Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER OF FORT COLLINS - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 2-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klatask€, and Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Debbie deBcschc, Mike Herzig, Jim Faulhaber, Kari VanMeter, Linda Ripley, Rick Ensdorff, Barbara Hendrickson, and Paul Eckman. Chairwoman O'Dell gave a brief presentation honoring the work done by for- mer Boardmember, Linda Lang. Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included Item 1, Minutes of the January 25, 1988 meeting; Item 2, Animal Medical Center of Fort Collins #2-88; Item 3, Amendment to Lot IIA Drake C Park PUD - Preliminary and Final #5-88; Item 4, Moreland PUD - Final #14-83C; and Nest Elizabeth PUD - Final - One Year Extension #36-84A. Mr. Frank stated that Item 2, Animal Medical Center of Fort Collins - Preliminary #2-88 should be placed on the Discussion Agenda. Member Kern moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, and 5. Member Crews seconded the motion. The motion was adopted 6-0. ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC OF FORT COLLINS #2-88. Request for a 7,674 square foot animal' medical center, hospital, kennel, and 1 bedroom apartment, on .95 acres, located at the southwest corner of Myrtle Street and College Avenue. Debbie deBesche, Project Planner, gave a description of the project. She stated that she had received 3 letters of opposition which were enclosed in the Staff Report. She also noted a memo was provided to the Members which addressed the concerns raised by the Board at the agenda review meeting. John Barnett, ZVFK, gave a description of the facility. It would include an animal clinic, kennel, storage area and one bedroom apartment. He stated that the clinic would be equipped with modern technology including sound and air filtration systems. He stated that the plan included 12 off -site parking spaces. The site of the project was the former Beebe Clinic. A minimum modification .would be done to upgrade the existing facilities. He pointed out that there was a church to the north, mixed commercial uses to the east, a single family home and commercial uses to the south and residential uses to the west. He felt that the use of the property for a clinic was appropriate. He asked that Planning and Zoni�Board - February 22, 1988 • Page 2 the preliminary approval be acted upon. He noted that there were outstanding issues, which involve the signage, parking lot design and landscape design. Member Kern asked about the soundproofing and noise filtration systems. Greg Anderson, Amshell Corp., stated that the kennel is in the basement. Any noise would be contained there. Member Kern asked if the heating and cooling fans would be obtrusive. Mr. Stephens replied that the proposed units were smaller than the existing units and would remain in the existing mechanical room in the basement. Member Crews asked about the sig-nage. Mr. Barnett stated the proposed sign was 6" wider than the one seen on the plan. It would be internally illuminated. He believed the sign was appropriate with the architecture of the building. He stated there would also be a lighted canopy sign. Member Crews asked if this clinic required that kind of advertising and asked why they wanted a larger sign. Mr. Barnett replied that the sign was important to let people know that the facility was available. CMember Strom asked the height of the sign. Mr. Barnett stated that it would be 8-9 feet high. Member Strom stated that he felt the previously proposed sign was too large. He felt there was too much signage shown on the plan. Mr. Barnett stated the signage was comparable to surrounding signs and pointed out that they wish `to use only half the amount allowed by the sign code. Member Brown asked why the emergency access was needed. Mr. Barnett replied that the applicant wished an area to be available through which injured animals could be brought to the clinic. He used a slide to point out the access, and how the injured animal would be transported from a car to the building. Member Brown asked which landscaped island would be changed. Mr. Barnett stated the island to be changed was located west of the building and pointed out that the area was needed for an extra parking space. Member Crews asked why the existing island would not work as it had with the Beebe Clinic. Mr. Barnett stated that the island was composed of concrete and a tree stump. It was, in his opinion, inappropriate. Planning and Zon� Board - February 22, 1988 Page 3 Ms. dcBesche asked the Board to act on the Preliminary approval with three conditions. The conditions were that the following items would be resolved prior to final approval: 1) signage, 2) parking lot design and 3) the landscape plan for the southern border of the property. Member Brown asked why the project was not given points for being in the Central Business District on item 2d, of the Business Service Uses Point Chart. Ms. deBesche pointed out that the project was given points on item 2c of the Business Service Uses Point Chart for being in the Central Business District and would qualify for additional points with item 2d. Conrad Woodall, a CSU student, told the Board that he and his class visited the block. From a historical perspective, the Beebe Clinic was the key to the block. He believed the proposed land use was appropriate. Ed Umlauf, applicant, gave the Board a brief history of his background and the reasons for the application. He stated the 'term "kennel" was not appropri- ate. He added that the clinic would offer grooming, a nutritional center. A new apartment for a veterinary student would also be built. He felt the sign was necessary to advertise his services, and was in character with the existing building. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the sign would be available for review at the March meeting. CMs. deBesche stated yes. Member Brown asked if the Board did not like the sign size, could they modify it. Ms. deBesche stated yes. Chairwoman O'Dell thought it might be helpful to know about other signage in the neighborhood. She felt that the 9' sign may overwhelm the site. Member Crews expressed concerns regarding the lighted sign. He stated there were other signs in the area which were not lighted. He felt that an electric sign would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Member Strom pointed out that Garment District sign was a large sign but on a large building. The setback from the R.O.W. was considerable. Mr. Eckman referred to All Development Criteria #44 of the L.D.G.S. which states: "Are all signs in the project in compliance with the provisions of this chapter?", meaning the Sign Code. He also referred to Section 118-83E, paragraph 5, which states, "all signs must conform with the sign code" and further provides that the "Planning Director may approve signs conforming to the sign code but where extensive signage is proposed or the signage would have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods, the Planning Director may submit the proposed signs for approval by the Board". He therefore thought the focus should be on whether the proposed sign had an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. ft Planning and Zoni Board - February 22, 1988 Page 4 40 Nlember Kern moved to approve the Fort Collins Animal Nledical Clinic Preli- minary with the three conditions recommended by staff. Member Crews sec- onded the motion. The motion was adopted 6-0. ROBINSON-PIERSAL AMENDED FINAL #26-85G. Request for a 51,000 square foot grocery store and 9,900 square feet of additional retail on 4.82 acres, located at the northeast corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue. Member Edwards stated he had a conflict of interest, removed himself from consideration and left the room. Kari VanMeter, Project Planner, stated that the application was the amended final site plan of the Robinson Piersal P.U.D. The amended preliminary was approved by the Board on February 1, 1988. On February 16th, the Fort Col- lins City Council upheld the continuance of the encroachment permit. The applicant had amended the site, landscape and elevations in response to suggestions made by the Board and Staff. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were any questions of Mr. Zdenek concern- ing the changes that have been made since the last time they saw the prelimi- nary. Member Strom asked that either Mr. Zdenek or Ms. VanMeter briefly describe the changes. C Ms. VanMeter replied that the plan was in conformance with the preliminary approval. She stated that the Board directed the applicant to make certain changes in the final site plan to further mitigate the impacts associated with the loading area. The applicant modified the west end of the loading area on Magnolia Street. She showed how the retaining wall was pulled back closer to the building. She stated that the modification would provide additional landscaping and better trash enclosure space. The revision will provide a better, more well-rounded landscaped area at the west end of the loading area. The applicant will use a canopy over the window on the east elevation to provide visual relief and interest. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if there were any additional questions by the Board of Ms. VanMeter. There were none. She then asked if Mr. Zdcnek, Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Van Horn had any more information to present to the Board. Mr. Zdenek stated they would wait and respond with comments later in the meeting. Ms. VanMeter stated again that the final plan was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan. The primary changes from the prelimi- nary plan were the use of the canopy over the window on the east elevation and the modifications to the west end of the loading area. The final plan was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary and met the applica- ble criteria of the L.D.G.S. The Staff recommendation was for approval of the amended final plan. John Schofield, representing the owners of the Clock Tower project and Collins House building, spoke. He said that he wished to give a refresher to the