Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY - 57-87 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 2, 1987 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of October 26, 1987 was continued to this date. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Members not present were Don Crews, and Linda Lang. Member Sandy Kern arrived at 9:55 p.m. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Debbie deBesche, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank, Peter Barnes, and Renee Joseph. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Tan Peterson, Planning Director, reviewed the continued items included on the Discussion Agenda from the October 26, 1987 meeting. The three items included: Item 1,#57-87 North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary; Item 2, #69-84F Fort Ram Village lst Filing PUD - Amended Final; and Item 3, #113-80F Amendment to the City Zoning Code - Group Hanes. NORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY Ted Shepard gave the description of the project. Rick Hattman described the project as a mixed use retail center. The pro- ject included a convenience store and a retail section of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. interiors. He stated the project would be located at Con- ifer and Lemay. He felt it was important to emphasize that the plan is isolated from the adjacent properties. He commented that at the neighbor- hood meeting many steps had been discussed to provide additional buffering to the neighboring areas. He stated the developer had agreed to develop off -site mitigation. The south side of the project would have berming around the edge of the parking areas and landscaping including shrubs and trees would be provided. The west boundary would have shade trees and evergreens that would create landscape buffering. He indicated that the convenience store would have heavy landscape treatment that would continue to the retail building. He commented that the 4 ft. berm would separate Lemay fran the gas fill area and effectively block the view of the cars in the filling slots. He stated that from an architectural standpoint, the buildings would be constructed primarily of brick. He indicated that the focus of the site was to the interior. He discussed the canopy area stat- ing the short side of the building faced Lemay. He indicated that the convenience store and retail building had sloped roofs to create a residen- tial image. He added that the major control area for pedestrian circula- tion would be at Conifer. He concluded by stating. that the project shows intense buffering. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 • page 2 Ted Shepard commented that staff is recommending approval with the condi- tions as outlined in the staff memo the Board members received. These con- ditions included: 1) the applicant shall submit plans to the Plans Examiner prior to final approval to justify the energy points; 2) submittal of a landscape phasing plan; 3) (reworded) concerning how the street trees on Conifer will be watered, (in memo); 4) reduction of the signage so the pro- ject becomes more residential in appearance; 5) detail traffic impact ana- lysis at final; 6) the final phase of development include landscaping adja- cent to the retention pond; and, 7) monitoring man foie placed at the end of the 15 inch storm drainage pipe for the purpose of measuring the water quality of the retention pond. Also, staff feels it is necessary to require a base line study to be conducted testing for PH content, heavy metals, organics, and oil and grease. Don Parsons stated he received a letter regarding the additional condition for the retention pond. He commented he was not sure of the cost involved and what the information would be used for. He added that he wondered what ordinances or standards back these requirements. He stated that the devel- oper would like to add a condition to this condition stating only if these requirements are in the ordinances or standards would he adhere to them. Chairperson O'Dell asked Ted Shepard to explain why the condition was requested. Ted Shepard stated the proximity of the site was the reason for testing to detect possible water pollution. Don Parsons commented the developer was caught off guard by being asked to provide more information or spend more money for the project in order for it to be approved. He stated the developer has agreed to construct the man hole, at a cost of approximately $1,500, even though it is an unusual request. He commented he is not sure if testing the pond is the devel- oper's or the City's responsibility. He added at this point there has been no time allowed to respond to this condition. Member Edwards stated the retention pond is not really a retention pond because it detains water and wanted clarification on this issue. Ric Hattman stated the detention pond was constructed with the original subdivision but all the improvements were not completed at that time. The items not completed were the outlets to the pond. He indicated with this development a release will be provided for the detention area. He stated the pond is designed to release water as well as hold water. Don Parsons commented on the functioning of the pond. He stated it is both a detention and retention pond. He stated that with a large enough storm the pond would fill up to a high enough level to overflow and spill water. Member Edwards inquired where in the scheme of things does the retention pond leave the domain of Storm Drainage Utility and into the Natural Resources Department meaning when does the pond became a natural resource area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 . page 3 Ted Shepard stated the policy is that the Storm Water Utility and Natural Resources Department are working together. He indicated the pond will pro- mote the policy of wildlife habitat, yet be operated, maintained, and under the supervision of the Storm Water Utility. John Nelson stated there are a lot of unresolved issues. He indicated he lives three houses north of the proposed site. He stated he checked the surrounding developments for future uses. He commented he feels threatened with a convenience center across the street from a residential area. He stated his concerns: First, the crime element; Second, level of intrusion by the traffic and lights; and, Third, the degree of destruction of private property in the area. He commented the project does not benefit the major- ity of people involved. He inquired if the project could be located in a different area. David Enticknap commented it is humorous how the developer is planning to isolate the site from the surrounding area. He stated it will be difficult to minimize the noise and traffic created from the project. He stated the 80% vote by the residents for a change in the density to allow for the pro- ject was made by people who are well removed from the area. He feels the project is unequitable. He stated at the neighborhood meeting the chart shown to everyone indicated 11,200 sq. ft. and now the project shows 13,276 sq. ft. He wonders where the additional space will be allocated. Ric Hattman stated the current plan is similar to the plan reviewed at the neighborhood meeting. He indicated the buildings now have additional set- backs from Conifer and Lemay. David Enticknap stated this was a substantial increase in square footage. He wondered if there would be any more changes. He stated he is concerned about the project. He commented a majority of people are opposed to the project and they are appealing to the Board. He stated these are the people who live in the area and have to adjust. He indicated there are several convenience stores two to three minutes away and there is no need for another one. He stated the value of his land will decrease because of the project. He questioned the review process stating he wants to be informed about the appeal possibilities to the City. Ted Shepard explained the appeal process. David Enticknap inquired about the two year landscaping agreement with the developer. He asked who would maintain the area after the two years. Don Parsons stated after the two years the Storm Drainage Department will take over the maintenance. He commented on the square footage discrepancy stating aggregate versus individual is being discussed making up for the difference in footage. Chairperson O'Dell stated the project is in the preliminary stage. This means the final plan has to conform to the preliminary, therefore, no changes in the size would occur. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 page 4 David Enticknap stated Ted Shepard had commented to the residents that their input is important. Ted emphasized the Board would take the input into consideration. SMEESTEK Kurt S�� stated he lives across Lemay by the horse farm. He stated the proposed project looks real nice but there is one problem, specifically no one wants the project in their neighborhood. He commented the people in the neighborhood do not oppose growth. He stated the area is zoned multi- family, low density residential and would like to see it stay that way. He suggested the Board consider other convenience stores in Fort Collins. He stated no other convenience store is surrounded by residential zoning. He then submitted a petition to the Board of individuals opposing the project. Bill White stated he has not been asked to sign a petition but would like to be included on one. He informed his background is in sales and market- ing. He stated the three rules that are never broken in these fields are location, location, location. He suggested the developer should think of a better area to place the convenience store. He stated a location on Col- lege or further south on Lemay would be better. He suggested a better use of the land, for example, a fire house, police station, or an emergency station could be built on the property. He asked who will take care of the site if the convenience store fails. Don Schlagel stated there is a minimum of three convenience stores directly west on College. He added there is approximately 100 acres available to the west of the proposed site. He stated he should not have a convenience store shoved down his throat. He discussed the contamination of the water due to gas leaks and the dangers involved. He commented the land is on top of a underground river. Rudie Mooser stated he lives four houses away from the proposed site. He commented he wanted to see the high quality of life continue to exist in the area. He mentioned Fort Collins is referred to as the "Choice City, Fort Fun", and basically a. nice place to live. He suggested opening a convenience store would bring crime into the area. Barbara Lockewood stated she agreed with all the others who oppose the pro- ject. She said she tried to list the good and bad of the project and all she could cane up with was bad things. She did not want to see the zoning changed but would like the site to be different. She concluded by stating there are too many "ifs" involved. Member Brown inquired about the underground storage tanks in relation to the water. She wondered which arm of the government finds the suitable place for the underground tanks. She asked what criteria is used for deciding the location of placement. Ted Shepard stated Poudre Valley Fire Authority makes that decision. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 page 5 Bill Giesenhagen addressed Member Brown's question regarding the storage tanks. He stated it is the Fire Department's job to make sure the tanks remain safe. He commented the installation of the tanks is more expensive now because of the safety precautions involved. Member Brown inquired if there is any differentiation for placement. Bill Giesenhagen stated soil reports are conducted which show all items present in the ground. These reports help determine which type of tanks will be used. Paul Eckman stated criteria 12 is a possible condition to investigate. Member Brown stated she is not depending on new tank technology for abso- lute solution. Ted Shepard informed staff is recommending the requirement of a report or specific review prior to final by the Poudre Valley Fire Authority regard- ing the tanks. Member Brown asked if the Poudre Valley Fire Authority qualifies the tanks but not the location of placement. Tom Peterson stated it would be appropriate to make a condition to satisfy ground water passing through the site. Bill Giesenhagen stated he has been a resident builder for 30 years. He commented he understands the concerns and does not want to decrease the quality of the property or anyone's life. He stated he does not feel the project will add additional traffic in the area since there is expansions planned for the future. He informed he has been approached by many indi- viduals regarding leasing the retail space. He emphasized the project retains a residential appearance. He does not feel the convenience store will increase crime in the area. He commented robberies happen anywhere not just in convenience stores. He discussed CAM, Common Area Maintenance, by stating the tenants will contribute to the common area. He stated this is a unique situation. He added from the standpoint of the future tenants the location is suitable. Member Strcm asked Ted Shepard to clarify the issue of rezoning the area. Ted Shepard stated there is a private covenant between private parties. The City is not involved in the matter. Member Strom inquired about the point chart regarding criteria 8, section 4, Mix Use. Ted Shepard stated Conifer is a collector street, whereas Lemay is an arte- rial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 • page 6 Rick Ensdorff discussed the Fort Collins parkway bypass. He showed on the map an approximate location. He mentioned the bypass is only conceptual at this point. He stated the City is looking at four proposals of the con- cept. Member Brown questioned about the signage. Bill Giesenhagen stated the signage was decreased so that the appearance would not be cluttered. Member Brown inquired about the height of the buildings. Ric Hattman stated the canopy would be 14 ft. tall to the underside, 12 ft. to the top of the structure, and 22 ft. at the top of the pitched roof. Member Edwards inquired about the possible uses of the drive running north and south. He asked if it would be used as a service drive thru for deliv- eries. Ric Hattman stated the drive meets fire code standards and it was also requested by the developer. Member Edwards stated the future use of the convenience store would be to become a fast food facility. He suggested the drive could be used as a service drive for fast food pick up. He commented about restricting the use of the center. Ric Hattman stated he does not see the drive as being used for a fast food pick up window. Member Edwards stated he would like to see restrictions placed on the development to prevent the drive being used for a service way. Ric Hattman emphasized Member Edward's concern was not a real possibility. He stated if the developer decided he wanted to alter the drive for fast food pick up then the Board would have to review the change for approval. Tom Peterson stated the Board would have to approve before this would hap- pen. Member Brown inquired about the proposed dumpster locations. Ric Hattman referred to the locations of the dumpsters on the map. David Enticknap stated the 22 ft. structure would be obvious from the homes in the area. He added the 4 ft. berm would not hide the building. He inquired where employee parking would be available.. He asked what the dif- ference was between covenants versus zoning changes. Ric Hattman stated the area to the rear of the buildings would be for employee parking. He indicated four spaces would be provided. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 2, 1987 • page 7 is Ted Shepard emphasized zoning changes and covenants are not the same. Paul Eckman clarified between zoning changes and covenants. He stated the City knows about zoning changes whereas covenants are unknown to the City because they are agreements between private parties. He added there is no exact definition of what can be sold at a convenience store. He stated a condition could be added that restricts fast food drive un. Member Edwards restated his concern. He commented he does not want to see the site becoming a fast food place with a drive thru lane. He stated he can see the potential of this happening in the future. Member Edwards moved to approve the North Le<may Plaza PUD - Preliminary with the conditions as stated by staff. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Member Edwards commented he takes his job seriously and some decisions are hard to make. He stated mix land uses can be compatible and feels the site chosen is an appropriate location. He added the mitigation measures for landscaping are reasonable and the area will continue to grow. He con- cluded by stating the developer has done his job and meets the concerns of the public. Member Brown state the developer has made a lot of efforts to keep the pro- ject residential in scope and nature. FORT RAM VILLAGE 1ST FILING PUD - AMENDED FINAL Debbie deBesche gave a description of the project. She noted the Planning and Zoning Board did grant final approval of the site plan use at the August 1987 meeting. She informed the Planning and Zoning Board does have the authority to increase the number of unrelated persons living together. On October 6, 1987 the City Council gave the Board this authority (142-87). She stated the issue is not the site plan but more than three unrelated individuals living together. Frank Vaught stated the site plan is identical to the approved plan of August 1987. The issue is having four unrelated persons living together. He stated the open space of the project was 46%. The project offered rec- reation areas which include: pool, volleyball, picnic areas, and bike trails. He stated that the parking spaces available had increased from 404 City required spaces to 491, an increase of 20%. He commented this increase exceeds City standards. He stated Constitution would be extended to Plum with sidewalks on both sides. On site management would be offered. He stated the theme of the project was not to rent apartments but to rent rooms, more of a dorm type slitting. He stated it is important to regulate the number of students. Debbie deBesche stated staff recommends approval with the condition that four and not more than four unrelated individuals can live together and only in the four bedroom units.