HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY - 57-87 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (2)AGENDA li SUMMARY
IT NUMBER: 26
DATE: January 5, 1988
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
,.
OM:
FROM: Te d Shepard.
SUBJECT:.
Appeal of. a. Planning. and Zoning Board Decision of Approval (Case #57-8.7)
Regarding a 1.78 Acre Planned Unit Development Known as The North Lemay
Plaza. .
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record, and, after,
consideration, either uphold, .,overturn or modify. the decision,. of the E.
Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
At the November 2, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board hearing (continued from
the regularly scheduled meeting of October, 26, 1987), the. Board approved a
request for preliminary. approval of the North Lemay Plaza. This request
in 1.78 acres at the southwest corner. of Conifer Street. and Lemay
Avenue. The proposed uses are a 2,604 squarefoot convenience store with
three .gas pump islands and canopy.and a 10,672 square foot retail building.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has proposed a 1.78 acre convenience commercial center, on.
property that was zoned R=L-M, t LowDensity "tiultiple Family. The PUD
proposal was reviewed under the criteria of the Land Development Guidance 1
System (LDGS) and found to satisfy the locational and 'design criteria for
an Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial land use..
.Staff :.found the orientation of the buildings, the architecture, the
landscaping and . buffering, ' the off -site landscaping, 'and the,.'reduced
signage: .are 'sensitive .design characteristics which contribute toward
neighborhood compatibility, and promote quality development encouraged by
..the LDGS.
The appellant takes issue with. Neighborhood Compatibility component of the
All Development Numbered Criteria Chart of the Land Development Guidance
System. It "is the'.appellant's contention that lighting, hours of
operation, '..and the sale of pornographic material and alcohol lvould have .a
negative. impact'on the neighborhood.
The appellant further claims. that Auto -Related. and Roadside Commercial
Point Chart of the LDGS unfairlyawards a development' proposal with the'.
credit available under. Energy Conservation; criterion:. The appellant
contends that this credit is undeserved since,current private market
.construction. practices typically accomplish the same result that the LDGS
No Text
OFFICE OF THE CITY 300 LaPorte: Ave. a P.O. Box 580 o Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (363) 22ImI5520 `.
ATTORNEY
•
Members of City Council
`January 1, 1988.
Page -2 ..
Planning and Zoning Board erred in its interpretation of the
"Numbered
Criteria Chart", and "Point Chart D" which. '.I believe
constitutes ;an" allegation that the. Planning and Zoning Board
"failed.:to properly 'interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Code, thus conforming to the, requirements of Section 2-48(3).
A co py of my.November..19, 1987,,memorandum: to the City:. .Clerk with
regard to the content of the .various :portions of the appeal. is
attached for your information.. Please understand .that my inter..
pretation is not the.final decision with respect to the. question
of whether the written grounds for appeal conform to the require-
ments of Section 2.-48 of, . the. Code. That decision-sh�•uld be made
by
the Council.. I.t-was., and -remains, my opinion that only Mr.
Smees.ter's portion of the, appeal.states alegitimateground under
the Code. Based upon the allegations made by Mr. Smeester, I con -
eluded that the request for appeal was properly grounded upon an
appealable issue as established in Section 2-4B.
Third, as provided in, Ordinance No. 124, 19871 if the Coun-
cil determines that the appeal is founded upon legitimate appeal-
-able grounds, the: -Council shall next consider any allegation that
the board or commission improperly failed to receive.all relevant
evidence of.fered.by the appellant. In this case, no such allega-
tion exists.
Fourth, the Council shall then consider the merits of any
additional allegations of error which conform to the stated
grounds for appeal as provided in Section 2-48 of the Code. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the•Council shall either uphold,
overturn or modify the`decision'of the board'or commission.
All allegations should be presented to the Council for con-
sideration through the order of presentation which is es;tahlished;.
pursuant to Section 2-55 of the Code. The time for presentations!
may be limited and the procedures designed so that the Council is',
sufficiently informed tomake a'decision based on the record an`
d';
the presentations made by the City staff,
, the: appellant,. an&::.
opponents of the appeal. According to Section 2-55 of the Code,
the
order of procedure is as follows:
1. Explanation of the nature of the appeal and presen
taon by City staff. ;
.n
2. Presentation by the appellant.
3. Presentation by opponents of the appeal-
_ 4. Public discussion.
5. Motion, discussion and vote by Council.-
No Text
ADMINISTRATION § 248
DIVISION 3. APPEALS PROCEDURE'
(3) Any person to whom or organization to which
See. 2.46. 1Jefinitions.
the city mailed notice of the:.hearing of the
board.or commission;
The following words, terms and phrases, when
used in this Division, shall have the. m' eanin s
'
(4) Any person who or_M�ganization which sent
written
ascribed to them in`this Section '
comments to the board or: commis -
..
Sion prior :to the action .which; is to be
Appellant- shall mean aparty -in-interest who
appealed;
has taken an appeal from a board' or commission
to Ghe City Council by the filing of a notice of
(5) Any person who appeared before the boa rd
appeal,
or commission at the hearing.on the action
which is to be appealed; ..
Applicant shall mean the person who or orga=
which -submitted the application to the.
(g) The City Council as represented by the re -
board
board- or commission whose decision has been
quest of a single member of the City Council.
appealed.
(Code 1972, § 3A-2)
Final decision shall mean the action of a board
Cross reference —Definitions and rules of construction gen-
erally, § 1.2.
.
or commission by vote of a majority of its mem-
bers when no further rehearing is, available be.
fore such board or commission..
Sec. 2.47. Certain appeals to be taken to City
Council. :
New evidence shall mean any evidence relating
to the proposal or application which was the sub-
Appeals from the following boards and commis -
jest of final decision by a board or commission
lions, permitted under the provisions of this Di•
vision, shall be taken'to'the City Council in the
And which was not presented at the hearing be-
fore such board or commission.
manner as set forth in. this Division:
Party -in -interest shall mean a person who or
(1) Building Board of Appeals;
organization which has standing to appeal the
(2) Fire Board of Apl�ea.ls,
final decision of a board or commission. Such stand=
ing to appeal shall be limited to the folio}ving;
(3) Landmark.Preservation Commission;
(1) The applicant;
(4) Building Contractor Licensing Board;
(2) Any party holding a proprietary or posses-
(5) Planning and Zoning Board;
sory interest in the real or personal prop.
erty which was the subject of the decision
(6) Storm Drainage Board;
of the board or commission whose action to
(?) ZoningBo;ird ofppeals.
to be appealed;
,
(Code 1.972, §'3A=1)
*Cross references —Appeals from the Liquor Licensing.
Authority, § 3-36; appealsfrom the Building Board
Cross references -Building Aogrd of Appeals, § 2.101;
Landmark Preservation Commission, § 2-276 Building Con--
of Appeals
may be heard by the City Council, § 5.312; appeals from the
decision of the city regarding alarm to the city
tractor Licensing Board, 1 2.116; Planning anti Zoning Board.
§ 2.381; Storm "Drainage Board, § 2411; Zoning .Board of
permits Cohn,
cil, § 15.36; appeals from the determinations of the building
Appeals, § 2.441; Fire Board of Appeals,. §$ 9.2, 9.3.
Contractor Licensing Board regarding alarm permits to the
• - City Council, 1. i5.41(b); disapproval of pawnbroker's license
'
Sec's' Appeal of final decision permitted.
may appealed to the City Council, 1 15-265; applicant for
license regarding. places of entertainment may appeal the '
A party -in -interest may ,appeal to the CityCoun-decision
to the City. Council, § 15.208; appeals from the denial
cil the final decision of•.any bonrd'or .commission
Of the secondhand dealer's license to the, City Council, 115.318.
appeala for don ial of a license for a mobile home park may be
to which this appeal procedure a lids in the man-
'ner provided in this plvision. Grounds„ for
appealed to the City Council, 118.56.
such
appeal shall be limited to allegations that the
161
3 2 48 FORT COLLINs�CODE
board or commission committed one (1) or more of
of any such defect in the of appeal within
the following errors:
.notice
t en (10) working days from. the date of filin .of
W . Abuse :of discretion, in that its decision was
the notice of appeal. g
arbitrary and without the support of com- ..
(Code 1972, § 3A-5)
petent evidence in the record;
Sec. 251. amended notice of appeal permitted. .
(2) Failureto properly interpret and apply rele•
vant provisions of the Code and Charter;
An amended notice of"appeal may be filed by
theappellant at any time prior to the time for
(3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
mailing by the City Clerk of notice of the appeal
a The board or commission exceeded its
to. other parties -in -interest'. as contained in § 2-54.
Such amended notice of appeal shall be in the
Authority or jurisdiction as contained
in the Code- and Charter;
same form as the original notice of appeal.
b. The board or commission substantially
Code.1972, § 3 A-6)
ignored its preciously established rules
of procedure; or.
Sec. 2.52. Cost of appeal.
c., The board or commission' considered
The appellant shall be charged a fee of seventy
to
five dollars ($7,5.) for the cost of the appealrelevant to be,
was substantially false or grossly mis-
paid to the City Clerk at the time of the f ling of
leading•
the notice of appeal.
• (Coale 1972..:§ 3A•3) ,.
(Code 1972, § 3A-7)
Sec. , 2-49. Filing of noticeof appeal.
c. 2-53. Recordon
Se appeal.
An, appeal shall betaken by filing a notice of
Any appeal to the City Council shall be an
appeal of the final decision of aboard or commis-
appeal on the record of the hearing before the
-sion to which this Division applies with the: City
board or commission. The record provided to the
Clerk within fourteen (14) days after the action
City Council shall include the following:`
which is the subject of the appeal. Such notice of pPe ,
(1): Detailed :minutes of the proceedings before.
appeal" shall include the, following
the board or commission from which the . -
(1) The action of the board or commission which
appeal has been taken,
is the subject, of the. appeal;
(2)' All exhibits received by the board or corn- '
(2) The date of such action,
mission at the proceedin gs;
•
(3) The name, address, telephone number and
•
bit
(3) ip
A veratm ranscr , t of such proceedings
relationship of the.appellant to the subject
before the board or :commission, or any por-
of the action of the board or commission;. ;
tion thereof, at the option and expense of
(4) The grounds for, the appeal, including sp
any party in -interest.
(Code 1972, § 3A-8);
cifi.c allegations of error to be considered on
appeal.
(Code. 1972, § 3A4)
Sec.. 2-54. Scheduling .of the hearing::
.
In .the event of an appeal, the City Clerk shall
Sec. 2-54. Review of notice of appeal by City
schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the J
Attorney.
City Council as expeditiously`ns possible: The City
_
Within five (5). working days of the date of the
Clerk -'shall provide the ' appellant and :all other
parties -in -interest fourteen (14).days' written no•
filing of the notice of appeal, the notice shall be
tice of the date, time and place of,the hearing as
reviewed by the City -Attorney for any obvious
well as the grounds for the appeal as contained in
defects in form or substance. The City Clerk shall
the written notice of appeal
- notify the appellant in writing by:certified 'maiI
(Code 1972, § 3A-9)
16 2
ADMINISTRATION
i 2.55
Sec. ZSS. ' Procedure at the hearing..
At the hearing on the a eal b
pp y City Council-,
DIVISION 2. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
there shall first be a determination by the City-
Council by majority vote of its
mac' 2-81. Creation.
members whether
the written grounds for appeal conform to the
There shall be and is hereby created the Fort
requirements. of. § 2.48., If the grounds do not so
conform, the appeal shall be denied:. If the grounds:
Collins -Loveland Airport Authorit Y. pursuant to
the state Public Airport Authority
do so conform; the appeal shall be considered on
its merits
Act hereafter
referred to in this Division: as the authority.
through- tho follow ng-presentations,
each of which may limited
(Ord. No. 158,198$," $ 141.4-86)
in time and scope at
the discretion of the City Council:
Sec. 2.82. Membership; term.
(1) Explanation of the nature of the appeal
and presentation by city staff;
(a) Except,as otherwise agreed between the cit-
(2) Presentation by the appellant,
ies of Fort' 0-ollins, and Loveland, the board of
commissioners of the authority
(3) Presentation by opponents of the appeal;
shall consist of six
(6) members, three (3) members to be a ppointed
(4) Public discussion;
by the a City Council of the City of Loveland and
(5) Motion; discussion and vote by City Council;
(Code 1972, § 3A-10)
three (3) members to be appointed -by the City
Council of the City of Fort Collins.
See. 2-56• Alternative actions available
Such appoint-
ments shall be made by separate resolutions_ of
the respective municipalities.
,to the
City Council.,
.
The City Council shall consider an appeal based
upon
(b) A ppointments shall specify the term of of -
fice of. each individual in.order
the record on appeal and relevant provisions
of the Code and Charter: New
to achieve over -
lapping tenure. Each member shall serve a term
evidence shall not
be considered on appeal At the conclusion of such
of four (4) years without compensation.
hearing, the City Council shall uphold, overturn
or modify the decision of the board or commission.
(c) All members.shall be subject to removal by
each respective City Council. If a
(Code 1972, §.3A-11)
.vacancy occurs
on the authority, it shall be filled by the respec-
Secs. 2-57-2.70. Reserved..
tive City Council for the remaining unexpired
portion of the term.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986,
ARTICLE II.I. BOARDS AND
Sec. 2-93. Feinetians.
COMMISSIONS"
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
The authority shall exercise all of the powers
and perform all of the duties {tnd functions of an
Secs. 2-71-2.80. Reserved. _
airport authority, as set forth in C.R.S. Title 41,
Article 3. .
'Charter references —A ppointed boards, Art- IV; $ 1; Water
Board, Art. XII, $ 7: .
{Ord: No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11- 4,,-6)
Cross references —Open meetings, $ 2 621 et s eq.; all meet•
See. 2-84. Officers. _
ings of boards of the city at which formal action is taken shall
be open to the public except certain meetings of the Water
"
The authority shall elect officers pursuant to
Board, the Personnel Board and the Building Contractor Li.
ceasing Board, § 2.656; Board. of Elections created, $ 7-26;
Personnel Board
the.state Public Airport Authority Act.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 1, 11=4-86)
created, 4 21.26;. Board of Trustees of the
Firefighters' Pension Plan, $ 2142; Hoard of Trust of the
Police Officers' Pension Plan
Sec. 2-$5. Righ#, title and interest to, remain
created, $ 21-57; Retirement
Committee created, $ 21.86 at seq.; Liquor Licensing Author-
with Cues. '
ity established,' $ 3.51 et seq.; Massage Lice nsing
created, § 18.16 et seq. Authority
16.1
Nothing in this Division shall be COnstru6d to
assign, convey or otherwise transfer to `the au=`
. 163
No Text
Section
3A-.10. Procedure, at the hearing.
At the hearing. on the appeal by City Council, the follow ng
procedure shall be followed:
(1)
There shall first be a determination by the Council, h,�r
majority vote of its; members,
whether th_e writt_en`""
grounds for appeal conform, to the require�nenta .of
Section 3A-.3
of this Chapter. -If the grounds do not so
conform,. the appeal shall.be denied.
(2�
If the grounds do so, conform, the Council shall next
consider any. -allegation that the board'or
commission
improperly failed`'_to receive all -relevant,"-evidence
offered by the 'appellant as described in Section
3A-3(3)(d) above. If the Council finds that such
error
occurred, 1 t shall remand the matter back to the board
or commission for.rehearing in -light of,the previously
excluded evidence.
(3)
If the Council finds that such error regarding the
failure to receive evidence did
not occur, it shall
then consider the merits of any additional allegations
of error which conform to the requirements of Section
3A-3 above.:
The resentation of evidence and d argument on the merits
of the appeal shall be 'made. in the following
ng
- order, subject
to such limitations, in time, and scope as may b `imposed at
the discretion of the
mayor:
(1}
Explanation .of the nature. of the appeal and pros-
entation by city staff;
(2)
Presentation of evidence and argument by the appellant.
3
O
Presentation of ev,idence� and argument by opponents of
the. a eal .
PP
;(a)
Public discussion.
(5)
Motion, discussion and vote by Council.
That Section 3A-.11 of the _Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follow
No Text
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Wanda Krajicak City Clerk
FROM: John Huisj an,, City Attorney
DATE: November 19,.1987
RE; A Ppeal/North Lemay. Plaza PUD o Preliminary
With respect to the Notice of Appeal filed by various Prop-
erty -owners with regard to the referenced
above hatter, after
examination of the portion of the appeal filed by Nelson, Moser,
Brungardt, Clement and
Sigward, I have found no "ground for
appeal" alleged herein.
With respect to the portion of the A
Enticknap, Cooper -Brown Appeal as re resented by
Getzelman
and Hatton I have found. no
allegation therein which would constitute grounds for -Appea .
With respect to the portion of the Appeal filed under the.
name of Don Schlegel, I find ,no
statement therein whichwould
constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.
With respect to the portion of the Appeal as represented'by
the filing of Kurt Smeestar, I believe that
the statements of'Mr.
Smee,ster represent an allegation that the Planning'rr Zoning Board
failed.to properly interpret
and apply relevant proW� ions of the
Code, which would constitute, if true, legitimate
ant to 2-46(3).. grounds purse-.
With respect to that portion oby
f the Appeal as represented
the allegations of, Robert n Baker, I do
not believe that tho_:�e
allegations set forth a
Code. around for Appeal as required, by the
I would recommend that the A
Plaza PUD - PreliminaryAppellant of the North Lemay
tion 2-48 of the Codof' the and nfileeanramendedsnof SeC-
appeal in accordance with Section 2-51 o f the Code of the City
alleging
proper grounds for appeal as are sst'forth in Section'
2-48.
j. .
OFFICE OF THE CITY 300 LaPorte Ave . P.O. Box 5B0 o FortCol6ns. Colorado 80522 e
ATTORNEY (303) 221-F520
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
o
As you are aware, in Che case of North Le0ay Plaza P[ll�, BB Investments i
attempting to obtain approval for construction of a P s
and other 'retail
space on the southwest corner of.Lemay Avenue and Conifer,
we the homeowners on Monterey Drive, the cul-de-sac directly. north of
Proposed site, are appealing the decision of the Planni the
Commission on a:variety of
y grounds. We feel there,are y reason
ng and Zone
Plan would not be datable for our area, nor a respotisinble one fr'oehis
eit's, standp�ointa'
We ask you to consider these:
What sorts of.criminal and other undesirable elemectts might k�e
drawn"into a previously quiet and undisturbed neghborhood.by a
24-hour establishment? Increased police presence would' undoubtedly
be required.
what levels of intrusion wou],d. the. nei h rh.
from 24-hour high intensity illuminationd k'subjected to
activity. No'doubt this distasteful int ise Producing
Property values, difficult ru ionl result in 1o�+8r
y in, any attempted home sales, and a most
unfair burden and sacrifice for the h
motivated to appeal our omeo+mers. we would be strongly
Present
possibly resulting in lower r Party assessment values in response,
p operty tax collections for the city.
What additional traffic congestion w 11 we all experience?
e?
Most likely, those of you on the. Council are Mayate, but Lindenmeier
as a city 1imiGs road, with.a
Police patrol. S limit of:35 mph, hap inadequate
Speed.- Of'� � Plus are, the norm and vehicles
exceeding that area quite com►non,
particurly during the morning and
evening rush and after dark.
Lindenmeier is the main feed for a qui
east of Gte extensive residential area
indenmeier and north of. Country Club. This is
significant in light of the act that Lindenier is a 2 lanecroad�Y
Add to these facts, the realization than there are no facilitied between Country Club Road and Vine Drivel t���fic control.
lying nearbyle the proposed site
in the middle of this area where. vehicles are traveling
at their .greatest sPeeds, making entry from Conifer ' difficult Particularly
during these hours and the likelyhood of traffic backing up
along Conifer is obvious.
It would semen with the in increase in vehaGle traffic in this "
area, concern for Pedestrian safelty would bo,paramount. Even at this
time horses and Pedestrians are commonly fouai� - street along this sta
street With absolutely no curbs or retaining along
and st
street markings. reet ,no
No Text
r
NOTICE OF APPEAL
I.) North Lemay Plaza PM - Preliminary
2.) November 2 1987 .
- 3,) Property owners within $00 feet of project
David Enticknap
101 Foxtail
Fort Collins,. CO 80524
493-6082,
Linda Cooper -Broom
1206 Coulter
Fort .Collins, 00 80524
221-2544
A. R. Getzelman
1200 Coulter
Fort Collins, CO 80524
2-21-3665
and f.9 a Carl E. Hatton-
1312 Coulter
Fort Collins, CO 80524
493-9227 ; .:.
November .14. 198
To the members of the For, c�ii;
the undersignVd, are writing to oxpress our oRFosition to th
propb sed project commonly .known as North e
having been :`unsuccessful, in our attem the y �1e$a PUD. After
: be-Fore'the Plannin P to halt :. this Project,
we appeal to end Zoning Board of the!:City of Fort Collins,
You to consider same of our concerns,
Our first concern deal s with the way that the zoni ng i s, �►1 i
The home ownermm who wi1.1 be living the nearest to'this
fined..
project are unfortunately not: eaves in the same proposed
home', owners, who will live the closest tPla�nning zo.na. We
commercia`1 outlets, did..not these Proposed
vote .on get to participate in the initial
amen -ding , the covenants for the
Conifer. You revimw this corner o As Protect,'` f Le a
consideration this uneiquitable alignment and the Y and
pa ease ta_I<m into
who will be offect.ed the most did not have fair representt those
an..
Second. .we home ,owners are very .concerned about the noise and
lights. rel a:t.ed to such retail' outlets. .
conven enc.e:st0rQ is.eventuall o if the Proposed; PDO
Y Pen 24 hours, the. kind of not s�
and lights re atel!d to .these stores is not what we had envisioned
when we purchased. homes in thus neaiohborhood. If we are, f
no have commercial. retail spaces by our homesa and a ar ,, arced
not,. please consider reestrictin the hours that the p ewe are
business (A 14PM closing is our hope) We wool Y aY do
require the dbveloper to d also like you to
that will be. Rut Privacy feence on
the most offset ed by noise and visual
tchan.9espproert i es
Finally, the. Planning.Board stated the followin
to the people of the surrounding g i.n their letter
Zoning g area, Qoth the Pl �nni ng `' and
Board and the City Plannin
this matter g Staff consider Your -input an.
# as 'wol 1 as your n®i neighbor's: input,
important element in the CitY's`review DF.tfiisProposal,"an extremely
having part i ci pateci in this. ' After .
not feel. that out - process aai th th® P1 anni ncT hoard w� do
m i , "i cons cede ver i
Y .. �ta�tant The
majority of� the opinione escpre8sed Opposition to s0ch a praJsct
basing in our neighborhoQd. However, th
project fe1.8 deaW earl".. : PotIan of %tod�inq this
w®. thinly ihffit. ttai* PYanfti:,n rd, w
mar* , i Rte 'este in iha� Roan as
than in tli� opinions, of, an outlsid develAp�r' rather
cpini .cane ffi 04' property ..oe�neev�$
We hope that the elected reprouentatives aalr� , in Fi >rt Collins.
indeed act on our input and stop this of the.City Council will
government with real r00resentati an. ldrt Ja�t. ope We ` believe in,
tat a
life in Fort Collins will not suffer dollars, for ihehsalceeof�unow:
Y.of
x
Sincerely, .
71 Fla,
GC All
I b00;
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P. U.Mal
1,
ALL DEVELOPMENT,
� r
NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
-
AP PLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
.
IS tho:�`nb yrrvugydy nt-4W)
W,u nin �iuonun
tr., rf•L-1
CRITERION
Yes No
If no, plea se explain
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABIUTY
-
1 Social. compatibility-
X-
X.
2. Neighborhood Character ;
X
X
:.
3. Land Use Conflicts
X
X
4..Advcrse Traffic lmpact
X
X
_
PLANS AND POLICIES
_r
5. Corimprehensive Plan
X
X
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
-
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Standards
-9.
_ ..
Emergency Access
10. Security Lighting
Y,
11. Water Hazards
;
RESOURCE PROTECTION
f
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
;
0
13. Significant Vegetation
..
-
14. Wildlife Habitat
r m.
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Fco-S@nSihve A-tpa -
1N. Agriciatural Lands
'+
ENYIRONNIENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water 9uality
X
X
21. Noiso
�'
22. Glnro & Moat
-
- --X .
. ;+
X
23. Vibrations
X.
24. Exterior lighting
X
«,:
X
25. Sewage & Wastes
..
X
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
27, Site Organization
r:
"�--
' 28. Natural Features
x
'
29: Energy Conservation
30. Privacy
31. Open Space Arrangement
_ 32. Building Height
33. Vehicular Movement
�".,
34. Vehicular Design
35. Parking
35. Active Recreational Areas
r
-
37. Private Outdoor Areas
38. PedestrianConvenlence
39. Pedestrian Contlicts
40. Londsca ih /p
P 9 pen Areas
-
41. Landscaping/vm;ldln_gs
' 42: Londsca in ;,c;reenin
113. Public Access
. J ,.. ... .:. �.. •. �E
a. __ :' .. .: � ..
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City. Council
FROM: Ted.She ard, Project P1�nner
P
DATE: December 18, 1987
RE: Planning and Zoning Board Decision on North Lemay Plaza, frelrminary .
At the November 2, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing,
..the
decision on North Lemay Plaza Preliminary P.U,D, was approved with -condi-
tions. As the Board heard testimony and debated the propos-a,l, several. of
the conditions, as recommended by Staff, were revised and new condit-tons
were added. The conditions of approval stand as follows:
1. Theapplicant shall submit to the Plans Examiner of the Building
,
Insp ection Division a set of plans accompanied by evidence that the
building exceed the City's adopted Model Energy Code. This plan check
shall occur rtor to fi
nal inal approval,
2.The applicant shall submit a landscaped phasing plan that indicates the
offsite landscape improvements be tied to the development of the conve-
nience store. In addition, larger.than.minimum caliper trees should be
provided along the frontage of Lemay Avenue and Conifer Street,
3. The. final utility.plans ,shall indicate a water line designed to irri-
gate the offsite street trees along Conifer Streeti,
4. The final site plan shall demonstrate reduced signage that �rou1d be
more in character with.the existing residential character of the, area.
5. The. applicant shall submit a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis that
determines the operation of the Conifer and Lemay intersection. Such a
study would be reviewed for approval by -the City Traffic Engineer. .Any
improvements necessary to affect the impacts of the proposal shall be
provided by .the aPPlicants. ,.... :.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING 300. LaPorte Ave. *'P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303).221.6750
"
6.
The final. 'phase of development shall include the landscaping of the
`adjacent detention.area
as described on the landscape plan.
7.
The developer shall conduct a water .quality. analysis on the. existing
retention.pond. This test would analyze four
.areas:
1. PH. content
2. Heavy Metals (Group One)
3. Organics' -(benzene, toluene, xylene)
4. Oil and grease
8.
The developer shall submit to the Poudre Valley Fire Authority_ the
plans for' the, installation
of, the underground gasoline storage tanks
prior. to final P.U.D, approval,.
9.
The final. P.M. document shall contain a restriction that would prohi-'
bit the installation of a drive -through lane for the
dispensing of fast
food through,a service window..
:
:
CITY OF FORT,COLLINS
.OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT -
MEMORANDUM
The Planning and. Zoning Hoard
FROM: Ted Shepard, City Planner
DATE: November 2, 1987
RE: North tan4y Plaza - Updated Information
Since the writing of the Staff Memo for the North Lemay Plaza, new informa-
tion has become available regarding the monitoring manhole and the water
tap for the street trees.
THE MONITORING MANHOLE .- CONDITION NUMBER 7
In a meeting with representatives from the Planning Department, the Storm
water Utility, the City's. Industrial Pretreatment Department and the
Department. of Natural Resources, -it was decided that the best method of
monitoring stotanwater runoff wouldbe to install an standard five foot
diameterl manhole. This manhole -would allow storm flows to be captured for
testing. It is not necessary to "install any .internal testing equipment.
In addition, it was felt that conducting a water quality test of the pond
would be necessary to establish baseline data by which future tests could
be judged. The monitoring manhole would then allow future tests to be corn
pared with the baseline and determine water quality over time..
Staff, therefore, would add the condition that the developer conduct a
water quality analysis,
on the existing retention pond. 'Th's�test would
..analyze four areas:`
1. PH content
2. Heavy metals'(Group One)
3. Organics (benzene, toluene, xylene)
4. Oil and grease
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, PLANNING
300 LaPorte Ave. a P.O. Box 500 • Fort Collins, Colorado 00522 • (303) 22.1.6750
No Text
I-
oo•. �
� r3.�S'
I
�I'I
li
�'I
o
m
i
to
i
V'
off
No Text
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MIN
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, an and Lida L - - ,_ng. Member ,Sarxly 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.
Tom Peterson, Planning' Director, reviewed the continued items included on
the Discussion Agenda fran the October 26, 1987 meeting.. The three items
includes,::. Item 1,#57-87 North Lemay. Plaza. PUD - Preliminary; Item 2,
#69-84F Fort Ram Village: 1st Filing PUD - Amended "Final; and It 3, .
#113-80F Amendment .to the City Zoning Code - G_roup Homes. .
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY
Ted Shepard gave the: description of the project.
Rick Hiattman
,described the project as a mixed use retail center. The pro-
ject included a convenience. store and a retail section of approximately
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 herming
around the edge''of the narking areas and landscaping including shrubs and
trees would be provided. The west boundary would have shade trees and.
.
evergreens"that would create landscape buffering: Ile 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
m'
Lemay frothe gas fill area and effectively block the view of the cars in
the filling slots. fie stated that from an architectural standpoint, the .
buildings would be constructed primarily of brick. fie 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 shoes
intense buffering.
Planning and .Zoning Board 'Minutes
November 2, 1987
•
Page - .2
Ted Shepard co�ncnented that staff is reeoinnending approval with the corxji
Istaff
tions as Out! "ined in the memo the Board :members received° These,.con-
..ditons included:.. 1)the applicant -shall .submit.plans to the. Plans.Examiner.
prior., to final. approval to justify the: energy poi'nts;` 2) submittal of a
landscape. phasirxg plan, 3) (reworded) concerning how the street trees on,
Conifer will.be watered, (in memo);:4) reduction .of the.signage so ,the pro
id
Ject becomes more resential 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 hole placed at the .end
of the.15inch tom'daingepipfor 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>-cpntent, 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 tothis condition stating only if these
-
requirements are in the ordinances or standards would he adhere to them.
Chairperson O'Dell asked; Ted: Shepard to ex lain why the condition was '
P explain
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 comented he is not sure if testing the pond is the level-
cper'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. Iie indicated with this
development- a release will be'provided for the detention area. Fie 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
Planning and Zoning -Board Minutes
November 2, 1987
page 3
Ted Shepard stated the policy is that the Storm Water Utilit_yy and Natural
Resources Department are workin
g ng .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. Ile 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. IIe
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., Ile 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 f rcm the project,. He stated the
80% vote by the residents fora change in the density to .allow for the pro-
ject was made by people who are well removed from the area. IIe feels the
project is unequitable, He stated at the neighborhood meeting the chart
shown to everyone indicated 1.1,200 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 naw have additional set-
backs from Conifer and hemay.
David Enticknap stated this was a substantial" increase in square footage.
He wonde,red if there would be any more changes. tie stated he. is concerned
-.
about the project. IIe commented a majority of people are opposed to, the
project and ,they are appealing to the Board. IIe stated these are the
.,
people who live in the area and have to adjust-. tie 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.` Ile 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 Boom Minutes
November 2, 1987 .
0
I9e. 4 .
David Enticknap: stated Ted Shepard had commented to the residents that
-
their input is. -" important , .Ted emphasi"zed the, Board' would take the input_ ..
into consideration.:
Kurt Sinstrim stated he lives across Lein by the. horse farm. ile stated
the proposed project: looks reap"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.,
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
:J
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. Ile stated a location on Col-
lege or further south on Lamy would be better.. He suggested'a better use
of the land, for ekample, 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
"
west of e proposed. site. ITe stated he should not
pop � have a convenience
Stothe
of the water
duerto has�leaksnandsthe dangers•einvolved�He commencontamination
gthe land is on top.
of ` a underground river.
Rudie Mooser stated he lives. four houses away fran the proposed site. IIe ,
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 woul& 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.eould come .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 An relation to
the water. She wondered which arm of the government finds the lsuitable
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 Zoni oar+d,Minutes .
November 2, 1987
v
,
�i.
page 5 ,
Bill Giesenhagen
addressed Member Brown's question regarding the storage.
arks. He stated it. is the Eire 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 plaaxent.
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 o-
on new tank technology for abs
a9Y
lute solution.
Ted Shepard informed staff is recommending the requirement of a report or
"
s ecific review
P 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 stated
Giesenhagen he has been a resident builder for 30 years. He
commented he understands ,the concerns and does not want to decrease the
'the
quality of 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. Ile emphasized the project
retains a residential: appearance. He does not feel the convenience store.
will increase crone 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. IIe stated this
is,a unique situation. He added from the standpoint of the future tenants -
the location is suitable.:
Member Strom asked Ted.Shepard to clarify the issue of rezoning the area.
Ted Shepard stated there isa 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 Zoni 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 bypassis 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 uncIP-rside, 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 tl,ie
use of the center.
Ric Hattman "stated he does not see the drive as being used for a fast food
ick .� window.
pP
Member Edwards stated he would dike to see restrictions placed on t}Ze .
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.
Tam Peterson stated the.Board would have .to approve before this would hap
Pen'
Member Brown inquired about the prcposed,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 addedthe 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
ee em to park ." He indicated foursP aces would be provided.
P Y P
Planning and Zoni Board Minutes
November 2, 1987
page 7 .
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
exact
..
,
condition could be added.that that restricts. fast food drive up.
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 Lemy Plaza.PUD - Preliminary
_
with the conditions as stated by. staff. Member Strom seconded. Motion.
passed 5-0.
Member Edwards co(anented he takes his.job.seriously and some decisions are
ham to make. He stated mix and uses can be cainpatib1 arr3 feels the site
chosen is, an appropriate location. He added the mitigation measures for
landscaping are reasonable. and the area will continue to grow. fie 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.
FOW RAX VILLAGE 1ST TILING PUD - AMENDED FINAL
.
Debbie deBesche gave a description of the project. She noted the Planningi
and Zoning Board did grant final approval of the site plan use at thel
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 Cosncil gave the Board this authority (142-87). '
She stated the issue is not the site plan but mare 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 96%. 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 409
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.
project
He stated the theme of the ro'ect was not to rent apartments but to rent
is
roans, more of a dorm t setting. He stated it important to r egulato
type
...rpo
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
onlyin the four bedroom units �,
No Text
Ar
North Lemay Plaza P - Prel icnina.ry - .#57--87
P-& Z Meeting - October 26, 1987
Page`
OQHfl�flS ,
1 Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N:. RLP; Residential ,.
S: RLP; Residential
E: FA-1(County);. Residential
W: RLM; Vacant (detention pond).
The, site is made up of Lots 18 and 19 of the Evergreen Park Third Filing
Subdivision which was approved in 1977,
2. Land Use:
The project achieves a score of 50% on the Auto Related and Roadside Com-
mercial point chart which is the: minimum required score to meet the loca-
tional and design criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The
Proposal benefits from not being at two arterials,. being part of a mixed!. -
Use project, exceeding the model energy code, and having contiguity with
existing urban development,
Staff is concerned about the credit given for energy conservation. The
criterion under the LDGS r ires`that the equ proposed demonstrate energy con-
servation measures that ,go beyond City Code. Staff would like to review
evidence on energy conservation performance prior to f inal. Staff there-
fore, recommends as a .condition of approval, that constnuction documents
and an HVAC document be submitted for a plan check to the Building Inspec-
tion Division. prior to final.
3. Design:
The orientation of the convenience store is towards the interior of the
site. The custaner parking, store: entrance, gas pumps and gas canopy are
Pulled away from Conifer and Lemay and shielded by perimeterlandscaping:
The short axis .of the campy is parallel to Lemay to minimize the exposure
to Lemay Avenue.
The convenience store building is softened by -the 4 foot landscaped berm on
the, exterior walls facing Conifer and Lemay. The building itself is. brick
with a sloped roof featuring wood shake shingles. The setback 'off Lemay
would be 49 feet and the setback off Conifer would be 45 feet.
The retail building would be setback off Conifer by'40 feet. The architec-
ture would match the convenience store and feature brick, sloped roof; and
wood shake shingles.
North Lemay Plaza PU ,- Preliminary - 457-87
P & Z Meeting - October 261 19877
.,
:Page _
The setbacks allow the street frontage to be heavily landscaped with deci-
duous street 'trees as well as ornamental trees - and shrub . beds. The street
trees exceed the policy of the City'Arborist that plantings be spaced every
- 40 feet. Because of the length of ex
posure along Lemay Avenue (.arterial)
and Conifer (collector), and the importance of these streets, the -Staff is
recam.ending as a condition, that larger %than minimum caliper trees be pro-,
vided along the frontage.:. .
The south property line contains.existing mature cottonwoods and an irriga-
tion ditch. The existing trees. wil-1 remain and the area of the ditch will
featurea berm,. The berm will -contain additional tree and shrub areas to
screen the parking lot.
4. Off -Site. Improvements:
The west side of the retail building features a 15 foot service drive.
Adjacent to :this service drive =is a city -owned retention pond. The Storm -
water Utility and the Department of.Natural Resources have indicated that
this P014 would be upgraded to promote a natural area. In response to this
upgrading of the. retention pond, the developer is willing to provide of
site landscaping adjacent to the service drive and along the frontage on
Conifer. Ibe, plantings along the service drive would attempt to screen the
building while the trees along Conifer would be planted every 40 feet to
promote the formal streetscape. Ali off -site plantings would-be the`respon
sibility of the developer- for a two year ' establishment period. After two
years, and upon inspection, the,City would accept,pemmanent maintenance.
Staff is 'concerned that the off -site improvements be provided in with the,
convenience store. Final plans 'should `document the appropriate% phasirg
lines. Also, Staff is concerned that off -site plantings be' irrigated' and
established. To irrigate, the water and'Sewer Department has' indicated. that
it would sell `'a water tap 'and, after two years, would remove the tap and
refund ' the ` tap fees and raw water requirement Bees. Labor and material
„ charges however,
`would be deducted fram the refund.
In addition to, the off site landscape improvements, the developer has
p n9 gauge pa aof Natural Resources by provid-
ing, responded to the concerns of the Department
ing,a monitoring manhole to quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff into the retention pond. The City"' Industrial Pre -Treatment Super
visor has' provided a, detailed schematic showing the extent 'of the monitor
ing system.. The location 'would be near the base of the. slope of the pond at
the outlet of the. ;storm drainage pipe. Final design would be'part of . th,e
final utility plan.
5. Neighborhood Compatibility:-
A neighborhood meeting was held the evening _of September 1, 1987 at the
Tavel-li Elementary, School. The :minutes of the meeting are attached, There
,were many residents who were opposed to the project on the basis of corrmer-
North Lemay Pl
aza PUD Preliminary - #57-87
P & Z Meeting - October.26- 198,7...
Page
cia,l intrusion into a residential area. Much of the discussion revolved
around .design mitigation techniques and how to make the use compatible with
the neighborhood. Sane of .the concerns were with traffic, lighting, g n3► crime,
underground gasoline storage, road improvements, signage and landscaping.
The developer has responded 'to these concerns by providing generous pe
rime
--
ter landscaping, residential stylearchitecture, improvements to Lemay Ave-
nue, placement of the active' areas internal to 'the site, and off -site
landscaping on Conifer to promote neighborhood compatibility.
Staff, however, remains concerned about the extent of signage. One of the
key ingredients, in makinj `commercial development 'compatible with existing
residential neighborhoods is the number, size, and location of illuminated
signs. Staff feels that compatibility would be enhanced if the free stand-
feetginuheight �FUrther�were
sguo to :a monument sign, not exceeding. six
9n
g n the building fascia along Lemay should
.be eliminated as should :signage on the gas pump canopy that faces Lemay. It
is staff:'s opinion that these signage reductions would not cause a loss of
competitiveness and would promote -a more residential. character along .Lemay
Avenue. -
6. Transp
ortation: _.
The developer will be required to,' construct the arterial improvements :for
the frontage along Lemay Avenue. This would include ttidening of the roadway
.as well as constructing sidewalk, curb,, .And gutter, etc.
The Traffic Impact Analysis must be further refined to analyze the opera-
tional capacity of. the ,Conifer .and .Lamar intersection. It is not known at
this time whether or not design mitigation would be required to accomnodate.
deft turn movements off Conifer onto northbound Lemay. Staff is concerned
that this data 'has not been 'submitted and would require that additional
traffic analysis be conducted -prior to final submittal. Staff -is recam-
mending that City Traffic Engineer review the operational level of service
of Conifer and Lemay and approve of any design mitigation that may be
required by the..applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the .proposal for preliminary PUD for North Lemay Plaza
meets the criteria of the LDGS. Staff recommends approval subject to the
following five conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit to the Plans Examiner of the Building
Inspection Division a set of plans' accompanied by evidence that the
building exceed City's adopted Model Energy Code. .This plan check shall
occur prior to final approval
2. The applicant shall submita landscaped phasing plan that indicates the
,. ., . ,. .. . _. .: r
.:,
GEFROH HATTNIAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNER
CONSTRUCTION'MANAGEMENT .
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, Co 80525 .
(303) M-7335
SUBMISSIOPI.INFORMATION
PERTAINING TO
LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM
for the:
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D.
a 1.7 acre retail and con v.enience store
development on North Lemay:Avenue
PREPARED BY:
GEFROH HATTMAM INC..
135 West.. Swallow Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
. PREPARED FORS
88 Investments Inca
William Geisenhagen
4800 Happy Canyon Ro ad , Suite 230
Denver, Colorado 80237_
September 4, 1907
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D._. 87-496 4, 1987
-September
A Statement of Appropriate City Land Use Policies Achieved by the Proposed
Plan.. Policy 3a. "The City shall promote maximum Utilization of the Land
Within the;
Explanation: The "pro.perty,.is situated on the West side of North Lemay
Avenue,.-an.important _N-S."arter..ial. street, and is contiguous on over 50% of
i.ts boundaries to existing. urban development. Currently -zoned RLM,'the pro-
:
sect includes a .10,672 S.F.:retail center and a 2,600 S.F. convenience store
With gas pump uses. to'.serve the .existi:ng and developing residential district.
Policy 21-:. "All, levels of commercial development including convenience
sho .
pp g which have significant negative transportation impacts on South
College.Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from
College Avenue.'' .
Explanation: The Plaza. i`s.located one mile East of College on Lemay thus'
syphoning off .the negative traffic impacts of private`vehicie and transfort
users;.as.referred to' in the policy.
22. "Preferential consideration shall be cgiyen to urban development
-which
pPolicy
roposals are contiguous to exi"sting development witii.in the City limits."
'
Explanation: The Plaza enjoying g
p Sod contiguity with ex urban, development
supports this policy. BY its location on North Lemay, the projec,ttakes ad-
vantage'of` existing urban level: services, utilities and facilities., including
police - fire protection, water, sewer, el,ectricit ..
y., gas, telephone and
cable T.V.' It will' be'served by urban .level streets with curb gutter and side-
walks, and' -bike paths giving access to
.the recreational areas of. nearby City
Park.in'Greenbriar. .-
Policy 26". "Availability ,of' existing services shall be used as a criteria in
determining the location of higher intensity areas in the City.'!
Explanation: The'property is se.rved.by existing gas, stater, electricity,
telephone; sanitary
and storm.drainage.facil.ities. Storm drainage improve-
ments wi.11, be part; of this development.
Policy 39. : The City should direct ,efforts to promote improved traffic and
'
pedestrian circulation and .public.trans"i,t to areas North and Northeast of
the City.
Explanations This. project is located at the.intersection of Conifer and
Lemay Avenue in ;Northeast Fort Collins. Lemay.Avenue is`.an important N-S
link
in the.overal.l street system. This project would provide a catalyze
for improvements
to Lemay to. occur, for as we all are aware, street improve-
ments occur when. development takes place. Development .'North
to is a key
City goal and po.l.fccy.
Policy 119.. "The.C,,ityIt-Land Use Policies Plan shall be'directed toward
minimizing the use of private, automobiles and toward all'e'via;ting and miti'-
- gating the air qu.alit y.impacts 'of .concentrated use of automobiles." `
a
Explanation: The ro'eet locatey'inpan �area
• P J existing
g gresidential , encourages
walkingand biking to the facility, s ecificall from
the single family de- ,
velopment_s to the -North and West. ••
q
r
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D.
: Page 2
_ Policy 74.. "Transitional land uses or"areas (linear greenbelts or other ur
ban design"elements)should be provided between residential neighborhoods and
commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses."
Exp.lanation:, The location ofthe storm detention area to'.the blest of this
project -provides a landscaped -linear green belt open space transition between
the corrmmercial✓retaiI uses of th.is project and the exist ing`'re 5idential`
housing.
B: Project Description. .-
The project located at the intersection of a collector and arterial provides
the opportunity design
access points compatible with intended traffic volume.
Two curb cuts are provided;one on Conifer Street and the,oiher on.:No:rth
Lemay,'Avenue.. " The convenience store it placed .t0 screen the.gas pump area
from the intersection thus reducing unsightly asphalt from .exposure. to the
corner.' Landscaping is of the utmost importance to the developer.:' The plan
details a comprehensive high quality approach to landscape and buffering to
the intersection.;
The iu,rf area will be bermed 4' high around.the two sides facing the corner.
This has. been done in response .to neighborhood concerns regarding the blank
brick walls of .the building. Although the building is only a single story'
in height, berming was felt necessary. The setbacks of and 49' from
the improved curb, line should produce"a softening affect corner." There
.to�'ihe
are three gas pumps angled to receive traffic flows from two directions. A
large landscape island to the South will screen and buffer -the pumps. the
.pumps will have.a canopy posit.ioned with the least amount of ex osure to the
street, frontage.
The retail shops are set back from Lemay approximately 195' and from Conifer
'Street approximately-30' It is intended that this building will contain
personal service shops -supportive of uses typical of neighborhood needs., A
service drive.at.the rear of the ,building will control trash and del'ivery.`'
situations. :
The architectural _character- of both buildings will be fully brick walls with
wood.stained.accent -trim and roof- band.
The buildings will have a sloped hipped roof 'system covered with..wood shake
.shingles. Building, heights will be approximately III' to the 'bottom of the
canopy with a maximum height at'the peals of 221. The convenience store and
retail stores will have a height of 10' to the bottom of the roof with a
maximum height at the . roof peak of 221.
C. Developer and Owner.
The store will, be operated by PDQ Stores. The owner will be. BB Investments
Inc., Attention William Gersenhagen, 4800 Happy Canyon Road' Suite 230, Denver,
Colorado 80237.
No Text
ACTI
VITY
Auto -(?elated and
•
bad -side Co
mmercia
oil
DEFINITION
Those re -tail and wholesale commercial activities which are generally
considered and typically found along highways :,and arterial streets.
Uses include_: free standing. department stores; auction rooms; auto-
mobile service stations,�rpair facilities, car washes; boat, car,
t'ra.iler, motorcycle showrooms, sales and repair; fuel and ice sales;
greenhouses and .nurseries; warehouses and storage; repair -or rental
of any article; exterminating shops;' drive-in restaurants adult
bookstores; eating places with adult amusement or entertainment; adult
photo' studios;.adult theatres; any uses intended to provide adult
amusement or entertainment;' and, other uses which are of the same
general character.
19
•
confinu
I
a.
Is thei activity located other than at the intersection of two `.
e.rstreets?
a, a�
b..
Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of .,an
existing ..neighborhood or community/regional shopping center,
office or i.ndustriat park? .
„ c.
Is the primary access to the activity from a non -arterial
st reet;?
d.
Is the projec. on at least two acres of land?
1
e.
Does the project contain two or more significant uses (for
.!
.instance, retail , off;ice, residential, hotel/motel and rec-
reation)?
f.
Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between
on -site parking areas. and adjacent existing or future off -site
parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces?
9.
Doesthe. activity reduce non-renewable energy usage, through
the application of alternative energy systems, use of existing
buildings', and through committed energy conservation measures
beyond that normally required by City Code?
h.
Is the project located, with at least .1/Gth of its 'property
b oundary ,contiguous o exis.ting urban development?
i.
If the site, contains :a building or place in which a historic
I
event occurred, which, has special public value because of
notable archi.tectur`e, or is of cultural significance, does' the
1
project, fulfil,] the following criteria:
i Prevent creation of influences.adverse-to its preserva
ti.on;
i i.. Assure that new structures and uses, wi 11: be in keeping
with the character of the building or pl ace. Imitation
.
of period styles should be avoided; and
i i. Propose adaptive use of the building, or place that will
.
lead t.o its dontinuance, conservation, and improve-
ment in an appropriate manner while respecting the
J4,
integrity of the 'nei ghborhood.
-20-
i
..
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WATER UTILITIES; .WASTEWATE.R DIVISION ..
MEMORANDUM
DATE.*October -14; 198.7
TO: Shepard, City Planner
,'Ted
FROM: David W. Meyer, Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor li
RE': Monitoring Manhole requirements
Attached is a copy of the standard manhole the water utility
requires for sampling wastewater flows. This will need to be
Modified by an engineer in order to be used for sampling storm
drainage flows. The modi.f icat ions wiIi be necessary to accomi-
date the 1S inch diameter concrete pipe that will carry the storm
flo.w.s. `Modifications will:need`to allow for measurement of flow
as well as collection of water samples. If I can provide any
More information please call me. at, extension 6688.
attachment
,
CR•v1�go�o
lb
w.
Zw
r14
p
Z t I� • ii r \•
F �
', .. �n w h y 4 •
• C
e �
w
r [ r 8
.: 12Ta
2
C r' be. SRC ;c
� i P l ,.♦ f. 4 t r
Pin
In
L , �� • rREga v 5� Y •J :� � ,•�. u
pi x
w 't • '• ►On
SL
of �
• L,
T77367
-
m r
: � � •� is s
1 •
Y
CITY OFFORT COLLINS.'
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVLCES, PLANNING .DEPARTMENT
PDQ NEIGHBORHOOD MELTING
DATE: September.1, 1987 -
IDCATION: Tavelli Elementary School
PDQ REPRESENTATIVES: .Mr. David Savich and. Mr. Mark. Nelson
ARCHITECTURAL FIRM: Mr. Jim Gefroh'and Mr. Rick Hattman
ENGINEERLI�G FIRM: Mr._ Todd Shimodo and Mr' Don Parsons
CITY PLANNER: • Mr. Ted Shepard
U=IONS,: CONCERNS, OOMMENTS:
1. What is the status of the two retention ponds just west -of the site?
RESPONSE:` Presently, `these ponds are in unfinished form. If PDQ . develops,
then the ponds will be given finish grading and new seeding. Also, the
City Stormwater Utility will be canpleting sane storm sewer work on.L,emay
and�the ponds will then drain into the storm system. Outlet structures for..
the ponds would have.to built to feed into the new system. These improve- .:
ments
would be required of any developer on this site.
2. The development of the.site.will increase Wie impervious surface and
the
stormwater runoff.- Will the ponds be able to handle increased flows?
RESPONSES ponds were sized to accept flows fran a large area based on
phe
full.develo ment..conditions.
sed land
P scapi-ng along both street frontages hooks iapalt.., Could
Sou
explain
y exp_ he assumptions behind, the landscape plan?
RESPONSE: The intent is to proyid street trees that. will soften the
effect bf the building and contribute to a pleasant streetscape.. The: trees
would be. large deciduous shade trees which would mature to 30 to 0 foot
crown with visibility underneath the.canopy. This canplies with the City's
street tree policy which encourages uniform deciduous shade trees along the.
major streets. The intent of the landscaping is to not hide the building
'impact.
but to soften the
f
ih
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, PLANNING 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins.. Colorado 86522 (303) 221-6750
Page 2
4 What are the proposed hours of operation?
RESPONSE:Initially, the store is anticipated to be. open 0n,an 18 hour
basis.`' In the future,' depending on demand, it could go on a 24 :hour basis.
5. The placement of a convenience store at that location would be a com-
mercial intrusion into .a residential area.. ..How would lighting be con-
trolled .to reduce this intrusion?
RESPONSE: The orientation of the building is internal to the site. This
way interior store lighting would not ;spill into the surrounding neighbor-
hood.' Also,. the.gas pump area is located internal to the site and not out
on the corner -of the intersection where it:would be most visible. All
lighting will be desi_gned.to not spill over into the neighborhood.
6, What about street improvements to, Lemay Avenue.
RESPONSE: At the very minimum, the developers would have to improve the
immediate street frontage adjacent to the property. This would include
dedication, of additional street right -of. -way to achieve full arterial stan-
dards. _ It would also include the construction of increased pavement width,
sidewalk, curb; and gutter. There may be additional improvements required
as a result of .the review of ` the Traffic Impact Analysis by the City Tr,f-
fic Engineer. Such improvements could include an acceleration lane for
southbourxi traffic exiting the site on Lemay or other off site improvements
which are not identified at this time.
7. The existing traffic at the peak hours is very Pe ery bad.: It is difficult
to enter and ekit Moondrift Farm which is located just across the street.
The addition of a commercial use will only make a bad situation worse.
RESPONSE: It is ackno:vledged that there is a traffic problem under exist-
ing conditions.. The developer is aware that extensive discussions with•the
City TrafficEngineer will'be held to mitigate the existing problems and
the potential problems'associated with the proposed PDQ.
8. What is the status of the Fort Collins Bypass?
RESPONSE: Governor'Romer's proposal to fund new state highway
improvements via a vehicle registration tax in an eight'county'atea did "not
make it out of committee during the ,last state legislative session. Had
this bill passed, the time table would have been in the area of five years,
Since the bill did not pass,, it is difficult to predict when funding would
be appropriated. The PDQ people are operating under an assumption that the
bypass will be so far into .the. future, if at all, that it .does not affect
their develcpment plans..
92.Where will the bypass be located?
RESPONSE:- The state is analyzing several' alternative alignments. One
alignment would be to use the. Conifer corridor.
+ .44
Page 3
10. Are .the' -developers aware that Lemay may be, re -routed --past around
Andersonville beginnirxg at " Lincoln and then rejoin the existin3 alignment
,
north of the Conifer Intersection? Wouldn't such a re-routing make the
proposed location less attractive? '.
RESPONSE. PDQ is `aware that this plan exists on paper- but is not funded.
It is difficult to predict when such an expensive project would be under-
taken by the City: As with the bypass, theassumption is that the. Lemay
re-routing is "very .far into the future and is not a factor in considering
the `proposed location;
11. Would PDQ consider limiting the store, hours to 11:00 P.M.? There are
a 'lot of I teenagers who use Conifer as dragstrip and .a convenience store
could become a "harp out";
RESPONSE: Yes, PDQ would consider closing the store..at 11:00 P.M. Also,
PDQ has a strict policy of discouraging .loitering. It is not good business
to allow teenagers'to hang out and'it would not be allowed.
12. What kind of businesses would locate in the retail building?
RESPONSEe It is anticipated that these businesses would be offering per-
sonal services to .meet neighborhood demand.
13. The covenants in Evergreen Park Third, Filing do not allow commercial
uses,. How then is this proposal allowed, to proceed?
RESPONSE: PDQ obtained the permission of 75% (the required number as per
the covenants) of the landowners in Evergreen Park Third Filing to amend
the covenants to allow commercial development on the parcel° These amended
covenants_ are on record and tiled with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder.
14. It seems very -unfair that the land owners from only the Third -filing
,were afforded the opportunity to amend the covenants_. There are many
existing residents who live just across the street, in another f iling, who
had no opportunity to comment on the amended covenants."
RESPONSE: PDQ did not set up the bylaws on how to.,amend the covenants.
PDO was just follov,iing the stated bylaws of the Evergreen Park Third Filing.
which allowed for the owners of land in the Third Filing only to comment on
the amendment.
15. The median on Foxdale is not built? Who is responsible?
RESPONSE: Please consult the City Traffic Engineer or the Building Inspec-
tion Division. There may have been a plan amendment or' a performance bond
posted in lieu of .construction.
No Text
Page 5
RESPONSE: Perhaps 'increased foundation plantings in shrub beds and bemns
would soften: the impact also.
23!. Who will maintain the open space, the developer or PDQ?
RESPONSE. PDQ will pay. annual fees into a common area maintenance fund.
24. S,ignage is a very sensitive issue. Would PDQ consider the tasteful
signage that is characteristic of.Scotch Pines?
RESPONSE: Yes. PDQ realizes that signage should be kept to a minimum and
that large, bright signs
are not needed to attract business in a residen- .
tial area. PDQ will consider
monument signs as opposed to pole signs to
preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
251. What are the safety procedures for the underground storage tanks? Any
chance of leakage into the detention porxis?
o
RESPONSE: PDQ will use a "state ,of the art" system. First, all tanks are
_ non-corrossive fiberglass as well as the lines. Second, the store clerk
has a shut-off valve. Third, there. is a leak detector device. Fourth,
there .is an electrical sensing device which monitors the levels
of the
tanks for inventory control and to. discourage eiployee theft. This latter.
system is reconciled dail and anyleaks would be reflected immediately.
Y
26. There is a high water table in the area. What precautions would be
made to prevent the tanks from rising
up to the surface?
RESPONSE: Empire Labs has a soils prepared test and recommends that the
underground tanks be anchored by a system on concrete caissons. The system
would be engineered
to withstand the rising tendency causedby the high
water
table..
27. There appears to be nothing_ to encourage pedestrian access. People
who live.close`should be.
given, considerat ion in the form of crosswalks or
something to encourage walking.'
RESPONSE: That is an excellent idea. The. developer will consult with the
City Traffic Engineer to best accomplish pedestrian. access.'
28. The retail building should be moved further south. This would create
the opportunity for more landscaping along Conifer.
RESPONSE: The architect will investigate the feasibility of shifting the
building to the south.
29. Our neighborhood is in transitneighborhooion. It is emerging from being a newdevelopment to a quality- d. Everyone
is trying to establish a
quality character to their property. A convenience store, if done poorly,
:.
could do permanent damage to the area. If development were to occur, then
the architecture, landscaping, site design
and signage must demonstrate
excellence.
_
4 -
i
PRELIMINARY. TRAFFIC ZMPACT STUDY
LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D.
PROJECT LOCATION.
-
The. site is 1.60 acres and is located at the Southwest corner of
Lemay Avenue and, Coni.fer.Street, which is a "T" intersection.
The Lemay.. frontage is ,. 210 feet and the Conifer frontage; is 302
feet. Lake.. Canal runs along the South property .line,: and: 'a the
Southeast corner of the property there is a 4' x 17' box culvert
under. Lemay. The proposed access to the site is one curb- cut on
each street:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION -
Lemay Plaza P.U".D. is intended to be a neighborhood retail center
.
consisting of a PDQ convenience store (2600 square feet with 3
gas, pumps) and 10,000 square feet of undetermined use 'retail
Space. The anticipated use is service establishments on
Special-ty retail shops.,
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
A. ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
Figures 1 through`4 show the traffic.counts obtained during
the.hours of 7 to Z AM and 4 to 6 PM"on Thursday, August 27,
.1987, broken, out in 15 minutes and peak hour intervals'.. The "
bull: of the traffic flows
„AM South on Lemay and the bulk of "
-
the. PM traffic flows North on Lemay. ,
Lemay" is currently a,two-lane county road, a 30-foot"section."
Cronifer is :a city collector with a 60' section. o
D. INTERSECTION OPERATING LEVEL
Currently, the intersection is controlled by a stop sign
on Conifer.. The critical movement is the left 'turn from
Conifer onto Lemay. During
the A.M. peak- of our traffic
counts, a total of nine vehicles made this movement.
During the P
. ti . Peak,there were 27 vehicles."
.
The critics"
T l gap for left turns from a stop sign ranges
.from.6.2 to 7.2 (Transportation and -Traffic Engineering
.
handbook). Using the A.M. peak traffic, the, average
total delay. is approximately 10 seconds. Similarly, the
P.M..average total delay is approximately. 20 seconds.
-
This corresponds to a load factor of 0.0 .daring the A.M.
peak 0.1 during the P.M.
.and peak. Therefore, the level
of service.is currently :A/B.
C. TRIP GENERATION
Thetrip generation rates shown in Figure 5 were obtained
from I'-V-8,' s Trip Generation Report (See Figures 8 and 9).
.These rateswere separated into two categories:, those trips
from Passing
raic and those. generated by the site These
sitetrips were then distributed, according -to the
same' percentages of existing traffic.
D: SIGNAL WARRANT
Based On.:the"'existing traffic counts, the intersection does
not warrant a traffic signal. Adding in the'site generated
trips, the intersection will still not warrant a signal at
this time.:
E. POSSIBLE PROBLEM.AREAS
During the AM Peak, there appears to be no problems with
movements into or .out of the site. During the` PM Peak,
possible ;left turn conflicts exist --with the northbound Lema y
traffic.
F. LEFT TURN ,FROM CONII'ER
Becauseof the light traffic on Conifer, applicable
formulas show a : PPq ue ue
queue of. approximately 1.0 The proposed
distance.from the intersection to the curb .cut is,135'
which is enough for about 6 cars. Therefore, the
distance should be adequate.
G PROPOSED LEMAY IMPROVEMENTS
Lemay will eventually -be an arterial.' The box culvert
crossing of Lake Canal would have to be widened. If the City
desires improvements to Lemay at the time of the development'
of this we propose a 70=foot section with an 8i1,
transition assuming there is no right -of -way. problems.` If
the City desires that this"site not develop their portion of
Lemay at this time and contribute at a later date,. -we feel
the existing road sections will accommodate the flow of
WVt"raffic.
CONCLUSIONS
Based,on this Prelim narystud
y, we, feel the Proposed. development
will not hAve! a.."detrimental impact upon present traffic
conditions: if uture conditions warrant a. traffic signal,: we.
feel the curb is are an'adequate distance from the intersection
based on the number of vehic4-M*4 g turning movements..;
Mon
!•,
Prepared by:'�;�0,,.�-
.�
Todd A. Shimoda,.. P.E.
Colorado License #18792 ; <<'�. 'r �.•
A
No Text
No Text