HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUGH M WOODS PUD - FINAL - 26-88E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (2)GINAL , 1
0 `;
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, February 27, 1995
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado -
Concerning Hugh M. Woods Final PUD:
Request for 73,500 square foot building supply
(With an additional 63,576 square feet of
building materials and commodity storage)
on 15.8 acres.
Members present:
Renee Clements, Chairperson
Jan Cottier
Lloyd Walker
Jennifer Fontane
to Gwen Bell
Gary Carnes
Court reporting services provided by.
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
is 315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
i9 Fax: (9770)
224-1199
1
MS. CLEMENTS: Welcome back to the February 27th
2
meeting of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
3
We'll now move on to our regular discussion agenda.
4
The first item on the regular discussion agenda is
5
Hugh M. Woods PUD final, and we'll have the staff
6
presentation, please. -
7
MR. OLT: The Hugh M. Woods PUD final is a
8
request for a 73,000 square foot building that would be used
9
for a retail home improvement center, and associated with
10
that would be an additional 63,000 square feet of canopy
11
coverage that we use for building materials, commodity
12
storage, and an enclosed wall area to the north and to the
13
west of the site.
14
Actually, I will back up. For the people that
15
aren't aware, the location is the southeast -- or pardon me,
16
the southwest corner of South College Avenue and Skyway
17
Drive. This is south side of Fort Collins.
18
The request is in conformance with the approved
19
preliminary PUD. It meets the applicable All -Development
20
Criteria with the exception of Criterion A2.3, and that
21
deals with natural resources. Staff is recommending that
22
the Board grant a variance to this criterion, and I'll deal
23
with that a little later.
24
There were six conditions of preliminary
25
approval. Staff feels that the final application has
1 complied with all six of these
conditions,
and I would like
2 to point out that I gave you a
packet this
evening, some
3 additional information over and
above the
staff memo that
4 was delivered to up the other day, and you received a copy
5 of the approval letter for the preliminary approval, and
6 that gives you the exact language for the s-ix conditions of
7 preliminary approval.
8 Staff is recommending approval of the Hugh M.
9 Woods PUD final with four new conditions. These conditions
10 deal with requirements of the developer to complete the
11 utility PUD plans for approval by the City. This is the
12 standard final PUD condition. There's a requirement for
13 tree mitigation in the form of 16 replacement trees for five
14 existing trees on -site that were to be removed. The need
15 for Hugh M. Woods operation to self -regulate their employee
16 traffic into the surrounding neighborhoods. And that moneys
17 be set aside for removal and relandscaping of a proposed
18 right in only frontage road access on the north side of
19 Skyway Drive, if the City were, in a six-month period, to
20 determine that it's unsafe to operate in that fashion.
21 Staff is also recommending that the Board grant
22 the variance to the All -Development Criteria 2.3. Again,
23 this is a natural resource criterion from the LDGS, and
24 that's based on the tree mitigation proposal that the City
0 25 and the developer have come to an agreement on.
4 0
1 I would like to point out that the Board was
2 given tonight a memorandum dated February 27th that is to be
3 an attachment for the staff report that you're reviewing
4 this evening for the Hugh M. Woods. This is in addition to
5 the staff report recommendation, and it gives you additional
6 information on the street mitigation, on the variance to
7 All -Development Criteria 2.3, and with that, I would
8 entertain any questions of the Board.
9 MS. CLEMENTS: Lloyd, do you have a question?
10 MR. WALKER: A little more clarification on how
11 the north side of Skyway Drive is being handled. I mean,
12 are -- my understanding is we're realigning the frontage
13 road to opposite of Skyway Drive off of Hugh M. Woods; is
14 that correct?
15 MR. OLT: That's correct, and I think Tom Vosburg
16 from City Transportation Department is here, so I would like
17 you to direct your questions to him.
18 MR. VOSBURG: I'm just provide a brief summary of
19 the changes to the north side of Skyway Drive. If you'll
20- look to the site plan here, what's being proposed by the
21 applicant is that Skyway Drive itself will be shifted 16
22 feet to the south from its current alignment over the course
23 of the northern property line of the project. What that
24 will do is line up Skyway Drive so that it will work better
25 with the proposed extension of Skyway Drive to the east of
•
5
1 College Avenue, and that will also provide enough space
2 north of Skyway Drive for the frontage road to be realigned
3 parallel to Skyway and then intersect Skyway Drive opposite
4 the driveway to the Hugh M. Woods development.
5 At
preliminary,
we had discussed the scheme that
6 would involve
realignment
of the frontage road behind the
7 Hickory House
restaurant.
This scheme brings the road in
8
front of the restaurant.
Instead, because of
-- well, with
9
the shifting of the road
16 feet to the south,
that made the
10
land available to do the
realignment, whereas
the land that
11
would have been necessary
for the other scheme
is not
12 available.
13 MR. WALKER: So the current access point of the
14 frontage road will be closed; is that correct?
15
MR.
VOSBURG: What the applicant is proposing is
16
that a right -in
-only access will be provided at the existing
17
frontage road
location, but that vehicles would not be able
18
to exit from the
frontage road at that point.
19
It
is my opinion that the realignment of the
20
frontage road
without that access is certainly adequate to
21
provide safe,
efficient, convenient circulation for both
22
Hugh M. Woods
and the uses north of Skyway Drive off of the
23
frontage road.
However, the other businesses on the
24 frontage road, particularly the Deli Works restaurant and
25 Kangaroo Self -Storage were very concerned about any changes
s0
1
in their access and it was very -- they advocated strongly
2
that at least a right -in only access be retained. What
3
staff is recommending is that -- this is kind of an unusual
4
configuration. There is a potential for it to be hazardous
5
if people were to abuse it and try to exit to Skyway Drive
6
by way of, instead of using it solely as an -entry. But we
7
recognize the concerns of the business owners on Skyway --
8
on the frontage road, so basically, we're willing to give it
9
a try, and that's why we're recommending that moneys be
10
escrowed sufficient to close the right -in access and
11
re -landscape it if we find that there's a problem with its
12
operation, and we should know right away, so if within the
13
six-month time period it's operating in a satisfactory way,
14
then the moneys will be returned to the applicant.
15
MR. WALKER: Be six months from what date?
16
MR. VOSBURG: From the opening of the store.
17
MR. WALKER: Because my concern would be, that
18
may -- that may work now, and my concern is that with more
19
traffic entering the Hugh M. Woods facility, that makes that
20
little thing an oddity there.
21
MR. VOSBURG: Yeah. My concern is not related to
22
the traffic volume that would be associated with the
23
operation at Hugh M. Woods. The people who will make this a
24
problem, if it is a problem, is people who will be using
25
businesses to the north, the Deli Works and Kangaroo
•
•
•
7
1 Storage. If they, upon concluding their business and
2 exiting from those properties, if they come out rather than
3 going in on that, then that would create a potentially
4 difficult situation no matter what traffic volumes were
5 associated with Hugh M. Woods. That's the phenomenon that
6 we will be monitoring.
7 MR. WALKER: Well, the other concern I have on
8 that is that, you know, there's a potential, as you swing --
9 as you swing off of College west on to Skyway, and then you
10 want to turn that -- turn into that right, right -in only,
11 that creates a -- sort of a break in the movement and, you
12 know, I mean, if people are going to Hugh M. Woods, someone
13 wants to go to Deli Works and they make that turn, you know,
14 it just seems to me that you'd have the potential for
15 someone behind that individual who's slowing down to make
16 that right -- you know, just after the turn, and it just
17 seems like it's creating a very -- I mean, that to me, is
18 the hazard, not people trying to come out there, but people
19 making that turn with the increased traffic volumes and
20 people going to Hugh M. Woods, you know, and that sort of
21 odd movement that you don't expect, I guess, is my feeling
22 on that. Well, anyways, a question that doesn't have an
23 answer at this point. I guess I'd like that to be looked
24 at, too.
25 MR. VOSBURG: Well, what we are proposing is that
a0
1 it be provided on a trial basis and that if we find problems
2 with the way it operates that we would have it closed and
3 taken out, and that's the purpose of the condition that
4 we're proposing.
5 MS. CLEMENTS: Jan, you have a question?
6 MS. COTTIER: Tom, if that one-way in swung more
7 to the west rather than doubling back to the east, wouldn't
8 that discourage people exiting that way more? Or some other
9 configuration that could perhaps discourage that more?
10 MR. VOSBURG: Well, actually, if it were to swing
11 more to the west, it would be lined up with the lane that
12 people would be in as they're traveling southbound. So the
13 reason it jogs over to the east is to specifically be lined
14 up on the wrong side of the road for anyone who's
15 southbound, because it would be the southbound drivers who
16 would be the offenders. Plus there's some topography
17 changes. The frontage road is couple of feet lower than the
18 parking lot is, so there's some physical limitations as to
19 the degree of creativity we could implement.
20 MS. COTTIER: There's no way to put a pork chop
21 internally there or something to try to block exiting?
22 MR. VOSBURG: If -- this is as good a solution
23 for providing one, you know, exit -- entry -only access as we
24 could probably come up with. And again, I really think that
25 it could easily be eliminated and not hamper the operation 0
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
of the whole area. But the property owners on the frontage
road were very concerned that an effort be made to continue
to provide, you know, an immediate entry access to their
businesses, and this is -- we looked at a variety of
different things. This is the best thing we could come up
r it won't, and if
with. And I think it will either work oit won't, we're proposwe'll
ing taking it out, and that
g
g
10
still be in a good situation out there.
MS. CLEMENTS• Other questions of staff at this
time? Seeing none, we'll -- or, excuse me. Steve, were you
11
12
finished with your presentation?
Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to the
13
14
15
16
applicant's presentation, please.
MR. SELL: Madame Chair, members of the Board,
Pa less Cashways. And I'm just
I'm Jim Sell, representing Y
g oing to go through the balance of the conditions from last
17
18
19
20
21
22
preliminary hearing.
Number one condition has already been addressed,
related to -- related to this, so I� m just g oing to leave it
u P for a second. This was the preliminary that was
presented, as you may recall, and there was no access here,
and there was a lot of concern about that from the other
23
24
25
businesses to the north.
And this just shows you in a little bit more
detail how that was modified. This is exactly what Tom was
10 0
1 talking about a couple of minutes ago. This is the right
2 turn -in, and then this is -- the load was shifted to the
3 south, and that allowed the alignment to come around this
4 side of Hickory House.
5 Condition number two had to do with acquiring
6 off -site drainage approvals. And that was =- here's the
7 site here, and this is the drainage way that goes out to the
8 east. This is property that's sitting -- may have now
9 acquired that, and this was this area in here where there
10 were private holdings where drainage easements had to be
11 acquired, and those have been acquired, signed, and
12 delivered to the City.
13 Number three, those conditions had to do with
14 dealing with wetlands, both wetlands on the site and
15 wetlands that were off the site here. And primarily dealing
16 with storm water discharge on the site and off the site, and
17 those have been addressed and accepted by natural
18 resources.
19 Number four had to do with the driveway -- or
20 access into this service road to the parking lot, which
21 occurred at this location. I thought I had it. Oh, there
22 it is. This was the preliminary, and the access point was
23 right here, and the concern was that it was too close -- it
24 was, again, much like a frontage road, and as a consequence,
25 what we did was close that off on the final so that there's 0
11
1
no access until you get down -- down to this access point
2
here off Tynan.
3
Number five has to do with concerns about further
4
deterioration of Skyway, and the City felt they had no
5
jurisdiction or any reasonable way they could provide
6
signage or any kind of weight restrictions on Skyway,
7
because there were -- there already are needs for heavy
8
equipment, trash removal, and that sort of thing on Skyway
9
that exist. And it's outside the City jurisdiction as
10
well. So the condition that -- the resultant approach is,
11
then, that the Hugh M. Woods people would take it upon
12
themselves to keep their vendors and their employees from
13
driving heavy equipment in this direction, which there's
14
really no reason to do that, and the only reason anyone
15
would be up there is if they were lost, so that really
16
shouldn't be a problem.
17
And then item six has to do with visual impact.
18
And one of the -- one of the concerns, I think, that you
19
had, Renee, was pertaining to colors, and we did have some
20
input from the staff. I don't know if you can get this on
21
your camera here or not, but they worked on some colors for
22
us, and we took those suggestions and developed this
23
palette, which we think works pretty well.
24
MS. CLEMENTS: Did you take that off your
25
refrigerator at home?
12 0
1 MR. SELL: I could have, but I didn't. Anyway,
2 the tan tone colors are standardized colors that are used
3 throughout the industry for paint, ink, all kinds of
4 industries use them, and there are numbers associated with
5 them, and we've used those numbers on the site and landscape
6 plan that relate exactly to the numbers that are on here,
7 the boards that you did get to review.
8 There were other concerns about -- about the
9 building, and I don't know if it came out in the last
10 meeting or not. There's a 16 foot by 16 foot display window
11 here that helps break up the visual impact of the frontage.
12 We added foundation plantings along virtually the entire
13 east and south. Facades of the building. Additionally, and
14 it doesn't show up here, it shows up on the site plan, is
15 this part of the building is set back eight feet, and let me
16 just turn quickly to that. And that's -- that's this
17 drive -through, which is right here, and during the
18 preliminary, it was out in a lined -up -- lined up with the
19 front face of the building.
20 That's about it. This shows the -- the
21 projection. I think this actually measures about 23 or 24
22 feet from the front face of the building with the awning,
23 and then there are other smaller awnings underneath the
24 large awning at the entrance. There's also a projection
25 with the front glass where the vestibule is.
13
1
And then we have -- we had a computer visual --
2
visualization kind of slide. The last time we were here.
3
And it's taken from approximately this angle. We did
4
another one. The one we had last time was kind of an aerial
5
view, and this is a ground view. This is taking an auto -CAD
6
drawing, rendering it, and then putting it together with an
7
actual site photograph. This is the parking lot that's out
8
there across the street. This is College Avenue. And this
9
part right here is the toll booth entry area, so you can see
10
the sky through these openings, and the building is actually
11
over here. And what's happening is, this is the retaining
12
wall, and we're showing some landscaping on it, but that
hundreds
13
entire retaining wall is terraced and there's of
14
plant material all along there that will eventually make
15
that green so that there's not going to be a huge amount of
16
visual impact.
17
This is more of an aerial view, and you can see,
18
then, the retaining wall and the parking lot with the
19
building on it. So as you get down lower, the retaining
20,
wall tends to hide the building, and the landscaping will
21
hide the retaining wall.
22
And that concludes -- no, let's put it on here.
23
That concludes our presentation. If I can answer any
24
questions, I'd be happy to.
25
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Mr. Sell. Does the
14 le
1 Soard have any questions of the applicant at this time?
2 Seeing none, I'll open it up to citizen
3 participation. Those wishing to speak on this issue can
4 come forward, sign in, state your name for the record, and
5 Georgina will keep time.
6 MS. ELLIS: I'm Sue Ellen Ellis.- I'm the
7 president of Skyview South Homeowners Association. I have
8 five things.
9 Mr. Sell addressed the first one. We were
10 curious what happened with the load restrictions on Skyway,
11 and it sounds like, since it's in the County, the City has
12 said they don't have jurisdiction, even though it's in an
13 urban growth area. So if we want load restrictions, we needle
14 to go to the County.
15 MS. CLEMENTS: Is that correct?
16 MS. ELLIS: That's what I'm hearing -- seeing.
17 Pardon?
18 MS. CLEMENTS: I asked Steve if that was correct.
19 MR. OLT: I did discuss this with the County
'20 Engineering Department and the County attorney, and it is in
21 their jurisdiction. In talking with the County attorney,
22 she indicated that they would have to investigate it, but
23 there are some concerns about it, from a statutory or legal
24 standpoint, just what kind of weight restrictions could be
25 put on, primarily, if nothing else, because you have to look
15
1
at the nature of the type of vehicles that have to be into
2
the subdivision, from the standpoint of emergency access,
3
from the standpoint of deliveries, trash pickup, these kinds
4
of things. So weight restrictions are difficult at best,
5
and we'll continue to work with them, but, yes, they
6
recognize it's their jurisdiction and have some concerns
7
about what legally can be done, especially from a weight
8
restriction standpoint.
9
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Steve.
10
MS. ELLIS: A second issue, and I think there's
11
slides -- Mr. Sell addressed this. With the street moving
12
south 16 feet, the neighbors were concerned the berm would
13
be narrowed by 16 feet. But I noticed that the narrowing
14
starts -- doesn't start right at Gateway.
15
The berm is the same as it was. Okay. Does
16
that -- that was your concern.
17
I thank you for the suggestion that you would
18
limit employee traffic on Constellation In fact, I'm a
19
little embarrassed. I didn't think of employees in my
20
initial request.
21
We would like to make certain that all
22
construction traffic is limited, especially, I don't want
23
trucks full of stuff running over to the dump, going through
24
the neighborhood.
25
MS. CLEMENTS: I'll make sure that gets noted.
16
1 MS. ELLIS: Okay. Tom. Are you still here? I'd
2 like to know if Mr. Vosburg, have you demonstrate how the
3 18-wheelers can safely turn left into H.M. Woods off of
4 Skyway. Is there going to be room to do that? That's one
5 of the big questions that people have.
6 MS. CLEMENTS: Tom, do you want to wait until
7 citizen participation is done, and then go into that?
8 MS. ELLIS: Okay. I'm sorry. And for Mr. Sell,
9 how many large trailers do you think will be coming off of
10 Skyway every day? We are still concerned about the curb,
11 increased traffic, and not causing a problem on that.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Are you talking about construction
13 traffic or like delivery of goods?
14 MS. ELLIS: Oh, delivery -- construction traffic
15 is going to be short-term.
16 MS. CLEMENTS: Yeah, but the delivery of all
17 their goods and wood and that kind --
is MS. ELLIS: Yeah, I would like to see it come
19 right in off of College only, but I can see that H.M. Woods
20 might object to that, since that would pull all their
21 18-wheelers across the front of their building. So I guess
22 they are planning on having all their service vehicles,
23 their big service vehicles, come off of Skyway.
24 And I just really want to see that that is safe.
25 Otherwise, we object to it. 0
I
17
1
Then the next -- I wanted to know if the north
2
Louden Ditch is going to be covered, and if so, who's
3
responsible for keeping the silt out of it. And also, how
4
wide are the easements to the west of Hugh M. Woods? There
5
should be -- I think there's two easements, a water easement
6
and a ditch easement that go along there, and maybe this is
7
out of turn, but I'd like to know when the rest of this PUD
8
is developed, how wide are those easements and can there be
9
parking lots put on them or will they all be -- do those
10
easements have to be beautified?
11
I think those are my questions.
12
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Will anyone else be
13
addressing us on this issue? Okay. Seeing no one -- oh,
14
okay.
15
MR. PASOYA: Yeah. My name is Al Pasoya. I live
16
in Fort Collins. In fact, I've lived up on Skyway for the
17
past 16 years.
18
I'd just like to continue on, you hear what --
19
what H.M. Woods say what they'd like. What they don't say,
20
we don't like. Again, what we say and like. Who pays for
21
road maintenance on Skyway and constellation? You got two
22
section there. One's parts of the City and one is part of
23
the County. Now, you've got a piece of roadway in Fort
24
Collins up there in the northwest section where you've got
25
the same problem, where the City and the County are fighting
18
1 who's going to fix the road, and nobody is fixing the road.
2 So that means the people are going to get stuck with it.
3 That's wrong. We should not be stuck with, 152 families,
4 and say, who's going to fix it later. I want to know, who's
5 going to fix it now?
6 The entranceway into H.M. Woods.- Any of you
7 people sitting on this Board, if you've ever drove in a
8 trailer or rode in a trailer, I want to see one of you
9 people, coming south on 287, I brought this up all along
10 with H.M. Woods, and even to the fellow that's drawing the
11 pictures on the wall there with the ruler, how do you make a
12 right turn from 287 into Skyway with a 40-foot trailer and
13 staying in your own lanes? I say it's impossible. You
14 cannot do it. You've got to go into the eastbound lanes on
15 Skyway.
16 Now, we just had some snowfall a couple of weeks
17 ago, and we had it for three days in a row, snowfalls.
18 You've got a 6 to 8 percent hill grade there on Skyway, and
19 I don't care what you do to try to control the vehicle, if
20 you're going to go sliding down that hill, you're going to
21 go right into 287. Now, with the additional traffic on
22 there, nothing's going to help you. Nothing.
23 You've got school buses and Care -a -Van going in
24 and out of that one-way street on Skyway. You've got all
25 this kind of traffic. They don't mention none of these 0
19
1
things. You've got traffic coming out of Hickory House.
2
You've got the side road where the deli and the other
3
storage sheds are. They don't mention none of these
4
things. They paint a beautiful picture. This is what it's
5
going to be. And like the man says, in six months' time,
6
we'll see what has to be done to make a correction. Come
7
on. Don't give me that baloney, six months time. I want
8
the corrections made now, before they do it. This has been
9
going on now how long, and I brought these issues up at
10
every meeting, but they don't bring these issues up.
11
And again, like the last speaker said, in the
12
beginning, we were told eight trailers a day are going to go
13
into H.M. Woods. Eight trailers day. Again, they've
a got
14
to make that turn off of College. Then they got to make a
15
left turn into H.M. Woods. Again, you've got that hill.
16
Folks, I've been driving a trailer for all my life. And
17
I've got an excellent record. I'll compare my driving
18
record with anybody in this room, anybody. I have 32 years
19
of accident -free driving with no summons involved, and I've
20
drove over a million miles. Now, don't tell me that street
21
is safe for traffic and for congestion. It is not. I don't
22
care what kind of a picture they paint.
23
And again, tonight, before we came to this Board
24
meeting, I went south of Trilby Road. You've got that stone
25
crushing plant that throws that gravel and so forth for the
20 9
1 frontage. Then you have that other child care center, which
2 they both have roads coming off of 287, and a third lane to
3 the right. Why can't they do something like that to get
4 their entranceway into H.M. Woods? They've got 16 acres
5 there.
6 That's my only objection. Get something on 287
7 where they can go in on. Not from Skyway. And don't tell
8 me they're not going to go up to Skyway, they're not going
9 to go up to Constellation, and don't tell me you're not
10 going to have traffic accidents at that location. You're
11 going to have accidents you people are going to be
12 responsible for if you give this a zoning permit.
13 And I'm saying they paint the picture nicely all
14 the time, give me color scheme, I don't want to hear that
15 nonsense. That's baloney. That's propaganda. They're
16 selling their project over there. For millions and millions
17 of dollars, they're going to make money buying what we
18 want? What I'm saying, our area, our community, nice
19 community, well, let's keep it nice. We don't want that
20' kind of traffic and stuff in there.
21 MS. CLEMENTS: You have one minute to wrap up
22 your comments.
23 MR. PASOYA: Beg pardon?
24 MS. CLEMENTS: You have one minute to wrap up
25 your comments. 0
21
1
MR. PASOYA: Good. That'll give me plenty of
2
time. But whatever I say, again, I say, don't listen to
3
what they say, listen to what we're saying, us people.
4
We've been fighting this from the beginning, and I say it
5
should not be there. Hugh M. Woods, let them find someplace
6
else. It's against everything that's good for Skyway down
7
there.
8
The school buses didn't come up there because Mr.
9
Sung said there was a big contractor up in Skyway. He said
10
it wasn't suitable for school buses to be up in there. And
11
now they're going to come along and do from Constellation
12
back and forth? Who's going to pay for this? County or
13
City? Don't it back to the It costs us $4,000
give people.
14
per family if we want to do these roads. Is Hugh M. Woods
15
going to help us pay for this?
16
I want these answers now, because late, after
17
tonight, it's too late. I want the answers tonight. I hope
18
you people make a good decision, and some day, ride with me
19
in the trailer, and we'll try to make these turns, and see
20
if they can do it. I challenge them to do it and do it
21
properly. Thank you.
22
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Will anyone else be
23
addressing us on this issue?
24
MR. BROWN: I'm Roland Brown. I live 421 Galaxy
25
Way, which is right on the corner of Galaxy Way and
•
22
1
Constellation. And I'd just like to reiterate just what Al
2
said, but I would like to see in writing a request of --
3
something in writing from Hugh M. Woods that the policy that
4
their trucks, delivery, construction, and all those vehicles
5
would not be allowed, not just a policy that can be changed
6
in a couple of years, but a written statement to the Skyview
7
south that their business equipment would not be using our
8
street. Because it -- we can't stop all the people from
9
north Loveland and southwest Fort Collins coming up Trilby,
10
going down constellation, and right in there, rather than go
11
down to 287, up, and make a turn in, and another turn, and
12
we know it's going to be a heavily traveled -- traffic. And
13
I'd like to see as much restrictions as we could and keep it
14
a community and a residential area instead of a thoroughfare
15
for Hugh M. Woods. Thank you.
16
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Will anyone else be
17
addressing us on this issue?
18
Seeing no one, I'll close citizen participation
19
and bring it back to the Board for discussion.
20-
Well, we can tell this group of citizens has been
21
here before. I've got my questions, boom, boom, boom. Tom,
22
why don't we address a number of issues. One is this County
23
versus the City, you know, where the City road is, where the
24
County road is, who covers what. Is that something you can
25
address?
i
i
23
1
MR. VOSBURG: Let's see. I believe that the
2
current -- currently, the Hugh M. Woods property was annexed
3
but the Skyway Drive was not. So all of Skyway is currently
4
a County road and will continue to be a County road
5
unless --
6
(Inaudible from audience.) -
7
MR. VOSBURG: The center? I did some research on
8
it at one time, and it appeared to me that it ended at the
9
property lines, and the annex because I was specifically
10
referencing where -- how much of the street was annexed, and
11
that -- so the -- Skyway will be one of the streets where
12
there is some ambiguity regarding which entity is
13
responsible for maintenance. There are a number of section
14
line roads where we have a similar boundary situation with
15
the County, and we work out maintenance agreements on those
16
on a case -by -case basis.
17
And in this case, Skyway Drive will be rebuilt to
18
urban standards, so the section of the road that is adjacent
19
to the Hugh M. Woods property will be in very good shape and
20
easily maintain able and not subject to the kind of
21
deterioration that roads that aren't built to City standards
22
are. So.
23
MS. CLEMENTS: Along those lines, could you also
24
address -- you know how Skyway comes down that hill?
25
MR. VOSBURG: Yes.
24 0
1
MS. CLEMENTS: And there's a lot of concern about
2
ice there and going out into traffic. Is there any avenue
3
that might address that in a manner to make it more safe?
4
MR. VOSBURG: Well, the way the City addresses
5
that is we adopt street standards that specify physical
6
limits that -- and characteristics that streets need to be
7
built to in order to be safe. And normally what we talk
8
about this meeting are the horizontal street standards, like
9
how wide the road is and how wide the sidewalk is and how
10
wide lanes are.
11
But in addition to that, we have vertical grade
12
standards, and the -- that hill is -- it's about -- I think
13
it's 8 percent, so it's at the upper end of what we build
14
streets on, but it is within our vertical grade standards,
15
and those standards are set to be -- define what's the safe
16
range of, you know, topography and grade to build streets
17
on.
18
So the fact that it's consistent with our
19
standards means it's within the envelope of characteristics
20
that we've --
21
MS. CLEMENTS: Will that portion of the road be
22
built to City standards? Is that adjacent?
23
MR. VOSBURG: The grade is right in through here.
24
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay.
25
MR. VOSBURG: Yeah, and that will be built --
25
1
this entire section adjacent to -- the entire frontage of
2
Hugh M. Woods lot needs to be consistent with City
3
standards.
4
MS. CLEMENTS: Is there any way to lessen that?
5
MR. VOSBURG: I have not seen the grading plans,
6
and I don't know if -- we've actually got that detailed
7
grading yet. That may be an aspect of the plans that's
8
worked out in the utility plan process.
9
MS. CLEMENTS: I guess, is there a yes or a no or
10
that potentially might happen? Mike? Somebody?
11
MR. HERZIG: We've looked at the first round of
12
plans on that, and the grades meet our standards. What
13
been trying to have
we've work with and make sure we a
14
relatively flat area intersection, and then the grades do
15
get steeper as they go back, but also, having to work with
16
properties on the north side of the street to make sure we
17
don't create any off grades for dive base and that as it
18
goes back to the west. But according to our first round of
19
review, they looked okay. The grades.
20
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Can the grades be --
21
MR. HERZIG: Reduced?
22
MS. CLEMENTS: Even slightly.
23
MR. HERZIG: You'd have to go back much further.
24
You'd probably end up having to -- for them to reduce them
25
significant enough, they would probably interfere with the
26 0
1
driveway operations of the first houses as we -- as it goes
2
to the west.
3
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you. Tom, there was
4
something else -- Sue Ellen, a question that Sue Ellen had
5
of you initially.
6
MR. VOSBURG: I think it was truck -- semi
7
operations?
8
MS. CLEMENTS: Oh, yeah. Trailer off Skyway,
9
daily service vehicles, 18-wheelers turn into that area.
10
MR. VOSBURG: The Skyway/College intersection is
11
designed just like any other City street, with the same
12
turning radiuses. Skyway itself is going to be widened
13
significantly from the it is
way now. Now it's a two-lane
14
County road. This is going to be -- there'll be double left
15
turns and a through lane as well as a westbound lane, so
16
it'll be four lanes wide at College, so it's a much larger
17
road, and that's what that greater width there is more space
18
to turn and maneuver.
19
Southbound semis, if they are turning from the
20
de -acceleration lane, it would be a tight maneuver, just
21
like it is on any right-hand turn out of the acceleration
22
lane anywhere in Fort Collins. Normally, semis do veer out
23
of their travel lanes when they're doing that. An option
24
would be.not to execute a turn from the acceleration lane
25
but instead from the through lane, and that would provide
27
1
greater radius for making the turn, and that's the kind of
2
thing that the drivers do.
3
In terms of these left turns into Hugh M. Woods,
4
there's a through lane as well as a left -turn lane, and then
5
the entryway is three lanes wide, so it's -- it's -- it's
6
wide. I mean, it's a much larger facility than there is
7
now.
8
MS. CLEMENTS: But in your opinion, as reviewing
9
the plan and the representative, it --
10
MR. VOSBURG: It's safe, standard road design.
11
It's by the book.
12
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you. I don't know,
to
13
Tom, if you can answer this, how wide the easements are
14
the west?
15
MR. VOSBURG: I can't.
16
MS. CLEMENTS: Maybe Jim? Anyone? How wide are
17
easements to the west, number one, the water, and number
18
two, the ditch.
19
MR. ELIAS: Okay. As far as easements on the
20
west --
21
MS. CLEMENTS: Can you state your name?
22
MR. HILTON: Berry Hilton, with Payless Cashways.
23
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you.
24
MR. HILTON: The easements on the west side of
25
the site would be for the Louden Canal, and those are 30
28
1 foot, and they do run on the west side of the property. The
2 water line and the sewer easement, I can't tell you the
3 exact width of those, but those do run in front of our
4 building and will continue in front of the building to south
5 to serve future development in that southern parcel.
6 MS. CLEMENTS: Will the ditch be -covered, do you
7 know?
8 MR. HILTON: Yes. That'll be in a pipe.
9 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Let me see. There was a
10 question here, and I don't know if you or Jim Sell can
11 answer this regarding the construction traffic, trying to
12 keep that out of the neighborhood, and how many trailers or
13 service vehicles will be entering the project daily.
14 MR. HILTON: As far as construction traffic
15 goals, we won't have a problem controlling that. We can put
16 any restrictions on our contractors we want.
17 Just from a pure standpoint of good access to the
18 site, I mean, College is really the road they're going to be
19 using. They're not going to want to go on other smaller
20- streets. I'm sure of that.
21 MS. CLEMENTS: And regarding --
22 MR. HILTON: We can easily control that.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. The service vehicles per
24 day?
25 MR. HILTON: As far as the deliveries of goings 0
29
1
to our stores, we would probably have one to two trucks that
2
are distribution center trucks and probably another two to
3
three from a common carrier, such as Yellow Freight. There
4
again, being -- College being the state highway and
5
everything and the recognized address of the facility, I
6
don't feel that we would have much problem, -unless they got
7
lost, going up into the subdivision areas.
8
MS. CLEMENTS: Another question that I have that
9
was brought up tonight is getting in writing a policy for --
10
that employees and trucks would not use Skyway and the area
11
where the neighborhood residents are concerned about is? Is
12
that doable? I'm not sure if it's going that would be on
13
the plat. I'm not sure how that might work. I think what
14
the neighbors are looking for is some reassurance that there
15
won't be any more intrusion into their neighborhood from the
16
project.
17
MR. HILTON: I can understand their concern on
18
that. Most of the traffic, we do feel, will be coming on
19
College and not from the west on Constellation The type of
20-
traffic that we would draw would be from the Fort Collins
21
and Loveland areas. Mainly.
22
As far as actually having a policy goes, I --
23
it's one of those, I'm sure we could do it. I guess I
24
haven't thought about how we would do it.
25
MS. CLEMENTS: Maybe it could be a policy in your
•
30
1
employee training.
2
MR. HILTON: Yes. We strive in all ways to be
3
good neighbors, and if that was a concern, I'm sure we could
4
post some sort of policy at the store.
5
MS. CLEMENTS: I think that's all the neighbors
6
here are looking for, that if there's a concern, maybe even
7
a person they can call, friendly face, that kind of thing,
8
say, hey, we have some concerns, there's been some trucks,
9
this kind of thing.
10
Then I have one more question before I open it up
11
to the Board -- or I guess two more. The 287 entrance;
12
didn't we visit that, why there wasn't going to be a 287
13
entrance? Tom, can that?
you address
14
MR. VOSBURG: 287 is a state highway so access to
15
it is governed by the State Highway Access Code, which is a
16
state law that's been adopted that relates to where curb
17
cuts and business entrances can be on state highways. The
18
purpose of that law is to help maintain and maximize the
19
function of state highways, which are primarily to provide
20-
mobility or movement of goods and services and more
21
secondarily to provide access to land.
22
So -- and that Code is set up to, whenever
23
possible, have access be taken by way of streets and shared
24
access points rather than uncontrolled curb cuts to the
25
street.
31
1
I think that -- let's see. The gentleman that
2
spoke earlier cited a couple of other businesses as examples
3
of enterprises that have curb cuts directly to College
4
Avenue. Before the Access Control Code was adopted, a lot
5
of businesses had access directly to state highways. The
6
way that law is administered is when properties go through a
7
change in use, they have to apply for new access permit, so
8
as areas redevelop and businesses change, then their access
9
is brought into line with the Code.
10
And I know that the rock business in particular
11
that was cited as an example is proposing an expansion, and
12
our response as working with the State on administering the
is they've to
13
State Highway Access Code that got work with
14
resolving their -- their access and that their current
15
access is not consistent with the Code and some kind of a
16
different solution needs to be found.
17
So all those existing curb cuts you see directly
18
to College Avenue and other state highways are -- that's an
19
old practice that creates a lot of congestion and problems
20
and safety problems and we're moving away from that with new
21
-- new development needs to be consistent with the new
22
standards.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Tom. One last
24 question. Regarding the easements for the rest of the PUD,
25 will they be for beautification or will they be for
32
1
parking? I mean, I understand without really a proposal to
2
look at, that typically, easements are not used as parking.
3
MR. OLT: No. First of all, I guess I don't
4
truly understand the question. And yes, that's in a future
5
phase of the time of PUD.
6
MS. CLEMENTS: Well, typically when the City has
7
easements, are they landscape easements?
8
MR. OLT: What's the nature of the easement?
9
MS. CLEMENTS: Well, they were talking about --
10
well, earlier, we talked about water easements, there's a
11
ditch easement, sewer easements. Typically, do we -- are
12
they landscape easements?
13
MR. OLT: It's
going to depend on the nature of
14
the easement. A ditch easement is going to have certain
15
restrictions. A water easement's going to have certain
16
restrictions. There are landscape easements, yes, but it
17
sounds to me as if we were talking about how we're -- I
18
guess there's something -- how we're going to be talking or
19
dealing with the -- let's say the north Louden Ditch
20,
easement as it meanders through the property similar as what
21
we're doing on the Hugh M. Woods site, and until those
22
developments come before us, I guess we're really not
23
certain how that's going to be accommodated.
24
MS. CLEMENTS: And the ditch company is
25
responsible for cleaning up the ditch and --
0
i
33
1
MR. OLT: The ditch company right now is
i
2
responsible. If you have some further questions, I'd like
3
Glenn Schlueter to come down. But talking with Dick
4
Barnhart of North Louden Ditch, they did have concerns about
5
how that was going to be maintained. Once Hugh M. Woods
6
relocates that ditch and undergrounds it, they wondered,
7
based on the depth of the pipe, how that was going to be
8
maintained. And they say they really are not going to be
9
responsible. Hugh M. Woods is working with them on that.
10
Hugh M. Woods will be responsible. And after the fact,
11
there will be an agreement drawn up to where -- across this
12
property, Hugh M. Woods entity will be responsible for the
13
that ditch.
maintenance of
14
MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Other questions the
15
Board has at this time? Gary?
16
MR. CARNES: Is that -- is that agreement a
17
condition that you were just referring to with the ditch
18
company?
19
MR. OLT: No, it's not.
20
MS. CLEMENTS: Do you have Mike, do you have some
21
input on that?
22
MR. HERZIG: Typically, with an irrigation ditch
23
like that is we get final sign -off by the ditch company on
24
the plans, that they -- they are in agreement in how the
25
design is done before we approve the plans. So we feel that
34 0
1 -- the agreement will have to be reached and the ditch
2 cosign the plans before the City will approve the plans.
3 MR. CARNES: Is there -- is there any point in
4 continuing, or is there a point in continuing this until
5 such time as that agreement is reached?
6 MR. OLT: We wouldn't feel it's -necessary. It's
7 going to be part of the -- actually, it's part of the
8 standard development agreement and utility plan and PUD
9 document approval. That will take place as part of those,
10 you know, the final resolution, and don't feel like it's
11 necessary to have a condition on this. It's part of that
12 standard development agreement condition. And nor do we
13 feel it's necessary to continue this item for that reason,
14 that it will be taken care of in the course of finalizing
15 utility plans and the ditch company and the Hugh M. Woods
16 entity is coming to an agreement and the ditch company then
17 signing off on the subdivision plat and plan.
18 MR. HERZIG: As for engineering, we don't feel
19 it's necessary. We feel we're protected adequately because
20 we are the final sign -off on those plans, and we'll make
21 sure that the ditch company is satisfied.
22 MR. CARNES: I guess I have a question for Glenn
23 Schlueter regarding that. What I heard was the ditch
24 company has serious concerns about maintenance of that,
25 what's been proposed. Are we in a potentially infeasible
•
i
35
1
situation here where --
2
MR. SCHLUETER: Actually, in talking to the
3
engineer, they have shortened the length of the ditch by
4
relocating it, which puts a steeper slope on it, and by
5
putting it into the pipe, they have increased the velocity
6
so this section will hopefully be less maintenance or no
7
maintenance as -- it'll be self -cleansing. The velocities
8
are three feet per second, and the cleansing velocity is
9
like two feet per second. So actually, they're solving the
10
ditch company's problems, and by taking over the
11
maintenance, then, they will be responsible for it, too,
12
then. I think they've come to more of an agreement than
day?
13
when we were at the work session the other
14
MR. CARNES: Okay.
15
MR. SCHLUETER: They still have to sign the
16
plans. It's still not signed, but it's more --
17
MR. CARNES: My concern was more of a technical
18
nature, feasibility from a technical standpoint.
19
MR. SCHLUETER: It's -- yeah, it's done all the
20-
sometime.
21 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes, Steve?
22 MR. OLT: Can I elaborate? Again, talking with
23 Mr. Barnhart from North Louden just this past week, he, in
24 fact, has a meeting set up tomorrow morning with the Hugh M.
25 Woods people, and they are starting to work on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
agreement, and the way he described it to me, they are
concerned about, once the ditch has been relined and
undergrounded, they don't want to have the responsibility
for the maintenance, but they also understand that Hugh M.
Woods is prepared to take on that responsibility as long as
the language comes together and they're in -agreement. He
feels there is a workable solution, and they're starting
work on that tomorrow morning. The meeting has been
scheduled.
MR. CARNES: Thank you, Steve.
MS. CLEMENTS: Other questions, concerns? Is
someone ready to make take motion? Jan?
MS. COTTIER: Questions. Jim, I guess. Could
you run through how 18-wheelers drives in and delivers a
load of lumber? Show me the circulation?
MR. SELL: I think it would be better if I defer
that to Barry because he has a better understanding of the
workings of the operation.
MR. HILTON: Okay. All of our facilities, we
build, since we do take large quantities of lumber, and at
time on full-size 18-wheeled trucks, do have to come in.
All radiuses, all sites, as Tom Vosburg mentioned, are
full -truck turning radiuses, as is all of our radiuses
on -site. So as the truck actually comes into the site, he
can actually make that radius and all the radiuses in the
•
40
i
37
1
yard we have here after he came in here, they come in. This
2
is a loading dock for goods to actually go in the facility.
3
He swings here, backs in, can come back out this way, and
4
all the radiuses are for semi -type traffic.
5
MS. COTTIER: So that would also apply if a truck
6
should enter the southern access and come across the front
7
of the building?
8
MR. HILTON: From this access up here? Yes. All
9
of the radiuses up here would accommodate semi truck traffic
10
through there.
11
MS. COTTIER: Steve, the remainder of this PUD
12
goes all the way to Trilby, correct, as an undeveloped?
13
MR. OLT: That is correct.
14
MS. COTTIER: I mean, of the Master Plan.
15
MR. OLT: Master Plan, with the exception of a
16
small block of land, right on the corner of Trilby and
17
College. Tynan PUD does go all the way to Trilby Road, yes.
18
MS. COTTIER: Now, between Hugh M. Woods and
19
Trilby Road, there will be businesses. And where will the
20-
access for their deliveries be? I mean, will they be
21
required to come off of Trilby? Or will there be an access
22
between Trilby and Skyway where truck deliveries are allowed
23
to go into those future businesses?
24
MR. OLT: Based on the overall development plan
25
that has been approved, and we haven't seen any phase plans
•
38
•
1
for this property outside of the Hugh M. Woods plan that's
2
before you, as you can see on this plan, the Tynan Drive on
3
the south edge of the Hugh M. Woods site is starting to make
4
a loop to the south and the west. Based on the overall
5
development plan, that will continue to curve through the
6
Tynan PUD and then daylight over on South College Avenue at
7
another point halfway between here where you're seeing and
8
Trilby Road, with then another local street off that loop
9
road, that type and drive, down to Trilby Road. Again,
10
that's a conceptual plan only, but that's what we've seen to
11
date.
12
MS. COTTIER: What I'm getting at is, it seems it
13
would make more sense to have -- that Tynan Drive be the
.
14
full access for trucks that would then serve businesses to
15
the south as well, rather than having trucks for Hugh M.
16
Woods come into Skyway. I mean, if there's going to be an
17
access between Skyway and Trilby where trucks are allowed to
18
deliver to other future businesses, why not have these
19
trucks come off of Tynan?
20-
MR. VOSBURG: Jan? The South College access
21
control plan that's been adopted by both the City and the
22
State identifies Skyway Drive as a full -movement, signalized
23
intersection. Eventually -- well, then the next access
24
point, this, is to be limited to right -in, right -out,
25
eventually, and then the next access point where Tynan loops
39
1
back to College Avenue, that is -- will potentially be
2
signalized. It's identified in the plan as a potential
3
full -movement, signalized intersection. So that
4
intersection further south may end up being a truck access
5
for the remaining businesses and the PUD. But it's not here
6
yet. And eventually, this will -- the South Tynan Drive
7
exit, entrance here, will be limited in its turning
8
movements to something less than full movement, to be
9
right -in, right -out, only. So.
10
MS. COTTIER: So our only option, if you consider
11
it an option, would be to require them to bring Tynan all
12
the way around to South College and put in a signal there
then have their trucks in that way.
13
and come
14
MR. VOSBURG: Well, yeah -- that would be an
15
option, but . . .
16
MS. COTTIER: I'm concerned about the condition
17
number three that was in the staff report, that I don't feel
18
that that meets the intent of our condition on preliminary.
19
If that's -- when you talked about our -- our condition on
20'
preliminary was that you look at limiting weights -- weight
21
-- load limits for Skyway, and the response was that you
22
have -- Hugh M. Woods has agreed to try to keep their
23
employees from using Skyway. I mean, the main point of that
24
condition, when we discussed it at preliminary, was the big
25
truck traffic. And I haven't heard anything that says what
40
1
Hugh M. Woods is going to do to make sure -- to inform the
2
trucks that they are not to go on Skyway.
3
I also have some concerns about whether or not
4
the access configuration on Skyway meets the intent of
5
our -- with the frontage road, allowing that one-way in,
6
meets the intent of our condition, but I carf't fully
7
remember that. I mean, I thought we were -- we wanted that
8
frontage road eliminated, period, and that Hugh M. Woods was
9
to reach agreement with the businesses there.
10
It's -- I guess -- I'm unhappy with the way it's
11
presented at this point for transportation to say, well,
12
we're going to try this. And if it doesn't work, we'll
13
remove it. Because
-- I'm not sure I feel comfortable that
14
that meets our condition.
15
The last point I wanted to question is why --
16
this isn't a very big issue, but the tree mitigation, I
17
don't recall the last time we required a project to mitigate
18
trees off -site. And in fact, we frequently have projects
19
where they are cutting down existing trees and the response
20-
to mitigation is they're putting in all of this landscaping
21
on the site. So I would just like a comment on why they are
22
being required to do off -site mitigation.
23
MR. OLT: What I'm going to do is -- Tim Beakins
24
is here, the City Forester, who has worked with Hugh M.
25
Woods on this. He's been on -site, and let Tim come down and
41
1
address that in terms of the justification for and the
2
method of determining the tree mitigation at this time,
3
because Tim has been working with City Council on this.
4
MS. COTTIER: Well, I've read the policies, and I
5
understand how you arrive at what you arrive at, but I guess
6
my question is, why is this site being required to mitigate
7
off -site where other sites mitigate within their own
8
property?
9
MR. OSTIC: Yeah, on this particular site, of
10
course, the number of new plantings are significant on their
11
landscape plan, and I think it was reviewed typical to other
12
developments in terms of the amount of landscaping. They do
13
have a number of existing trees. The larger ones being
14
removed. And as we evaluated that and looked at what was
15
being removed by way of types of trees and size and what's
16
being put back, we felt, on this particular project, the
17
recommendation should be that more than what is actually
18
being planted on the project should occur, and that should
19
occur as off -site type plantings.
'20
You hear a question, why is this occurring here
21
and hasn't in the past. I think we're at somewhat an
22
evolutionary step, where as we review tree removal through
23
the development process, the -- the process of mitigating
24
and just doing it on -site, I think, is being looked at, it's
25
being expanded, and I think that our current thinking is
42
1
we're going forward from this point is on, is that if
2
significant trees are being removed from a site that, yes,
3
he should look to see what's going back, but it isn't
4
necessarily always going to be the case that that can always
5
be addressed on that particular site, and that was the case
6
here. -
7
MS. CLEMENTS: Are there questions? Gwynn?
8
MS. BELL: I just have a few questions. The
9
request on the variance. I'd just like a little bit more
10
explanation on that, because on the All -Development chart
11
on -- at our work session, that was not a request, and so if
12
you could just explain how that comes to be at this point.
13
MR. OLT: Yes.
At this point, it's something
14
that we, in essence, determined needed to be done after the
15
tree mitigation requirement from the City, was taken
16
forward, recognizing the fact that we had, you know, five
17
trees on -site that had been evaluated and determined to have
18
some value on a sliding scale, the fact that these trees
19
were to be eliminated, as we looked at -- again, looked at
20
All -Development Criteria 2.3, recognizing the fact that, you
21
know, there's a statement in there -- I think I'd like to go
22
to that, as soon as I can find it -- that physical elements
23
of the site plan adapt well to physical characteristics of
24
the site, minimize disturbance of the topography, water
25
bodies, streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and
43
1
other natural features. It goes on to state that the intent
2
is to preserve desirable existing vegetation where possible,
3
and they define that desirable existing vegetation, in this
4
case, the trees are over six inches in caliber.
5
So by virtue of the elimination of those trees,
6
we recognize the fact that without the tree -mitigation, we
7
really would be -- or actually, we felt like we were unable
8
to answer just directly that criterion in the affirmative.
9
Therefore, something would have to be done to address that.
10
In this case, tree mitigation is being proposed.
11
The City actually proposed it. The developer is in
12
agreement with that and willing to actually provide that
felt like it -- that
13
mitigation. But at face value, we just
14
criterion needed a variance, and that was something that we
15
really identified at a late stage. When I originally did
16
the All -Development Criteria chart, we hadn't reached that
17
point in terms of the fact that the trees were there, the
18
trees really needed to be -- needed to be addressed and
19
mitigated in some fashion.
20
MS. BELL: Okay. I have a couple other comments
21
that I did bring up at work session, and I wanted to speak
22
about it a little bit more here tonight. And that's the
23
idea of the setbacks on South College Avenue. And it's my
24
feeling and concern that with this large of a project,
25
setting a precedent for this entire ODP, and, really, a
44 0
1
precedent for South College Avenue, that we're ignoring an
2
opportunity to make this a little bit more attractive.
3
At the work session, you mentioned 35 feet with
4
the setback? Did you get a chance to measure that and is
5
that still fairly accurate?
6
MR. OLT: The actual setback to the parking lot,
7
to the curb line at the parking lot, up at the top of the
8
terrace to the tree line or the curb line down on the state
9
highway, by measurement on the plan, is 50 feet in this
10
case. You have a detached sidewalk. The plan shows the
11
sidewalk detached six feet from the highway. Then you have,
12
I believe it's a seven -foot walk, and then you've got about
13
35 feet from the back
of the walk to the parking lot. So
14
you have a 35-foot setback from the street to this parking
15
lot.
16
MS. BELL: Well, what I'm concerned about is, if
17
I were to need to walk along College Avenue, and I do live
18
in the South College area a couple miles north, it's very
19
difficult for people to walk along a street that's that
20"
close to a major arterial, because whenever the gravel
21
trucks come through, you know, six feet is -- you know, that
22
gravel throws up on there, and you're there with all the
23
carbon monoxide. It's not a very good design, I don't
24
think, for helping pedestrians to move around. And I'd like
25
to see the sidewalk be moved back and there be more buffer
i
45
1
from College Avenue to the sidewalks. I don't know how to
2
say it any more clearly than that.
3
MR. OLT: We could investigate that. Typically,
4
you will find the detached sidewalks in any other section of
5
South College, really, from Horsetooth Road or actually,
6
even further north than that, Drake Road south, are rarely
7
more than 10-foot detached, and definitely, from Horsetooth
8
Road down to this point, all the shopping center detached
9
sidewalks are no more than eight to ten feet off. So we
10
could look at -- and discuss this with Hugh M. Woods --
11
MS. BELL: Well, I'm saying from a user's point
12
of view, it's not working very well. And maybe, you know,
13
this isn't the appropriate time to be discussing it, but it
14
just seems like a perfect opportunity to try something
15
different and get a more user-friendly type sidewalk in this
16
area.
17 I was looking back on the Harmony corridor plan,
18 and on the local streets and collectors, we're requiring 40
19 feet from the edge of the pavement. So, you know, that's
20- just on a collector.
21 MR. OLT: There's 40 feet from where to where?
22 I'm lost there.
23 MS. BELL: Well, from -- it states in the plan,
24 from the edge of the pavement and not being an engineer and
25 knowing all this stuff perfectly, I assumed that meant,
46
1
well, from the edge of the pavement on back, was the
2
setback.
3
MR. OLT: Rarely -- are we talking sidewalks? I
4
don't think you'll find anywhere where a sidewalk is that
5
far detached from the street.
6
MS. BELL: It just talks about setbacks.
7
MR. OLT: Okay. Well, setbacks in this case,
8
again, by comparison, to show you what we've already got,
9
the shopping centers, the Best Buy, a Shopko, Marketplace,
10
the Pavilion, all these shopping centers along South College
11
are now varying from 40 to 45 feet between their parking
12
lots and the flow line of the street. So in essence, we're
13
looking at about a 40- to 45-foot setback. In this case,
i
14
you have a 50-foot setback from a parking lot on Hugh M.
15
Woods site to the street. By comparison, I think the
16
closest comparison that I can give you is Weberg's, just a
17
quarter mile, half mile, to the north.
18
MS. BELL: I'm very familiar with that.
19
MR. OLT: Okay. And Weberg's is, by my
20"
measurement this weekend, Weberg's parking lot sits 35 feet
21
from the street. You've got a 10-foot detached sidewalk, a
22
five-foot sidewalk, and then about a 20-foot separation from
23
the sidewalk to the parking lot. So in essence, their
24
parking lot, and they'll have a similar situation, where
25
they're terraced up a bit from the street, so the parking
i
i
•
11
47
1 lot is higher, and they're a full 15 feet closer to College
2 Avenue than the parking lot on Hugh M. Woods will be.
3 MS. BELL: Okay. Well, maybe that's -- now that
4 I've got a better point of reference for that, because just
5 on the map, it just doesn't seem very -- I'd still like to
6 see -- I don't know if there's some way to make a note
7 somewhere that in future, we try to take a look at this idea
8 of not having a sidewalk right by College Avenue and having
9 them put back?
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Mike, do you have something to
11 share?
12 MR. HERZIG: Just a couple of things. One thing
13 Steve mentioned was that that sidewalk is shown six feet
14 back from the street. We have been requiring that they be
15 nine feet from the flow line to the walk, and we will work
16 with them to require that. But they are limited on the
17 northern part of their side by the wetlands and just how
18 close they can get.
19 In some other locations, such as Shopko and other
20 shopping centers, they have moved the walk back further and
21 put the walk into their landscaping more with pedestrians
22 access easement beyond the right-of-way. That is something
23 Jim Sell has mentioned which would work, if they could blend
24 that in at the southern part of their site, to help remove
25 that. But that's something that we can still work out in
48
1
the design.
2
MS. BELL: I appreciate some additional efforts
3
made in that area.
4
MR. VOSBURG: And as far as your comments about
5
the sidewalk still seeming too close, well, it is our
6
standard, what we do have right now, and that's something
7
that would have to be changed to require them to do
8
something more. And even setting back a sidewalk beyond the
9
right-of-way is something more voluntary that we've gone
10
along with.
11
MS. CLEMENTS: Gary, you had a question?
12
MR. CARNES: Mike, I had a question about grading
13
on -site. It looks to me like, moving a lot of dirt, I
14
recall at the preliminary something like 110,000 cubic
15
yards. Wouldn't you say that's a lot of dirt?
16
MR. HERZIG: It all depends. For DIA, it might
17
not be. I really can't speak to that, whether it would be a
18
lot or a little. That's matter of what they can --
19
MR. CARNES: Well, it looks like there's
20
substantial modification of the topography on this site.
21
What kind of -- how much cutting and filling are we talking
22
about in terms of depth of cut or depth of fill?
23
MR. HERZIG: I think I'll defer to the
24
consultants on that.
25
MR. CARNES: Okay. Thanks.
49
i
1 MR. ELIAS: I think this is kind of an example of
2 what happens when these things stretch over a long period of
3 time. I'd say it's a fair amount of dirt. And the benefit
4 of it, though, is that what's happening, Gary, is that
5 somewhere, I think about in here, where it grades, and then
6 we're cutting back into the hillside over here, and out here
7 we're filling in the parking lot area, and that's doing two
8 things, at least two things.
9 One of them, I showed you on this other slide,
10 I'll go to that real quick, if I can -- here, is that it's
11 screening the building with a terraced and landscaped wall
12 along here, with trees in front of it, in the wetland area.
13 And then in the back, where there are surrounding residents
14 back here, it's putting it below grade, which is making it
15 much less impact, much less visual -- much less visual
16 impact from the neighboring area. So it's a positive thing
17 in that regard, and admittedly so, that typically, you're
18 trying to work with existing grades, especially the
19 landscape architect.
20- That's what you're trying to do, but there are
21 times in certain urban situations where it's desirable to
22 manipulate them, and I think this is a case where that has a
23 very satisfactory result in doing that. I suppose the
24 negative aspect of it is the energy consumption in doing it,
25 but that's -- that's kind of the gist of what's going on.
50 9
1 MS. CLEMENTS: Other questions, concerns?
2 Someone ready to make a motion? Just a reminder. We have
3 two other items on our agenda this evening.
4 Someone wanting to make a stab at it? Jan? No,
5 she's thinking. Gary, do you have a question?
6 MR. CARNES: I'll make a stab at -it. I guess I
7 have a problem with the one -- one of the conditions here,
8 as other Board members have, regarding the flow of traffic,
9 local, the traffic on Skyview. And also I have a problem
10 with granting a variance on Criterion A2.3, because I think
11 there's more -- more involved than simply tree removal.
12 I don't -- I feel that there has not been a
13 minimization of the disturbance of the topography, water
14 bodies, streams, wells, et cetera. When we're moving this
15 much dirt and we're facing all these problems, the periphery
16 of the site, because of the terrain, it seems like we're
17 running up against a lot of natural constraints in all
18 directions.
19 So I'm -- what I'm saying is, I don't really feel
20" it meets the All -Development Criteria, and the one above all
21 I feel it doesn't meet is A2.3, which is the natural
22 features. So based on that, I'd make a motion for denial.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: There's a motion on the table. Is
24 there a second?
25 MS. COTTIER: I second it.
•
•
I]
51
1 MS. CLEMENTS: Motion and second. Further
2 discussion?
3 MS. BELL: Discuss the reasons for seconding this
4 motion. I also do not feel that a variance is warranted in
5 this case on Item 2.3. In addition, I -- the safety and
6 efficiency of the vehicles -- vehicle circulation, 2.4, as
7 recommended, I don't feel comfortable with. I certainly
8 feel that that frontage road is a very large problem, and to
9 continue to allow circulation through there would cause a
10 lot of difficulty.
11 As in some of -- in the previous hearings, I felt
12 that 2.7 was a problem, and I'm adding to that 2.1, too.
13 MS. CLEMENTS: Comments? Lloyd?
14 MR. WALKER: I believe that the developer has met
15 essentially all of the criteria that we put forth in
16 preliminary. I do wonder about this frontage road. I guess
17 one option we could -- we could pursue this would be to just
18 close that as part of our decision if we were to approve
19 this. But, you know, it seems -- I guess I just feel like,
20" you know, we've put a number of conditions on the
21 preliminary, and I guess I feel like it would appear -- you
22 know, I'm satisfied that they, by and large, have been met.
23 And if we were to -- the frontage road is a
24 problem. I think we could eliminate that, but I think that
25 the creative solution, regardless of that, has been met in
52 0
1 terms of getting this alignment to the properties to the
2 north. Obviously, anytime you -- I think the idea of
3 staggering the drive into the yard was something that breaks
4 up that facade, which I think is a concern that I had.
5 We changed, on Tynan Drive, the access there. So
6 this is -- this does make a large disturbance on the site
7 because of the nature of the project. No question about
8 that. But I think what they have done is -- satisfies my
9 concerns as to what was expressed at the preliminary.
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Jan, do you have any comments?
11 MS. COTTIER: Well, as I said, I am still kind of
12 troubled about the frontage road thing, because that's not
13 quite the way I thought we wanted it to be resolved.
14 In terms of the variance, I don't think it's
15 needed, because if they are -- if you are providing
16 acceptable mitigation, there's no variance required,
17 typically. So that's just a comment thrown in.
18 I would -- I would be inclined to support the
19 denial because I would require an approval to have an
20" additional condition about working with their truck
21 deliveries to make sure they didn't go on Skyway, and so not
22 just their employees, but since the motion is to deny, maybe
23 I'll abstain.
24 MS. CLEMENTS: I guess I'll make some comments.
25 I won't support the motion for a number of reasons. One is
53
1
I think that the applicant and the staff have worked well
2
together to try to address our concerns at preliminary. I
3
think the transportation issues regarding Skyway, we need to
4
be real careful here. We've got the applicant who reviewed
5
the project regarding transportation issues and circulation
6
of traffic with 18-wheelers. We have our transportation
7
division, who are experts in this field who have done it,
8
and for us to eyeball it and say, even though these two
9
groups say it will work, I don't think it will work. I
10
think we need to be real careful about what we consider
11
ourselves to be experts on, and I will inclined to support
12
staff that this transportation pattern regarding the
13
18-wheelers will work.
14
Regarding the circulation that -- with the
15
frontage road, my preference is to not have the frontage
16
road area and to have it landscaped. However, I do
17
understand that the applicant and the staff have tried to
18
work with the business owners, which, you know, when we talk
19
about citizens participation and citizens wanting to be
Z0-
involved and working on issues, six of one and half dozen of
21
the other, in that I'd rather see the landscaping, but I
22
understand the process that the applicant and the staff went
23
through to work with the business owners, so I would be
24
inclined to support another motion, if we have another
25
motion to support, either way.
54
1
I agree with Jan. I'm not real sure that a
2
variance is necessarily needed in this case. So for those
3
reasons, I will not support the motion that is on the
4
table.
5
With no other comments -- yes.
6
MR. ECKMAN: The comments that have been made
7
particularly by Jan regarding the third condition, which was
8
the traffic driving through the subdivisions, since I'm at
9
fault for that condition, I wonder if I could offer an
10
explanation.
11
The reason that I suggested to Mr. Olt that it be
12
drafted to regulate the employees was because I tried to
13
visualize the situation where a customer or a delivery
14
person who was not an employee could be in any way
15
controlled by Hugh M. Woods corporation.
16
For example, if United Parcel Service wanted to
17
bring something to that location and the driver decided to
18
drive on any public street that was available, even in the
19
subdivisions, I couldn't imagine that Hugh M. Woods will
20
say, well, I'm not going to accept this merchandise because
21
you came on the wrong street. Similarly, if a customer
22
decided to go out the wrong way, I couldn't imagine that
23
someone would chase that customer down and try to make them
24
turn the car around and try to drive somewhere else.
25
So I drafted it so that it would only regulate
i
55
1
employees because I assume they would have a way of
2
controlling their employees, while they would not have a way
3
of controlling anyone else.
4
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Without further discussion,
5
we'll have roll call.
6
THE CLERK: Carnes. -
7
MR. CARNES: Yes.
8
THE CLERK: Bell.
9
MS. BELL: Yes.
10
THE CLERK: Fontane.
11
MS. FONTANE: No.
12
THE CLERK: Cottier.
No.
13
MS. COTTIER:
14
THE CLERK: Walker.
15
MR. WALKER: No.
16
THE CLERK: Clements.
17
MS. CLEMENTS: No.
18
Motion does not carry through, by a vote of four
19
to two. Would someone like to put a motion on the table?
20-
Lloyd?
21
MR. WALKER: Yeah, I'll move to approve the Hugh
22
M. Woods final and basically with the -- four conditions
23
that staff has proposed, and just as a side comment to that,
24
if -- I have sort of a mixed feeling about this, a frontage
25
road on the other side. I guess I'm, at this point, I'm
56 0
1 willing to consider what the staff has proposed by setting
2 up the way they have with the idea of closing it if needed,
3 but I'm certainly open if somebody feels strongly, to change
4 that. I'd be willing to accept a friendly amendment on
5 that.
6 MS. CLEMENTS: There's a motion an the table. Is
7 there a second?
8
MS. FONTANE: I'll second and add that I have
9
faith in our Transportation Department, too, that they have
10
looked at it, a variety of options for the frontage road,
11
and I trust that they will choose the safest and best --
12
best path of traffic, whether it's now or in six months.
13
MS. CLEMENTS:
The motion and a second. Further
14
discussion? Gary?
15
MR. CARNES: Yeah, I'd like to offer a friendly
16
amendment to that motion, that there be no variance granted
17
for All -Development Criteria A2.3.
18
MS. CLEMENTS: And the point being?
19
MR. CARNES: That I've heard other Board members
20-
indicate that they felt that was not necessary or in some
21
cases not warranted, and in no case would I suggest that a
22
variance be granted on an A2.3.
23
MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Paul, what would -- you
24
know, there had been some discussion that perhaps a variance
25
is not granted. However, I would not want that to be
57
1
grounds for appeal if we didn't go ahead and grant that.
2
What's your insight on that?
3
MR. ECKMAN: Well, if the Board decides if that
4
-- what was that, 2.3? The plan is in compliance with 2.3,
5
natural features, then I agree that you would not need to
6
consider a variance. We at the staff level made a
7
recommendation that staff felt that that was not being
8
complied with, and certainly, the Board is at liberty to
9
disagree with that interpretation. That's our
10
recommendation.
11
MS. CLEMENTS: Jan?
12
MS. COTTIER: The main reason I made that comment
13
was because when we discussed the amount of fill and how it
14
required at preliminary -- I mean, how much they dug into
15
the hillside, I thought that there were design reasons that
16
were mitigating and that it was much preferable to have
17
that, the topography disturbed to that degree, such that the
18
facility could be lower than the hills, rather than sitting
19
up on top. So that is why I think that the -- the
20
mitigation is proper.
21
I mean, yes, there was a lot of topography
22
disturbed, but what we have is better than what would have
23
existed. And I don't think that, in terms of removing
24
vegetation, if there's a mitigation agreed to, to me, it
25
kind of answers the need for a variance.
58
1
MR. ECKMAN: Yes, and the interesting thing, I
2
think, about 2.3 it is doesn't allow to mitigation. It just
3
asks the question, and it doesn't make any provision
4
anywhere as to whether that could be mitigated. I struggled
5
with that, and I really didn't think of it in terms of
6
disturbance of topography. I was thinking about it in terms
7
of minimizing the disturbance of vegetation, thinking of
8
those trees, but certainly, the topography is another
9
issue. And since there's no provision made for -- nothing
10
in the question that says, or has mitigation been done,
11
which is acceptable, then I thought that the best approach
12
would be to grant a variance to that condition and come to
13
the conclusion that the
mitigation makes the plan equal to
14
or better than the plan would have been if it had complied
15
with that criteria.
16
MS. COTTIER: Well, we have had many, many
17
projects where there are considerable mitigation efforts
18
required, and we haven't done this as a variance in the
19
past, I don't believe. Right? I don't remember any. But
20-
that's why I had said that.
21
I would like to offer a friendly amendment to --
22
an addition to point 3 that Hugh M. Woods do -- well, that
23
covers employee education, but a written notification of
24
everyone who makes the delivery to them that they are
25
requested to not use Skyway beyond the entrance to the
i
59
1 facility.
2
MS. CLEMENTS: Paul, do you have input on that?
3
Don't want to touch it?
4
MR. ECKMAN: I guess -- if that's a condition
5
that they give written notification, they have the power to
6
do that. Whether they follow that notification is another
7
matter. So that's -- to me, that's a clear and acceptable
8
condition.
9
MS. COTTIER: Something that clearly says, if you
10
are making deliveries to our facility, please use this
11
route.
12
MR. WALKER: Yeah, I'm fine with that. Just let
Gary for on that 2.3. I I'm
13
me comment on what asked guess
14
of the inclination that I think we can remain silent on that
15
and just let it be if we're all satisfied.
16
MS. CLEMENTS: Silent meaning no variance or
17
silent meaning leaving the variance in?
18
MR. WALKER: Well, it's not -- just not dealing
19
with it. I don't feel we need to deal with it. By not
20
stating --
21
MS. CLEMENTS: I see. By not stating the
22
variance as a condition?
23
MR. WALKER: We're implying that we're satisfied
24
with that criteria. But I think -- I think we're getting
25
what Gary is asking for by just remaining silent on that.
60 0
1 I'm okay with Jan's amendment.
2
MS.
CLEMENTS: Okay. There's a motion and second
3 on the
table.
If there's no further discussion, we'll have
4 roll call.
Do
you need any clarification, Georgina?
5
THE
CLERK: No, I have the four conditions in the
6 staff's
report,
and in addition to that, tha-t they provide
7 written
notification to delivery trucks not to use Skyway
8 Drive?
And was
there something, a route that they needed to
9 use?
10
MS. COTTIER: That's -- no, that they can use
11
Skyway Drive up to the entrance of the facility but they are
12
not to go further west up on Skyway, up into the residential
13
area.
14
MS. CLEMENTS: Gary?
15
MR. CARNES: Yeah, for the record, I would like
16
to echo what Paul Eckman just said. The way I read A2.3 is,
17
it's not subject to mitigation. It's a determination of
18
fact as to whether or not there would be -- whether the
19
site plan adapts well to the physical characteristics of the
20'
site. And whether it minimizes disturbance of topography,
21
water bodies, streams, wetlands, wildlife, habitat,
22
vegetation, and other natural features. I understand the
23
motivation for the substantial modification of the
24
topography of the site for purposes of mitigating other
25
impacts, primarily visual, but that -- that's independent
61
1
of, in terms of determining whether or not it meets this
2
criteria.
3
So I agree with the staff that it does not comply
4
with A2.3. It's a determination -- you know, it's a factual
5
matter, in my opinion, and so that was the reason for my
6
original motion, and that's the reason I will not be
7
supporting the motion that's before the Board now.
8
MS. CLEMENTS: I see you shaking your head. Did
9
you want to change?
10
MR. WALKER: Well, I see --
11
MS. CLEMENTS: See the point?
12
MR. WALKER: I see his point. I guess if -- if
13
just to clarify that, a matter of policy, you know, we would
14
state that, you know, allow a variance, I'd be willing to
15
amend it to state that, just to clarify it. We recognize
16
there is an issue here, but we're willing to grant a
17
variance.
18
MS. CLEMENTS: Gwen, any other questions?
19
MS. BELL: No, just a comment. I haven't changed
20-
my opinion yet, either, so I'll be voting no for the reasons
21
I was voting yes prior. 2.3, I still haven't been convinced
22
that this is a good land use on this particular site. I
23
think it's really quite an attractive piece of land, and I
24
think that it's really not a very good choice for
25
development. And so I'm voting no on 2.3, 2.4, 2.7. I
•
62
1
could add a lot more, but I'll stop there.
2
MS. CLEMENTS: There's a motion on the table. A
3
second. Further discussion?
4
Roll call.
5
THE CLERK: Bell.
6
MS. BELL: No. -
7
THE CLERK: Fontane.
8
MS. FONTANE: Yes.
9
THE CLERK: Cottier.
10
MS. COTTIER: Yes.
11
THE CLERK: Walker.
12
MR. WALKER: Yes.
13
THE CLERK: Carnes.
14
MR. CARNES: No.
15
THE CLERK: Clements.
16
MS. CLEMENTS: Yes.
17
Motion passes, four -two.
18
(Agenda item concluded.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
63
1
STATE OF COLORADO )
2
) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4
I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5
and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6
the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of the Hugh M.
7
Woods Final PUD request, was held on Monday, February 27,
8
1995, at 300 West Laport Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado;
9
that said proceedings were transcribed by me from videotape
10
record to the foregoing 62 pages; that said transcript is,
11
to the best of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate
12
and complete record of the proceedings so taken.
to, employed
13
I further certify that I am not related
14
by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15
nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16
Attested to by me this 12th day of April, 1995.
17
18
.. 6
.;�....v.
.
19
_
f;J`7:
�q i. Jaslon T . M ddors
2b
S i�eir�•r ;p," 5 West Oak Street, Suite 500
80521
��:•. "e •'c° Fort Collins, Colorado
21
*� • �, ( 303 ) 482-1506
22
My commission expires January 6, 1997.
23
24
0 25
•
•
4
•