by the neighborhood and expressed at
these two meetings was the concern of changing the property to a
nonresidential use. I think boardmembers are very familiar with
the Land Development Guidance System that we use to evaluate
planned unit developments here in Fort Collins and the underlying
philosophy of that system is that you can propose any land use on
any piece of property regardless of what that property is zoned;
however, that proposal of the porposal of the land use and
subsequent approval is contingent on identifying any potential
land use conflicts
....technical difficulties....
and we are generally comfortable waiting to see that detail until
preliminary. I think in this case, though, we are comfortable
looking at the additional landscaping and buffering that has been
committed to you on this project. The last two concerns were
regarding a present water pressure problem in the Four Seasons
area and the issue of traffic impact which I have covered and I
believe after my recommendation we do have Rick Ensdorf, the City
Traffic Engineer, to get more specific comments on traffic
impact. The issue of the existing water pressure problem, that
concern was raised by several residents living in the Four
Seasons area and for their benefits as well as for the boards,
the City's Water and Sewer Utility is installing a 60" water line
in this vacinity. That construction is to be completed September
1 and with the completion of that project, there will be a more
consistent flow of water available to the properties that have
been experiencing that. At the present time, during the summer
months with peak water demand, many of the homes have water
pressure as low as 20 to 25 psi. With the installation of and
completion of this phase of the water line, it is expected that
the range that an individual will experience in terms of water
pressure is more compatible with what you have in the winter
time. We would hope it would be somewhere in the range of 45 to
55 psi and anyone that does have further problems as a result of
the installation of that or after that line is completed
September 1, there will be water pressure meters placed on
specific cul-de-sacs and then if the problem is not resolved,
there will be meter pressuring done on individual homes to try to
further resolve the problem. I think the important point to
consider, though, is that the proposed Park South Master Plan as
well as the face plan that is on the agenda tonight would not
have any additional detrimental effect on the provision of water
service or pressure in that area with the completion of the 60"
water line. I think that staff has looked at a number of issues
in evaluating this proposed master plan and, based on numerous
discussions with the applicant, we have tried to resolve the
issue of traffic impact. It is the staff opinion at this time
that we cannot support a proposed master plan at this time such •
as this that would significantly exceed the traffic volumes that
0
0
'o
are intended to be carried on a collector street, and on that
basis, staff is recommending denial of the Park South Master
Plan.
(Dave Edwards) I am sure that Members of the Board may have
questions of either staff or the applicant and perhaps it would
facilitate questions if whoever jumps in first could exhaust
themselves of questions and then we'll move on to the next member
of the board and answer questions that way and then following
questions from the board we will go to public input.
(Croznik) Well, I'll go first. I have a couple of questions
concerning the presentation by the applicant. It was stated that
the office park surrounds the retail and as I read the master
plan, commercial could also be in area E as well as in area B.
Is that not right?
(Vaught) Uh, that is correct, Mr. Croznik, in that Parcel E and
Parcel B do include commercial/office. I think we've defined
commercial as to be ancillary type retail uses to include a
neighborhood bank, other types of retail uses such as that that
would be more logically located in these areas, still in small
scale, and we feel compatible in use with the residential uses.
(Croznik) I guess I'd like to get a better feeling about small
scale and compatible, uh, as far as building scale, as far as
numbers of trips generated by that use?
(Vaught) OK, I'll deal with the building scale. Perhaps we can
look to the illustrative plan. What has been represented in this
plan is a concept of an internal private drive that would provide
access to these parcels. That drive is located about 300' east
of the Village of Four Seasons. We have intentionally located it
that way so that parking could be accomodated off of the drive
and the buildings that are represented are in the neighborhood of
5,000 to 8,000 square feet. You can see very lightly illustrated
is one of the duplex units in the Villages of Four Seasons. They
are represented with their garages and in scale and mass. They
duplicate what has been illustrated on this plan. That is our
concept of small in scale, in the 5 to 8,000 square foot range,
one and two story buildings.
(CRoznik) Do you have any way of ensuring that that will be
developed in that small scale character?
(Vaught) I think we would be willing to commit to that, at least
in this area. I think we would want some freedom in terms of
dealing with perhaps at least the east boundary, of this Parcel E
and I am not sure that a potential conflict does exist on the
other parcel.
(Croznik) While we are on that illustrative master plan, does
that adequately reflect the amount of parking that would be
necessary to serve that amount of square footage that is shown
Is
there?
(VAught) That is correct. In fact, based on the types of uses,
if this were the home improvements/home furnishings -type anchor,
we have, I believe it was, 4 cars per thousand, which is a very
comfortable ratio for parking for that type of retail use and
adequate landscaping buffers to match that.
(Croznik) Would you define what an automobile -related service is
in your concept here? It is one of the uses that is allowed that
you are proposing?
(Vaught) You could have a tire store, for instance, that may
locate on one of the corners, that type of use. You could have
anything that would provide auto -related services, a car wash.
(Croznik) OK, the next question is concerning the grocery store
and why there is not a grocery store. Uh, I guess the inference
I got was that there would be more trips generated from a grocery
store than there would be with the type of use that you're
proposing.
(Vaught) That's correct. We feel that the neighborhood is
adequately serviced today with the existence of Albertson's and
the Steele's market'and the attitide, at least in the markeplace
today, is not one of expansion for the existing retail grocers
that are in Fort Collins and we look at this plan as being
something that would occur over the next 3 to 5 years, possibly
even as long as a 10 year total build down.
(Croznik) During your traffic studies, did you take into account
the possibilities of people using Troutman and Manhattan and
Meadowlark as a cut -through to get to this particular piece of
property? I guess the main reason I'm suggesting that is the
Lopez Elementary School in Troutman Park that is located in this
neighborhood.
(Croznik) I'll pass the ball to Mr. Leigh.
(Leigh) Mr. Croznik, yes we did. The present traffic volume on
Manhattan south of Horsetooth is somewehere in the order to 2,000
vehicles per day presently. When the year 2010 values were
looked at, we did assume that the railroad crossing would be in
effect and we raised the background traffic there to a level
higher than it is now, assuming that there would be some
additional traffic resulting from that. There would be plusses
and minuses, of course, with that connection. There would be
some traffic that would be using that route as you suggested, as
an arterial path. There would also be some relief to that
roadway because today traffic from the western part of Troutman
uses Manhattan to come up north to Horsetooth and then cut over.
With that railroad crossing, of course, that traffic would be
able to get diretly east to College Avenue. So, there would be
new traffic resulting from it, there would be a loss of some
0
existing traffic. We think in some, there would probably be an
increase in traffic on Manhatan and that has been taken into
consideration.
(Croznik) In your presentation, you mentioned an obvious travel
pattern that would happen from the CSU Center for Advanced
Technology down Meadowlark and perhaps even to Troutman to try to
avoid the traffic that is on College. Do you see that from a
traffic standpoint, is that a desirable situation?
(Leigh) The entrance to the Center For Advanced Technology and
there will be the use of that for that facility. Even if it were
not cut through, there would be in increase in traffic just on
the basis of employment that is added at the Center For Advanced
Technology. There would be emloyees in the southwest part of Ft.
Collins that would think of that to be an attractive home to work
travel path. With its attachment to Troutman, there would be an
additional incentive to use that roadway as a way of bypassing,
to some extent, College Avenue.
(Croznik) It may be attractive, but do you see it as desirable
from a traffic flow viewpoint?
(Leigh) From a traffic flow viewpoint it would be desireable,
yes. It would be a short travel point. Unfortunately, Meadowlark
is not constructed as what would be now a convention
al
collector roadway. So, desirable from a travel path, yes. From
a neighborhood impact or from a planning standpoint, not so
desirable.
as to
could
(Croznik) seuld you sttreetshtoeany preventcthatntravelspatternwortbe
lessen
done on
it?
(Leigh) I don't think I could. It's a sticky situation. The
development that is proposed here tonight does not depend upon in
any close way to have that continuity. Its major dependence from
a trafffic standpoint in Horsetooth. That would be the
overwhelming direction for most of the traffic either to the west
or to the east. So, the Meadowlark connection to the north is
minor.
(Croznik) Thank you. I have one more question concerning land
use. In the information that was presented, there was a list of
uses that could occur on the site and, thinking about traffic
again, I just wanted to call a couple of these uses and see if
some of theme generate more traffic than others. Uh, the indoor
theatre... is that a high generator of traffic?
(Leigh) I think depending on the size and scale of the theatrslye,
if it were a 6 plex typical Mann -type theatre,
it have some very definite peak hour characterisitics of traffic
that are associated with the features.
•
(Croznik) In the land uses allowable, it just says "indoor
theatres", so we can assume anywhere from 2 to 6?
(Leigh) You can assume that, yes. I guess that is where it was
a bit risky on our part to go into the level of detail that is
illustrated on the master plan because typically that is not
required. We were trying to communicate some things but also
keep a maximum amount of flexibility because at this point we are
only looking at a master plan. You are not looking at a
preliminary submittal. Once the site anchors were determined and
site began to develop, additional updates to the traffic impact
analysis would have to be performed and reevaluated based on
those exact proposals, whether it included an indoor theater or
whether it included a home furnishings store.
(Croznik) How about a boat, car and RV showroom sales and
repair?
(Leigh) I'd say that's a fairly low traffic generator.
(Croznik) And then the last one is your talking about seasonal
uses. Give me a better idea of those.
(Leigh) As we indicated, our anticipated time frame for
construction is 3 to 5 years. Now we prefer not to see the land
sit vacant that entire time. If in the fourth year, there were
still no development opportunities, there might be a Christmas
tree lot, there might be a temporary auto sales area that could
be accomodated in one area and then just temporarily landscaped
and then changed once a more definite plan were achieved.
(Croznik) Ok, thank you, I'm through with my questions.
(Strom) I've just got a few things I'd like to raise. I think
that first of all I'd like to have Rick Ensdorf respond to some
of Mr. Leigh and friends questions as he put it.
(Ensdorf) To start off with, I just saw this stuff tonight, too,
but I am familiar with the information because we developed it.
Uh, to start with, the City of Fort Collins has three types of
streets that we plan for: local streets, collector streets and
arterial streets. We don't have a classification as minor
arterial. We don't have a classification as major collector and
minor collector. We do have streets, though, that range in each
one of those classifications. We have some streets that we
define as collectors that have more traffic on them and Mr. Leigh
has identified some of those. We have some local streets that
have some ranges but in general they fit into some categories
that we try to be consistent with. We have arterials that are
streets they we want to carry the major amount of traffic,
particularly traffic that is making longer trips through the
city. In regards to the type of collector streets that are on
this list. I would say they are a wide range of streets. All of
us who are familiar with Fort Collins know that Swallow takes a
•
•
significant amount of traffic. We call that a collector street.
It has 5 to 6,000 vehicles on it now and we anticipate more.
That is happening because of its location, its continuity, it is
over 3 miles long through the city, it has traffic signals at
arterial intersections and its adjacent to the mall. It is not
the type of collector street that we want to continue in Fort
Collins and that is the information that I get from the public,
from counsel, from Planning and Zoning as we deal with those
streets. Uh, as far as capacity on collector streets, there is a
textbook definition of capacity which I would totally agree with
Mr. Lee's analysis that you can probably get 10,000 vehicles a
day on a collector street. Then there are the pratical
capacities or the assumed capacities that a community expects on
a street. That is my job, as the City Engineer, to determine
what that level is, to determine what that community need is, how
we plan streets and then take that information and apply it to
developments. In this case, we have applied that type of
concept. We do not feel that the collector street system in this
part of the city is capable, even with some reconstruction, of
handling the traffic that this development is proposing. Just
pure numbers, the development would generate somewhere between 12
and 15,000 vehicles a day. Not all of that traffic is new
traffic. Some of it would be traffic indicated as intercepted
traffic; it is already on the street. But there would be a
significant amount of traffic that is new. So the traffic
numbers generated by this development are beyond what we feel are
even in the ballpark of collector streets. Uh, the original
traffic study for this proposal indicated that there would be
something like 12,000 vehicles a day on Manhattan. When this
development is built out and the adjoining highway business
development, called Minerva or previously called Minerva, and the
Warren Farm project, 12,000 vehicles a day is too much. We don't
want to create another Swallow. We want the street to be more in
tune with a Stover type of collector, a Columbia. I jotted down
a couple of additional streets on this list that weren't: Stover
Street now has approximately 3,000 vehicles a day. We project it
to have between 4 and 5,000 in the years to come. Hampshire,
north of Drake, has a little less than 3,000. Again, somewhere
between 4 and 5,000 vehicles a day. Columbia, again, same type
of numbers and same type of projections. Those are types of
collector street volumes that we anticipate for this type of
collector at Manhattan Street. So we are just not, and we have
had a lot of duscussions with the developer, we just have not
come to an understanding. We are just too far off in traffic
projections, so the site is too intense.
(Strom) Thank you. Uh, I think, and in my mind we are really
arguing about the traffic here and I'm interested in the points
that the developer has made with regard to the fact that inorder
to meet the target that the City has put forth, Y couldn't
the
develop this property at all and I would just like, I guess
project planner, are you the best one to respond to that?
(Vaught) I can take an initial shot at it.
•
(Name Unknown) Alright.
(Vaught) Uh, we have given the existing situation, which I would
define as a highway business area to the east of Manhattan and
south of Horsetooth that has a use by right associated with it,
the City's process. And given a master plan for a Warren Farm
residential and commercial development east of Meadowlark and
north of Horsetooth, those two projects, we realize that the
Minerva Business Park is one that has been around for awhile and
the City has to live with that or any future iterations of it, or
the Warren Farm project which was approved in the early 801s. I
feel that the City has a situation where we are already above the
capacity of the street system without some minor improvements.
The Park South project has potential development. We have set
targets for the development as best we can, to 7,000 on Manhattan
adjacent to the project and 4,000 south of it. The 7,000 number,
I feel, can increase because we can do things to mitigate it.
The difficulty, is though, as that number increases, it also
increases, depending on the land use, commercial more than
residential, it also increases the traffic south of this project,
into the residential area, which we are concerned with. So there
is potential for development. More residential, less commercial.
I don't have a number, but given that balance, or that change in
balance, the number becomes less of impact south of Dennison and
can be more mitigated adjacent to the site on Manhattan and off
of Horsetooth. From a transportation standpoint, that would be
my shot at it.
(Dave Edwards) Did you want to add something? (Directed toward
to Sherry Albertson -Clarke)
(Albertson -Clarke) I think, as my presentation indicated,
looking strictly in terms of land use, staff has been supportive
of the kinds of uses that are proposed on this site and there
have been numerous discussions with the applicant, even prior to
formal submittal of the master plan. However, I think, in many
cases, it's very difficult, if not impossible to separate the
issues of land use and traffic. This project and this location
really points that out. And I think when you look at the land
uses and the kind of intensity that we're looking at, this slide
doesn't reflect it. Phase D, which is the retail area closest to
the intersection of Manhattan and Horsetooth, is presently shown
at a potential square footage of 148,000 square feet. That is
somewhat comparable on that 11 acre piece to the Pavillion
Planned Unit of Development which is located on South College.
It is the present site of TJ Maxx and the Black Eyed Pea. That
particular center is the same amount of square footage on the
same acreage. I think when you take the issue of the types of
lane uses we're looking at here, add that retail and look at the
office and commerical throughout the site, which obviously the
office is not quite the traffic generator as the retail and
commercial uses could be, but at that point, then, it becomes
•
very difficult to look at land use independently of the traffic. 0
•
And therefore, those two issues
site and I think that is one of
difficult time in trying to come
this project, trying to give the
that traffic but at this point,
staff has not reached that point
are very interrelated on that
the reasons we have had a very
to grips with how to deal with
applicant direction to mitigate
as Mr. Ensdorf has indicated, the
yet.
(Strom) Thank you. I have one last question of Mr. Leigh.
Given that the staff basically says you're already producing too
much traffic off this site, I would be interested in what you
could suggest as mitigating measures for the kind of traffic that
you're hoping to add to that. Do you see anything from a traffic
engineer's standpoint that would reduce the impacts to the point
where they would be acceptable to the City?
(Leigh) There are some things that, could we get that same slide
back, that's fine. Uh, the orientation of the center could be
made more heaviliy oriented to Horsetooth with a full
intersection here. There is a problem there with the
intersection, if it were full movement, interfereing somewhat
with the Riva Ridge intersection on the north side, which is
right -in -right -out. Right now, the way this access is designed
is right -in -right -out -left -in. There is no left out and that
puts pressure on the intersection here because anybody that
comes in from the west turns in here, now with this plan, has to
go out this way, a left turn at this access, a left turn at the
signal here. That might require
...technical difficulties...
it would be approximately 600 feet off the
...technical difficulties...
from my standpoint, I don't know how Mr. Ensdorf feels, but that
is normally considered to be a workable separation of traffic
signals, where left turns for both access points can be
accomodated. Now I have no idea whether that sort of thing would
be acceptable. But what that would do, it would reinforce the
orientation of the center to Horsetooth and, in my view, it would
take away some of the emphasis on the access along Manhattan.
What it might do is result in somewhat different kind of land use
mix - one that is perhaps ancillary use to the
...technical difficulties...
and less of an orientation that would pull traffic north and
south off Manhattan. That's kind of an off the top of the head
analysis, but I think it would reduce traffic on Manhattan.
Well, I can see how that would reduce traffic on the stretch
immediately adjacent to the commercial, but my understanding from
the staff is that that really isn't the area we are most
0 concerned about.
(Leigh) Well, in doing these kinds of traffic analyses, we are
somewhat caught in a Catch 22. We project the traffic volumes
based on rates that are associated with traditional shopping
center values for this size. Virtually all of the studies that
have been used to generate those kinds of rates have a shopping
center that is a super market anchored store and the generation
rates are high. We used, for example in this case, we used a
generation rate in excess of 60 trips per tousand square feet per
day. (Repeat) 60 trips per thousand square feet per day. If
this were a furniture store, at this anchor in this center, the
rate would be a tenth of that, less than a tenth of it. So
there's a wide spectrum of possible traffic volumes that could be
associated with this center and, unfortunately, from our
standpoint we are looking at a worst case situation. Perhaps not
a worst, worst case, but a case that is more extreme, than I
think as a planner and as a traffic engineer, is a reasonable
thing. Clearly, if we have the kinds of uses that Mr. Vaught
said, and Mr. Strickfaden and Mr. Middel think are appropriate
for this center, we would have generation rates substantially
less that what we've shown. And they could be a quarter of the
values we've shown if the mix of land uses is more oriented to
some of those less intensive but regional kinds of uses like a
furniture store, like a computer store, like a service oriented
development that has people come for periods of time, like
computer classes or things of that nature, high value per square
foot sales, but low volume of people per square feet.
(Strom) Thank you.
(Walker) I would like to continue the traffic question --perhaps
Mr. Leigh would like to... Right now you are proposing a left -in
off of Horsetooth, will there be a traffic safety issue there,
since Horsetooth being an arterial with a reasonalbe speed there
with just an uncontrolled left -in. What are the safety issues
associated with that?
(Leigh) Well, the left -in from the arterial is far, far safer
than the left -out. The visibility is better, there are gaps that
the motorist only has to be concerned with in one direction. The
critical thing is "Is there enough storage for vehicles to stack
and make those left turns at a prudent gap?" And with the
traffic volumes projected on Horsetooth, the answer is yes, that
would be a safe intersection. If it had left -out, it would
probably require signalization.
(Walker) Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Ensdorf back to
address that issue from the City's perspective on the idea of a
median cut on Horsetooth.
(Ensdorf) Our planning for Horsetooth at this time is not have
another median cut. Safety enters into the question. I would
agree with Mr. Leigh that a left -out from that location would
have a greater impact on safety, but, uh, the left turn coming
•
off of Horsetooth would be one that would not be as safe as that
that would be made at a traffic signal 4 to 500 feet to the east
and we would prefer the left movements to be made there. That
has been our planning. So, we do not anticipate at this time
another left turn facility in that stretch of Horsetooth. We
feel it operates acceptably now and we want to maintain that
level of service.
(Walker) Am I correct that the City, that the Warren Farm
requested a similar type of thing going into Kiva Ridge Drive and
that it was denied? Is that correct?
(Ensdorf) Correct.
(Walker) OK. So, there has been a precedence. The City has
looked at that once.
(Ensdorf) When the Horsetooth Improvement District went in a
couple of years ago, there was a lot of discussion about access
points and left turn bays and such. Yes, that was part of the
discussion and it was determined that we did not want that to
happen.
(Walker) Thank you. I'd like raise a question of Mr. Vaught.
This regards the Parcel E. Now, I'd like to get a little more
specificity on this. Being as that is an office/commercial area,
it indicates that there would be uses intermediate between the
office and the retail noted above. I guess, am I to assume then,
and you go into some specifics, that anything would be compatible
with an office type environment. Am I reading this right, then,
to preclude that, for example, a fast food restaurant would not
go in on that corner then where that street is?
(Vaught) I think that would be safe to say, but that would be
more associated under Parcel D in the retail area than with
Parcel E. That would not be considered an ancillary use to the
office or the retail, but rather a major, anchor -type use.
(Walker) oK, well again, the specificity there would certainly
help to clarify that. Now the landscape buffer as you show it
along Parcel E, you have illustrated pitched roofs and there is
some sensitivity that I picked up at a neighborhood meeting I
attended that residential style office buildings, which typically
have pitched roofs, are more in keeping with the area -- I mean,
is this to imply that there would be pitched roofs on this zone
along that side?
(Vaught) I think that's to imply that with the proposed setbacks
and mitigation measures with landscaping and burming, a pitched
roof would be appropriate at those distances. If, however,
another plan came to you two years down the road that looked at
another alternative, I think that would have to be weighed at
that time and looked at in terms of compatibility and distance
and landscaping and land use. We are suggesting and committing
•
to on this master plan.
(Walker) The illustrative master plan shows the type of
environment that does not indicate a service road along the
property line there. Again, there was some concern about
obviously office or commercial buildings, if they are serviced
from the backside, and that happens to be what the adjoining land
use looks at, that can certainly be less desirable. Is there
any..are we to take this illustrative master plan as something
that, again, might imply a certain specificity as to how the
buildings are serviced?
(Vaught) That is correct as well. We are intending to have the
buildings function as part of that buffer so that the lights from
the parking lot, the trash pick up, the deliveries, etc., would
be on the east side of the buildings rather than on the west
side. We feel that if the distance is increased, perhaps to 50
to 80 feet, then the possibility is probably increased as well as
to have some type of service alley that may loop around behind
the buildings, which we would find not desirable and we know the
neighbors would find that as well.
(Walker) OK. Thank you. That's all the questions I have.
(Shepard) More traffic questions. One for Mr. Leigh. On your
amendment to the traffic study, I think, you had four different
scenarios. Scenario A, you stated, was with the 148,000 square
feet in the retail.
(Leigh) yes.
(Shepard) Did that not include the remainder 85,000 off of
commercial?
(Leigh) Oh, yes it did. Yes.
(Shepard) That's all for you. I guess kind of for Rick or
Sherry, it sounds like the traffic combined with this project,
Warren Farm and Minerva are already above acceptable levels. If
this project with 143 dwelling units can be built today, and that
it is one question, can it?
(Albertson -Clark) The Park South P.U.D. plan that was originally
approved in Larimer County and subsequently approved after
annexation by the City is still a valid plan today and could be
developed under that original approval on that plan.
(Shepard) Ok. So if that is 143 units and Warren Farm was
approved after that, the commercial area of Warren Farm. What was
the traffic analysis feeling at that point? Because it sounds
like at that point it would have been Warren Farm that pushed it
over the acceptable limit.
(Albertson -Clark) I will defer that one to Mr. Ensdorf.
(Ensdorf) That is a good question and I tried to find the
traffic study from Warren Farm done in the early 180s and I could
not find it, but I would guess that it did push it to that limit.
Even with the master plan for Warren Farm, we will still need to
look at that when a preliminary comes in and reassess its impact
in the surrounding area. Because, like we are saying, there is a
potential for that. When Warren Farm did come, we did look at
ways to bring some changes to the street system. That was
Meadowlark, originally intended to be a straight street from
Horsetooth up to Swallow where it presently exists. The Warren
Farm project broke that street up and it is not a straight
street, in fact, there is an L or a T intersection in that design
now. So there was attempts made at that time with street design
and there will be more efforts needed as preliminary phases come
in to deal with the impacts.
(Shepard) Thank you. That is all for me.
(Kern) Could I speak to you some more Rick. Poor guy. First is
just essentially a question of numbers. On the applicant is
using 2,000 to 2,500 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan and the
staff numbers that we have are, that we were given were 3,000 to
3,500. How come there is a disparity? Is the real number an
average of the two, or are they taken from?
(Ensdorf) With that type of a facility, I would not disagree
with their numbers it might be a little bit higher than that.
On varying days traffic might fluctuate from 2,500 and 3,000, I
would imagine is the maximum that we have ever seen on that
street. So it ranges some.
(Kern) What sort of service level would that imply?
(Ensdorf) As I am sure that the people who are here can tell
you, driving down Manhattan is fine, getting to Horsetooth is
probably a potential for delay, particularly if you are trying to
make a left turn on Horsetooth without a traffic signal. A right
turn from Manhattan onto Horsetooth is not a difficult maneuver.
So generally at an "A" or a "B" and may be at peak hour a "D" or
an "E" trying to make a left turn on to Horsetooth.
(Kern) So that already exceeds city limits at that intersection
during peak hours?
(Ensdorf) Technically, yes. Most of our intersections and
aterials with intersections that do not have traffic signals or
other control devices, left turns onto those at peak hours
throughout the city are probably in the average of D or E unless
you are real lucky and get there at the right time.
(Kern) And then just to look to a couple of other points. Is
there a time table when it, for the Troutman coming across the
tracks. In other words, some of the relief on Manhattan would be
expected to be when Troutman is filled. What ... 0
(Ensdorf) That subject was touched on earlier by Mr. Leigh and I
think it is a good, that is an issue. We have experience with a
similar type of situation and that is Swallow Road. We worked
very hard to get the Swallow Road crossing with the expectation
that it would provide releif to traffic ways of Drake and
Prospect. We have found that, I take that back, Drake and
Horsetooth. We have found that that is a double edged sword, it
does provide some relief, but it also has increased traffic on
Swallow more than we anticipated. The Troutman crossing is one
that is still planned. One that as anybody could see, the street
are built right up to the railroad. We would have to deal with
the railroad in order to get permission to cross it, but we feel
confident that we can get permission with safe crossing gates and
flasher and things.
(Kern) When?
(Ensdorf) The question has a longer answer. The question is the
need and the balance. We do not want do it until absolutely
necessary, because we now understand the impacts more. The
previous discussions was that there is some give and take. Some
of the traffic that is being forced through the collector street
to Manhattan on to Horsetooth or through a more difficult
maneuver south of Troutman through Larkbunting and some of those
streets which does not have a collector like Manhattan would be
releived by that Troutman maneuver if we build it. But if we
don't build it, we protect that neighborhood as a collector
street like the Swallow Road situation. So when and if it is
built, we do have it planned, I can't give you a time as we are
waiting until the need is at that level, as it is a very
important decision and it will have significant pros and cons
when we do that. So I can't give you a time, I can tell you that
we are planning to do it. The one thing that I can tell you is
that we are doing other things. There has also been some
discussion of using the maneuver of Troutman and Manhattan and
Manhattan to Meadowlark and up. We do not want that to happen
and we are going to be doing things to prevent that happening.
At Meadowlark and Drake on the opposite side from the center we
are going to narrowing Meadowlark down and presenting a different
appearance to motorists so that it does not look like a wide
street and here's the way to go as an alternative. We want it to
be more of a residential collector type street. Signalization
might be used to penalize those kinds of maneuvers and we will
look at other ways to manage that to keep those collectors
streets more of their intended purpose, not to allow them to
change by the decisions of motorists.
(Kern) Thanks. One other thing. To use it as a prototype of
several of the streets in the neighborhood, if we take something
like Wabash street and look at the expected levels of traffic
that this sort of street would provide. This sort of street
7�
0
provide a straight shot right in to it, especially if Troutman
does not go through, something like Wabash will become...
(Ensdorf) It is already, as people who live there have already
realized that it has changed with the elementary school, Wabash
is a connector from Manhattan. We are dealing with that, but I
would agree with the concept that with additional development to
this magnitude there would be even more traffic using that as way
to get into this area. The numbers, I haven't looked at so I
could not tell you to what level, but there would have to be
more.
(Kern) Thanks, just one question of Sherry. As presently zoned,
this is a RLP and while it comes under the planned unit
development structure which gives us a reasonable amount of
flexibility. Nonetheless, the fact of designating it RLP, does
give rise to a general sort of expectation. What would the
density or intensity of development on this particular proposed
plan compare with toher RLPs that have been developed with a
mixed use. Is it higher or lower in intensity, different in
intensity?
(Albertson -Clark) I think as an example, I could talk breifly at
that Warren Fram planned use development which is directly to the
north of this site opposite Horsetooth. That has an overall site
of 35 acres. The master plan is 31 acres, so they are somewhat
comparable in size. The Warren Farm site is zoned RP which is
planned residential. The RLP zoning district typically and
originally handled the density of approximately 6 units per acre.
The RP zone, was originally intended, I think, to carry a little
bit higher density but I will go ahead and use this as an
illustration since it is within the area. There have been
several amendments to the original Warren Farm master plan. The
most recent one that I was able to look into does have a mixed
use master plan approved on it. It has variety of residential
uses and densities as well as a total of 190,000 square feet of
nonresidential uses and that is a mix of office/retail,
restaurant, health club, day care and some retail uses. On that
35 acres, there are a mix of condominium units, patio homes and
apartments. There also is an existing single family area that is
developed there right now. I just need to add up some of these
units here. In that particular case, we were looking at
somewhere in the range of 5 to 600 residential units on that site
as master planned. But again, that underlying zoning is
different; however, when we do a planned unit development, we, in
essence, remove that zone from the property and overlay it with
the planned unit development. I don't have any specific to give
you as far as other properties that have a mixed use with the
residential and shopping center mix. I did provide additional
information for the board, but those are projects that are
specifically shopping center -related projects.
(Klataske) Well, one of the advantages of going late is that
most of the topics have already been covered. One comment I
guess I would have and I was glad to hear Rick's comments on
what's being done on Meadowlark as you have another elementary
school there north, right off of Meadowlark. If we increase the
traffic through to the Center For Advanced Technology or coming
through that area with the increased traffic on Swallow and with
the proposed development here, and with the increased traffic by
the elementary school there, we have some safety concerns for the
children in the area. So, I am glad to hear that there is
something going on with Meadowlark or planned for it. The
questions concerning setback I think have been addressed. Uh,
the buffering, again, that, depending upon the structure of the
building, if we're looking at, you know, sloped roofs on a more
residential instead of a flat roof, and the traffic, I think
we've covered it to my satisfaction.
(Dave Edwards) If there are no further questions, then, I close
this portion of the hearing and we now move to public input.
Before we jump right into that, could I see a show of hands from
how ever many people, at least at this point, either have
questions or want to make comments. Uh, what we might do so that
everyone is best served, since we have been sitting here for over
two hours, if we could take a short five minute break, the board
will make every effort to be back with us by 8:45, let's say. If
there is a spokesperson or two for any neighborhood groups that
may exist, what we'd like to do perhaps, is let those designated
spokespeople speak first. We do want to hear from everybody, but
if the spokespeople will speak first... then when we reconvene,
if those who want to speak would move down front so that we can
expedite things without a lot of shuffling back and forth and
there'll be fewer bruised knees and so forth.
(Dave Edwards) If we could reconvene, we'll try to stay true to
our word. Now is the time for public input and once again if
there are any spokespeople, they could come down first. For
those of you who do intend to say something, again there are lots
of seats in the front row. If you could come down now, that
would save some time. If you would be so kind, too, you could
come to either podium. And if you could be so kind as to give us
your name and address. There is a little sheet there on each
podium and, I hope, a pencil or a pen so that you can sign in for
the record. First one, please.
(Palmer) If you'll bear with me, I am neither a politician nor a
speaker. My name is Clarence Palmer and I reside at 701 Arbor in
the Four Seasons subdivision. I probably have participated in
the obtaining of 239 signatures on a petition of which you all
have a copy of, I think. Also, in requesting people who were
opposed to the current proposition to be writing letters and I
think there are 40 or 50 within your packet. There is also a map
in the packet to indicate the area to be covered and those who
had signed, those we were unable to contact and unfortunately a
few who had other thoughts and apparently more than one person
hit a house. Apparently there is a couple three of them who did
not wish to sign who have been indicated as either uncontacted or 0
noncommittal. So we will admit to that at the onset. I am here
to speak on behalf of a great number of those people. Sherry has
virtually covered everything which has been a big concern of
them. The main question that they had was really a question as
to the need of another shopping center in this community at the
moment. And, more importantly, the concern about the amount of
traffic that is generated not only by the collector to the
arterial but by the streets within the residentially oriented
subdivision, i.e. Wabash and Dennison. If Sherry could put the
aerial back on there, I would like to show something else.
We have the current project proposal, we have Four Seasons, we
have another 158 homes anticipated to be built here. This area
here is currently platted and is the process of being developed
now. Wabash is generated and coming all the way through at the
moment, for Dennison to come through and take a circuitous route
through traffic. My definition of through is to the end which is
to Manhattan. If you take a look Wabash is proposed to go
through to Shields. That is going to provide a major, major
collector to get all the way through, and, or to get up to
Tradition, or up Benthaven to get in to the center. To my way of
looking at, it is not beneficial to the area. I agree with the
non -left turn lane because people will tend to try to snake
across without signalization to get in, creating a hazard for
east bound traffic on Horsetooth. As a result, they will turn in
right. If they have to turn out right they would come up, how do
they get out this direction, they don't. They come out this way,
they have a way to go left. If there is traffic here they are
going to have to wait, maybe. Otherwise they are going to turn
left on Dennison or they are going to take Wabash. It is going
to create nothing more than additional traffic within a
neighborhood. A neighborhood which is already committed to being
growing.
There is a great number of children who walk to a walk-in
elementary at Lopez. They walk to and from, they walk to the
park after school for activities. There is concern about the
safety of those children within that area. They are also
concerned somewhat about the noise and the exhaust pollution that
will take place. There is also concern about if there will be
adverse or beneficial effect on the property values in the area.
The size and magnitude of the proposed usage for the proposed
shopping center far exceeds the neighborhood shopping center
designation. It is compounded by suggesting additional retail
uses to be permitted in the office environment. This is a
neighborhood, not a community, and we do not need an expanded
section of the College corridor, it should remain over there.
Manhattan at the moment provides a good barrier
aconsenforsus thatof to take
most
place. Right now, I think I have given
of the people have passed to me through the course of picking up
the petitions. I would like to reserve the right to return
again, maybe after somebody else has spoken and give some
personal input if possible.
•
•
( ) I think, just to
if you could say everything you
we do not create the impression
chances.
facilitate things, Mr. Palmer,
want to say at this point, then
that people get second and third
(Palmer) I think that Mr. Vaught has stated that the pitched
roof as noted on the master plan is today, and there is the
possibility that it would be relooked at the time of the
preliminary submittal. Would this be true of the entire proposed
development. We were also asked the possibility of submitting
written suggestions and, or thoughts as far as the P.U.D. is
concerned. I would like to submit for your consideration Park
South Master Plan that there be one entry off of Horsetooth, if
it is permitted at all. The recommendation is not. Two entries
off of Manhattan, no entries off of Dennison. And if it is
required from an emergency vehicle situation, the entry be
locked, chained and no point of getting in. We would prefer
Dennison not to be a through street. There has been an extension
of the single family residential right now on Colleridge and it
has been extended on that single family residential by about 300
feet. I would suggest the possibility of continuing it another
300 feet and that would put residential homes all the way up to
the shown fence that they have for the elderly people of the
village. The village indicates with those bordering the
property, indicate a wish to have an 8-5 retail usage of those
retail commercial that is available to the east of them. And if
you cannot find a way to put a condition on the master plan for
item #5, I would like to see that there be height restriction of
single story in parcel C with also conditional consideration
given to Parcel B and E. The master plan currently has a
designation on Parcel F as duplex housing. I am from the West
Coast, duplex to me is two families, two house on the same lot.
That is not the designation of the underlying P.U.D., it is a
single family and I would suggest that if they do anything with
the master plan that they convert it back to single family
designation on the master plan. I would also suggest that on the
present master plan that they have a designation of neighborhood,
it is not, it should be designated as community regional. I
would like to see them adjust the master plan planning objective
accordingly and I would also like to see them specify the roof
styles and the pitch on any of the office buildings as a written
statement. Park South P.U.D., they have a notation, note #6,
calls for a two story, 40 foot max., standard development
procedure within Fort Collins. Is there a necessity for that to
be there when they have alreadty limited the offices to a 30 foot
max. height. I do not know. Again, I am stating extend
Colleridge, Parcel F to be designated as single family and to
adjust their planning parcels accordingly. I would like to give
this to the project planner, so that she can distribute it.
You will also find an exhibit on the back of it, which is their
list of usages on the property. I have taken the liberty of
making my own black marks on it to remove those that really are
not compatible to a neighborhood type situation. I think that
•
•
•
that would be all that I would have to say unless there are some
questions.
(Dave Edwards) Does anybody have any questions? Thank you, Mr.
Palmer for your conciseness.
(Hardy) Yes, my name is Don Hardy, I am a member of the Board of
Directors of the Village of Four Seasons. I am one of those old
people that Mr. Palmer says lives in that area. I am retired but
I don't feel like I am that old. I have a little more hair than
some people do. I live directly, I will be right next to the
area, I will show you on the map.
(Dave Edwards) Mr. Hardy if you could grab that microphone, if
anybody happens to be watching on television, then they could
hear you.
(Hardy) I live in the area directly next to the proposed area
that they are going to build. We were told at one of the last
meetings, Sherry, I believe, said that it would be set back of 20
feet on the one story and 25 feet on the two story. We were told
at the next meeting that there would be a 25 on the one story and
possibly up to 60 feet on the two story. I would like to make a
correction on that. It is the understanding that we had that the
two story would be set back far enough, possibly up to 60-65 feet
so that it wouldn't interfere with our lives too much and be too
much of a bother. Also, on the lots, the people along there feel
that the size of the lots, they are not going to build expensive
homes if it is held to strictly a residential area. The type of
home that would be built in there would not be expensive and we
feel that most of the people would buy, may be they would lose
and there would be rental properties. Pretty soon, as Mr. Palmer
says, the price of our real estate is going down. I think a we
feel that our would go down much more with that type of structure
than it would with a well structured type of office space. We do
not want any type of retail sales, like a record store, video
store or anything like that that would stay open longer hours and
would interfere with our evening activities. That is all that I
would really like to say. I would just like to convey our
feelings on that.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Hardy.
(Graham) Hi. My name is Kit Graham and I live at 3725
Benthaven Drive. Our home that we built two years ago, custom
home of $100,000, will be facing directly towards this
development. Exactly I think it is Phase c of the 40,000 square
feet of office space. Presently, there is no buildings or homes
between us and that property. Out concern is, who is going to
buy that property and what is the expense of those homes across
the street from us when it is developed. We came from Oregon, we
lost $20,000 because of a non -growing community on our home
there. We really do not like the idea of coming in here and
having the same thing happen to us because it is growing. I
understand that the community has to grow, but I trust that you
will see or help us so that it will not lower our property value.
We have a neighbor up the street who presently has her house up
for sale on the corner of Dennison and Benthaven, she is getting
questions as to what is going to be built. Is Dennison going
through. My question is, and this is yet to be seen. Will there
be any negative impact on the sale of that house because of that
commercial being put in there. Also, I work at Lopez Elementary,
I have two small children that walk to Lopez and with the
extended Wabash going through to Shield with Wabash going right
by the school. I feel that this sort of a development will
attract traffic across diagonally from our neighborhood. I do
not think that it is going to come from North of Horsetooth. It
is going to come from south, through our neighborhood, by our
school and I do not want another Swallow. We moved out of the
Beattie School because of Swallow, because our kids had to cross
Swallow. I really do not want to have to do that again. We have
had some problems with a developer, their illustrative plan, I
call it eyewash, it is just to take the red out of our eye, until
it gets approved. It is just to take the sting away temporarily,
it is not going to solve our problems. There is no, there is one
of a million ways that that can be actually built and I really do
not appreciate the promises that have been made, 8-5 offices for
the elderly, when in fact, according to your proposed use,
veterinary clinics can go in there, day care centers, emergency
out patient with ambulatory services going through can go in
there. We have a lot of concerns, that I hope that you will
address. I was really pleased to see your questions, that you
did bring up, because it did show that you did have insight as
to what we were feeling and what we were concerned about. One
other thing, the present approved master plan with 148 homes on
4,000 sq. ft. lots ranging from 40,000 to 50,000 has been an
underlying threat that that is what they are going to build if
they don't get this and I do not appreciate them saying if you
don't like this, this is what is going in. I really feel that
they could put larger lots, more expensive homes, granted maybe
not along Horsetooth. Maybe they could do some sort of offices
along Horsetooth. But they could bring up homes which will lower
the density, which will lower the traffic on Manhattan. I do not
think that they have looked at that at all. May be you will.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Ms. Graham. Let me just say that the
people on the board have been around long enough that we did not
win any beauty contests so we are really not very sensitive to
the applause meter and this is a public hearing and in deference
to the applicant or to the public who may speak for or against,
lets see if we can avoid the applause, please, or any cheering.
Monday night football is coming up on another channel.
(Rodrick Graham) I'm Rodrick Graham. I live at 3725 Benthaven.
I would like to second the things stated already by my friends,
Clarence Palmer and my wife, Kit. We came to this community to
build a business, to build a new home. It is advertised as a
choice city and I believe it is. You people are partly
responsible for that and the people in this audience is partly
responsible for that. I would not like to see the development of
this area for a lot of reasons, but most of which, uh, the
quality of our neighborhood, the streets past our school, uh, the
investment that all of cis have made in that community. If, uh,
the developer has made a mistake in buying that property, then so
be it. And what it appears to be is that there was either a
mistake made on my part in buying in that area or on his part in
buying that 31 acres. I put my money down and I built a home and
my neighbors are doing the same thing. The developer has
options. He has threatened us with some of those options. His
slum city. And tried to convince some of my neighbors that if he
is not successful that he will, in fact, build those $40,000
homes, which I don't believe can be done and rather than take
that evil, some of my neighbors are willing to accept whatever he
would like to ram down our throats. I'm relying on you to see
that that doesn't happen. I don't know how long Mr. Middel will
come back to you. But I'm a builder, I'm a stayer, and as many
times as I have to come before you, I will come before you and
make the statements I've made tonight. Thank You.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Graham. Is there anyone else?
My name is Kent Nichols. I live at 512 Saulsbury Court in Fort
Collins. I want to tell you how much I like my home. I really
enjoy living there and I plan to stay for some time. I live
there because I can afford to live there. Those homes were built
for people like me on my income. I have had some law enforcement
experience; approximately 12 years. I have seen very interesting
things in those 12 years. Some concerns I have tonight, ladies
and gentlemen, is if that development of those businesses remain
vacant or empty, that to me causes a problem. It invites certain
things that worry me. If they become filled, what are they going
to be filled with? Gentlemen, I think it's an issue of trust. I
really do. That as I live there years from now that things
aren't going to come in there that disturb what I call the right
of the homeowner or resident to enjoy a certain amount of peace
and tranquility when you come home. I don't mean to gripe or
complain, but on certain nights you can hear the Laughing Dog
Saloon. That is disturbing. The trains are disturbing. Certain
things you have to accept. I just have a worry that we might get
a little bit too crowded and can't enjoy the peace and
tranquility of the home. I'm a little concerned that if we have
certain types of businesses in there, ladies and gentlemen,
they're going to have to have adequate lighting for insurance
purposes on dental and medical facilities, alarms, increases in
traffic because alarms will go off because there might invite a
certain kind of element to come and prowl around that facility.
We just want to be happy. We don't mean to deny anybody a profit
or to expand themselves or improve. We just want to voice our
opinions, our concerns, without being overbearing. Thank you for
your time. I appreciate it. We are concerned. We do love our
kids. We understand we have to compromise and we really
appreciate you hearing our sides.
0
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Nichols.
Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Scott Elder. I'll write that
down. I live at 701 Bonita which is one the corner of Bonita and
Benthaven. And in understanding the whole process about how
developments are approved and reviewed, I understand that that
land use documents created several years ago detail the
appropriate uses of land but don't really detail whether the land
should be developed for that particular use or whether the City
or the neighborhood or the community requires or will require
that type of development in the future. And I'd like to submit
that I believe that this development is one that is not required
for our neighborhood an is one that would set a precedent of
having fairly heavy heavy commercial development directly
adjacent to residential space and I think that would be a bad
precedent to set in Fort Collins. The examples have been given
by the developer of similar neighborhoods or similar
developments, uh, Drake Crossing and Toddy's are very different
than this particular situation in that those are very commercial
developments on corners of two arterials and do not directly abut
to residential space, uh, low density residential space is what
our neighborhood is. So I submit to you that request and thank
you for your time.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Elder.
Hi, my name is Mark Esenhagen and I live on the corner of
Tradition and Dennison, uh, 3806 Tradition. I just wanted to
reiterate that uh we do feel that the traffic along Dennison will
become unacceptable in this area. Uh, if you had your map, I'm
not sure which one it was, you can see that Dennison does just
dead end into Tradition and Tradition does have a straight shot
out to Horsetooth. If you do have a problem where once you get
into your area you do not have a possibility of making a left
turn onto Horsetooth proceeding to the west; there's a good
straight shot of being able to go down Dennison to where it dead
ends into Tradition and then also back out to Horsetooth or you
can head down farther past the elementary school. That's one of
the areas that I just wanted to reiterate. The second area I
wanted to reiterate is Mr. Vaugnt, Vaught, uh, sorry, I have a
name like you and people mispronounce it, too. His example was
that we would like to have a migration of the commercial areas
along College over towards the more residential areas. His
example was along Horsetooth where you have the commercial areas
along College and Shores Office Park and then after that there's
a nice area, in there, the Landings. That does seem to be a
fairly smooth transition and it does seem to work. I think I've
known a lot of people who've lived over there and they seem to
like the way that smooths in there. I would like to make the
example that, uh, it does not seem like it is quite the same
thing as migrating from College which, agreed, there's a large
Albertsons there and bunch of different commercial type of areas.
However, it doesn't seem that it's quite appropriate that about a
block away from solid residential areas that across the street
from solid residential areas that we would have something about
the size of a T.J. Maxx type of a complex that we have in there.
It seems like if we're asking for a smooth migration path which
is what they were asking for, it doesn't seem that having a
143,000 sq.ft. area, that size of an office complex, or
residential, or retail space in there doesn't make that much
sense if you're trying to have a smooth migration into
residential. Okay, thank you.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Esenhagen. Is there anyone else?
Good evening. I'm Jim Williams. I'm the Vice President of the
Four Seasons Homeowners Association. I cannot speak for the
entire 309 members, but most of the board is here tonight because
of a high percentage of concern, that is, continual calls, and so
on and so forth. Uh, from what I see, uh, and myself, everybody
is totally against that much commercial area. I believe that a
small buffer area off of Horsetooth would be most likely called
for, but the way the master plan stands now, from the summary of
comments and complaints that I have had on it. Basically what
you have heard tonight it is a very, very disagreeable plan at
this point. Like I say, I can't represent 309 members, but I
will tell you that the board has been very well covered with
phone calls on this situation. We've tried to stay abreast of
it. Everything else would be just a repeat of what you've
already heard. Thank you
(Dave Edwards) Thank You Mr. Williams. If there's anyone else,
if you'd come down now, that would be great.
My name is Larry Stoddard. I reside at 3907 Manhattan. Uh, I
appeal to your sense of aesthetics in this development. In that,
Fort Collins is rapidly running out of nice, open spaces and I
really enjoy the open space that is along Manhattan now before I
reach my home. Uh, it's very beautiful along there right now and
I don't want to see it disturbed. It's a nice place to go, you
go right out in a little spur there by Dennison and you can see
the fireworks at City Park on the fourth of July and I think
that, uh, I just think we need to really preserve our open space.
What little we have of it left. I think that in terms of
development I think in alot of areas the city is overdeveloped.
For instance, look at all your new shopping centers that have
gone up in the City. What kind of occupancy rates have they got?
Not very much, 10, 12, maybe 15% occupancy rates? That's not
enough. If people need to go to a place to set up a business, go
to the existing shopping centers that we have now. We don't need
another one. We really don't. I think it's very important that
we preserve our open spaces and we use the office spaces that
have already been built and are not filled at the present time.
Thank You.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Stoddard. Is there anyone else
that would like to make a comment or ask a question? Seeing no
one else, we'll close the public input portion of the meeting and
come back to the board, uh, for a motion and discussion of that
motion. Perhaps while people are thinking of a motion they would
like to make I'd ask the staff to review just quickly that this
is a master plan and review the options that the board has
available to it.
(Sherry Albertson -Clark) Dave, I'd also like to make a minor
clarification. We are looking at a master plan this evening.
For the neighborhoods' benefit, there has been an illustrative
master plan also submitted. We are looking at that only in terms
of an illustration. I think as Mrs. Graham indicated, it's the
architects' illustration is one of the potential ways the site
could develop. That is not one of the items of part of the
package the Planning and Zoning Board is being asked to make a
decision on this evening. It is strictly for illustration
purposes. I just wanted to make that clear. We do have a master
plan and following this item is the preliminary phase, Phase One,
for the proposed Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board has
several options. Obviously they could move to approve the
project. To deny the project. To approve the project with
conditions, or to make a determination that you want further
study on the project and refer the project back to the staff and
have the applicant do additional work on it.
(Dave Edwards) Thank You. Since this is a board designed to
make decisions, I'd ask for a motion first and then we can have
debate or discussions specifically about that motion. We need
not try to find concensus first.
(Lloyd Walker) Well I can make a motion to deny Item #18, Park
South PUD Master Plan.
(?) Second.
(Dave Edwards) It's been moved and seconded to deny the
application as presented. Are there comments? Discussion?
Debate?
(Lloyd Walker) Let me start off the comments since I made the
motion. I guess the word that comes to mind that summarizes this
whole thing is overload and a lack of specificity in the master
plan. Let me explain that a little bit. What I kept coming to
on this whole discussion, both by the developer, the developer's
representatives and the neighborhood, is the idea that just this
generally just overloads the site and the general area. There
was a comment made that we already have approved commercial areas
in Warren Farm and in the HP zone that already heavily impact the
streets. I don't accept the fact that since we're already
overloaded then, you know, can't we get one more in here. That's
kind of what I felt like I was hearing. Maybe I didn't get that
right, but you know, again, it's just the idea that the way that
this site has to work traffic -wise is to allow a median cut on
Horsetooth which the City has denied once and which the City in
•
•
•
•
an analysis of traffic flow along Horsetooth has felt like that
is inappropriate and yet that seems to be what needs to make this
site work. So I, you know, that fact that the comments that were
made about the overload of the streets; the fact that when you
you have a site that gets overloaded with traffic people find
creative ways to get through. I would share the neighborhood
concerns having done it myself in certain situations knowing how
that can happen, you tend to find routes around it and I think
that's an inappropriate type of pressure that a development would
put on a surrounding area. As far as the lack of specificity,
let me first of all address some of the things that are worth
noting as positive elements in the master plan. Granted, a
master plan is a conceptual thing. It is meant to convey
conceptually what will go here. Parcel C will be office; parcel
D will be retail; parcel A will be single family in this case. A
Master plan is meant to have flexibility and but also a master
plan stays with the site until it's changed; it does not have an
expiration date. So I think a master plan has an opportunity to
capture the essence of what the thinking was in the planning
process at this time. And a lot of time when we see these things
they're out in newer developing areas where a lack of specificity
is not needed because the impacts are not as extreme. In a
situation like this where you have potential traffic impacts,
potential necessary mitigation, uh, you need more specificity. I
think it's appropriate. I think the developer has moved in that
direction. They've indicated landscape buffering. They've
indicated some building height restrictions in certain parcels.
They've indicated some setbacks. But I guess my feeling is that
I'd like to see it have gone further. I think Mr. Palmer made
some very specific recommendations. I think some of them again,
conceptually, should be looked at by the developer. For
instance, roof styles, certain specificity of uses. Again, I
don't mean to imply that it has to be so specific that it limits
the developer's flexibility. Yet in a document like this we have
a lot of statements that really lack the specificity. We talk
about soft transitions; we talk about sympathetic to surrounding
neighborhoods; small scale garden offices. All those terms lack
specificity and I guess I would be more comfortable in a
sensitive project like this if we could get some of those defined
so that everybody knows what's happening with master plan; so
that the City knows; so that the developer knows; so that the
neighborhood knows. And that to me is a concern because at this
point without that, you know, one suggestion was made if we had a
furniture store on here then it wouldn't generate as much
traffic. Maybe the specificity is that you can only have a
furniture store on there. I mean something like that where we
can get something a little more definitive. Otherwise, it's too
broad for a site like this that has so many impacts. Thank You.
(Sanford Kern) I also oppose this project and for these reasons.
There are several unknown factors for Wabash and the other local
streets as regards to traffic and density, particularly through
these local residential streets. It's clear that some of the
traffic's going to be forced onto them and while we know that
there will be increased usage on these streets no matter what
happens because of the growth and what will develop eventually onis
these sites, nonetheless I think this imposes too heavy a load;
at least with the information we have now. Manhattan clearly is,
in anyone's set of numbers, is going to be stressed to
overcapacity for any sort of projection. Again, the setbacks,
while not completely determined now at least is listed generally
in the master plan, I think, are inadequate. I don't like the
fact that this will tend to shuffle traffic by Lopez Elementary.
In fact, we even have a letter from the principal to take special
care in that regard. With the exception of Parcel E perhaps, I
applaud the general layout and especially the intention of having
a mix of community and neighborhood sorts of access; service and
access, although it wasn't completely clear to me from the layout
of the master plan exactly where that would be and how that would
happen and this might relate to what Lloyd was saying regarding
specificity of use. I come back, too, to the fact that this is
zoned RLP; it's lead to a level of expectation for people who've
bought in the neighborhood, for developers, and I think while
commercial development is appropriate for this site, I don't
think at the level proposed.
(Dave Edwards) Bernie?
(Bernie Strom) I just have a couple things to say, uhm, first, I
really would like to commend the developer and his
representatives for what I think is a valiant effort. I think
you've done a lot of work above and beyond what is ordinarily
required at the master plan stage. Unfortunately, in this case
I'm not sure that regardless of how much effort you could or
would ever put in, that you could justify this kind of density at
this location. And, happily, I don't have to decide it strictly
on land use because I'm not really sure that even the land use is
compatible. The reason that I seconded the denial motion and the
reason that I'll vote that way is the land use policy #70 from
the land development guidance system which states very explicitly
that a development will not be allowed to create demands which
exceed the capacity of exisiting and future transportation
networks in the city. I think it's the judgment of our staff and
I think it's my judgment that this development exceeds the
requirements of that policy.
(Frank Groznik) I, too, would like to commend the developer and
his consultants for trying to come up with a solution that will
fit on this site. Being an i.nfill site, it's hard to come up
with an adequate solution. However, I too feel that the
intensity here is just too great for the neighborhood as well as
the street systems. I did a little analysis while sitting here,
trying to compare similar developments that have been mentioned.
Drake Crossing has been mentioned. You look at that corner and
it's a corner of two arterials. On one of the four corners is
commercial. The other corner is a church and residentail on the
other sides. You look at Scotch Pines. One one of the four
corners it's commerical; on one side it's a lake; on the other
•
•
•
side it's Woodward governor. The intensity that comes off the
uses of lands on all four sides such as this are commercial or
office is extreme and I don't think that intensity belongs on a
collector street. So I too will vote against it.
(Jan Shepard) I will support the motion for denial also
primarily because of the traffic reasons and I agree with some of
the neighborhood comments that this is a gradual infringement of
the South College Corridor. I think the uses proposed are simply
too intense and I think many of them are, in fact, generator
rather than interceptor type such as a potential health club,
movie theater, and definitely of the community regional type more
than just a neighborhood service center.
(Jim Klataske) I'll support the motion for denial. The comment
that I would have for the developer and his consultants is that
you've done a superb job on this in looking at this particular
site. A term in real estate being a highest and best use for
appraisal or development, whatever. I think we're looking at the
highest use but in this case I'm not sure that this was the best
use for this site and traffic being the main concern.
(Dave Edwards) I, too, will support the motion to deny and I
just a couple of quick comments. One is that I commend both the
applicant and the neighborhood and all their representatives for
stating their case clearly and concisely and speaking to the
issues which everyone felt were important. I think the Land
Development Guidance system which we operate under is perhaps at
its best when we have lots of mitigation measures which we can
take. When we can work with streets and we can work with
setbacks and we can work with things before the fact. The fact
in this case is that this is the essence of an infill project and
it's encumbent upon the party doing the infill to mitigate all
the factors and I think clearly in this case the intensity of
this master plan cannot be mitigated. It just cannot be
mitigated. And I would site specifically land use policy #70
which says that they must do that and in my estimation after all
the numbers have been crunched and I conclude that the intense
land uses within this project cannot be mitigated and I'm not at
all prepared to say what level of intensity can be mitigated. I
think that's up to the applicant to go back to the drawing boards
and for a discussion to continue with the neighborhood and that
there is no magic number perhaps at this point. Let me say one,
since this is also for many people in that neighborhood, an
education process. This may be the first time that you've come
in contact with the development process and neighborhood meetings
and public hearings and so forth; that as we've said many times,
the issue of need is the issue of market demand is one that is
best left with the person who owns that land. Private property
rights which all of you have in your home, you have certain
private property rights and carry with that certain rights and a
landowner in this case does have some rights to make use of that
land. So the issue of whether that can just be automatically
converted to open space or not is somewhat moot. Also if that
person decides to build houses of some type on it, whether or not
those houses sell is perhaps not at issue with this board. This
board is not a market committee. We don't spend a bunch of time
trying to determine what the marketplace truly demands because
the property owner is best suited to take that risk. And if
someone can take that risk and absorb that risk over time then
that's their right to do so. And what we try to do is restrict
ourselves to issues of land use and the impact on the surrounding
community so issues of vacancy and so forth are issues which do
not and should not impact the decision making of this board. As
we try to manage our growth in Fort Collins now and for the
future, we need to look at land use issues and we need to respect
private property rights as well. If there are no further
comments, we'll have a roll call vote.
(Secretary at the meeting)
Groznik? Yes
Kern? Yes
Strom? Yes
Klataske? Yes
Walker? Yes
Shepard? Yes
Edwards? Yes
(Dave Edwards) The motion carries unanimously. As a matter of
process, master plans are required to have along with them a
preliminary plan. Though it may seem moot at this point, the
preliminary plan should be voted on and presented. To facilitate
matters, if the issue would be presented, I don't know that we
need full discussion because without the master plan, the
preliminary can't necessarily be adopted but we do need to vote
on it.
(Sherry Albertson -Clark) This is a request for a preliminary PUD
approval and is for phase one of Park South PUD Master Plan which
is the southern 1/3 of the site. The request is for 44 single
family lots on 9.1 acres. As you know, the property is zoned
RLP, Low Density Planned Residential. The density is proposed at
4.8 units an acre and staff believes that all the issues
identified at the neighborhood meeting have been addressed.
However, because of the requirement that master plan must be
approved prior to approval of a phase plan, staff is recommending
denial, solely on that basis. We have no concerns or issues
unresolved in terms of the land use on this particular phase
plan.
(Dave Edwards) Thank You. Would the applicant like to say
anything?
(Frank Vaught) Given what has transpired earlier, this obviously
has no particular bearing. However, I would petition the board
to look very carefully at the numbers presented in terms of the
existing traffic impact. Given that traffic seemed to be the 0
most major concern expressed tonight by the neighborhood as well
as by yourselves. And instruct staff perhaps to look more
indepth at the existing surrounding approved and perhaps to be
developed parcels and that if a problem exists already with this
piece of property being vacant, then a solution needs to be
arrived at perhaps prior to even considering this parcel or else
this particular developer is rendered in a position that he can
do nothing with his property because the existing conditions do
exceed what is being proposed as being the acceptable level of
traffic on the streets. Thank You.
(Dave Edwards) Thank you Mr. Vaught. Mr. Eckman, do we need a
motion or is that moot, since?
(Paul Eckman) I think you should have a motion.
(Dave Edwards) I'd ask for a motion then, on the preliminary.
(Bernie Strom) I move denial of the preliminary as there is no
adopted master plan for this site.
(Jan Shepard) Second.
(Dave Edwards) It's been moved and seconded to deny the Park
South PUD Preliminary Plan. Is there any discussion? Roll call,
please.
(Secretary)
Kern? Yes
Strom? Yes
Klataske? Yes
Walker? Yes
Shepard? Yes
Groznik? Yes
Edwards? Yes
(Dave Edwards) Yes. The motion carries unanimously. We'll take
a five minute recess and then reconvene for the next agenda item.
•
C;
•
•
AGENDA IT-t-'M SUMMARY
I�t�, NUMBER: 12 a-b
DATE: February 18, 1986
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Linda Hopkins
SUBJECT: Items Relating to Street Name Changes in Park South P.U.U. and Four Seasons
P.U.D. Second Filing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of these items.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution Changing the Name of Boulder Street in Park South P.U.D. to
Dennison Avenue.
B. Resolution Changing the Name of Michie Drive in Four Seasons Second
Filing P.U.D. to Wahash Street.
When Four Seasons P.U.D. Fourth Filing was approved the street system was
changed creating continuous streets with two different names. These
resolutions change one of the names of each of the streets to the other
name thereby creating a street network that is continuous and not
confusing.
BACKGROUND: 1
When Four Seasons P.U.D. was approved two previously platted streets were
connected to other previously platted streets. Boulder Street in Park
South P.U.D. was connected to Dennison Avenue in Four Seasons Second
Filing. Dennison Avenue has existing residences addressed on it and since
Boulder does not, it was felt that Boulder should be the street name that
is changed. This way no residents will have to change their addresses.
Similarly Michie Drive from Four Seasons Second Filing was connected to
Wabash Street in South Glen P.U.D. In this case Wabash has existing
residences whereas Michie Drive does not. Thus the request is to change
the name of Boulder Street through Park South P.U.D. to Dennison Avenue and
the Michie Drive through Four Seasons Second Filing to Wabash Street.
The applicant submitted petitions with the signatures of all but one of the
owners of property abutting the two streets where the changes are proposed.
As evidenced by the petitions, these owners agree to the changes. The one
who did not sign is deceased and her estate had not been settled at the
time the petitions were submitted.
a��ve�
CHECI{LIS7'
EVIEW/
CONCURRENCE
REQUESTED
DEPT/DIVISION
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE
MUST INITIAL
CITY MANAGER
x
CITY ATTORNEY
X
CITY CLERK
FINANCE
BUDGET
PLANNING
BUILDING INSPECTION
LIGHT & POWER
WATER & SEWEk
PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING
TRANSPORTATION SERV.
FACILITIES
LAND ACQUISITION
NATURAL RESOURCES
POLICE
FIRE
PARKS & RECREATION
LIBRARY
EMPLOYE DEVELO MENT
CULTURAL SERVICES
ICS
MUNICIPAL COURT
DDA DIRECTOR
Other:
ORIGINATING DEPT :
MEETING DATE:
Community Development
February 18, 1986
ITEM: Name Change of Boulder Drive to Dennison Drive
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
a ' o •
RESOLUTION 86-23
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CHANGING THE NAME OF BOULDER STREET IN PARK SOUTH PUD
TO DENNISON AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has been petitioned to
change the name of Boulder Street in Park South PUD to Dennison Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Boulder Street will connect to Dennison Avenue in Four Seasons
Second Filing so that the existing difference in names of the resulting
continuous street is confusing; and
WHEREAS, Dennison Avenue has existing residences addressed on it and
Boulder Street does not, which facilitates changing the name of Boulder
Street to Dennison Avenue; and
WHEREAS, owners of a majority of the property abutting Boulder Street
have agreed to the proposed change; and
WHEREAS, such name change is in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the name of Boulder Street in Park South PUD be, and the same
hereby is, changed to the name of Dennison Avenue.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this
18th day of February, A.D. 1986.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
r
- r
W-9
I
,zc
N .7
Z'A
SINE
LLL
0
"N
Ile
. . . . . . . . . .
w" c...
Uj
L—A
MT,
-RACT-9
----------
- ----
--- ---- --
116-
t eke
si
•
•
t.
To Whom It May Concern:
It is desired to have a street name change within the Park South P.U.D., City of
Fort Collins, Colorado.
The request is for Boulder Street to be changed to Dennison Avenue.
Acknowledgement and approval by all affected lot owners will be accomplished by
signing the affidavit included herewith.
We/I do hereby acknowledge the request for the street name, Boulder Street
of the Park South P.U.D., Fort Collins, Colorado, to be changed to Dennison
Avenue. We/I further agree that We/I have signed below in approval of this
change and will hold no further claims against parties involved with said street
and name change.
Lot No. (Park South P.U.D.) Signature
------------------------------------ --- --
Individually,
87 Dilsaver, Lor e n,'W i l l e n e and for Dil�—��------------------
Dilsaver Development Co saver Develop-
Strahle, Ronald/E L ment Co.
110 Palmer Drive
Fort Collins, Co. 80525
Deed Type: WD
Individually (Q
98 Dilsaver, Loren/Wiilene and for Dil _
Dilsaver Development Co saver Develop-
Strahle, Ronald/E L -went Co. __ -
110 Palmer -Drive ��
Fort Collins, Co. 80525 -
Deed Type: WD
99 Park South Venture -----
1407 S. College Avenue��-
Fort Collins, Co. 80521
Deed Type: WD
�I
112 Park South Venture
S. College Avenue
Fort _c�
Fort Collins, Co. 80521 z-
/� -
Deed Type: WD
Individuall
113 Dilsaver, Loren./Willeneand for Dil- fir, ___
Dilsaver Development Co saver Develop
Strahle, Ronald/E L ment Co.�--------
For Palmer Drive
Fort Collins, Co. 80525
Deed Type: WD
- 1 -
0 0