Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUILDERS SQUARE AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL - 54-87D - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES , * . .0 12 Member Walker stated that he agreed that there was an important role for this ty'e of business in the city and he did not deny that if they were responsible as citizens of Fort Collins, they had to be responsible for recycling their products that they discard, including automobiles. He had no problem with the fact that this was a suitable use within the city and it was something that they should accommodate and the attempt here to do this had gone quite a ways towards setting some sort of standard by which the city would find salvage yards to be acceptable. He was talking about the fact that they were making an effort to do screening and so forth. He felt that the way the site is paid out and the potential that it would create problems in terms of making Magnolia functional street through there, and as a PUD this just did not work on this particular site. The area could accept something like this through proper mitigation measures and that attempts were made to do. He did not feel that this particular plan on this site was very workable. Member Strom proposed an amendment to the motion that stacking be disallowed on the property and also the applicant work with staff o improve the visual screening of vehicles within the property from East Magnolia at this time. Member Cottier stated that was fine. j Member O'Dell stated she was pleased th Mr. Specht had done away with the crushing of vehicles. She would feel be er if they would vote on a preliminary approval only and that way they could revi the screening that was proposed. Member Strom stated he would be �re comfortable with a preliminary only. He felt the use was appropriate and a needed use in the history of the automotive industry. He felt with mitigation going on, it was not detrimental to the property values in the area and that was the reason that he was supporting it. He felt that the environmental concerns have been taken care of and that it was an acceptable use on the site. Member Cottier stated that she was withdrawing her motion and moved for preliminary approval only with the conditions previously stated by Member Strom on screening and stacking of cars. Member Walker stated that when the project comes back he would like to see on the landscape plan how the two sides of the project would communicate. Member O' ell added a condition that the drainage from the west property be looked at nd determination of where the berm should be built. Memb Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2 with Klataske and Walker in the negative. BUILDERS SOUARE AT HARMONY MARKET. FILING TWO. FINAL. #54-87D Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval with one condition. Tony Fiest, of Fiest-Meager out of Denver, gave a history of Builders Square and a description of the proposed store in Ft. Collins, the hours of operation, the traffic flow, the layout of the building, parking, and that they had committed through the process to put in Oakridge Drive, the portion that was not complete in the first phase of the Pace Development. They would now complete Oakridge Drive all the way to Lemay. -19- • • Frank Vaught, of Vaught-Frye Architects, talked on access, signage, landscaping, circulavon, lighting, pedestrian connections, architecture of the building, elevations, and changes that were made since the plan was first submitted, set-backs, and frontage. Member Walker asked about the chain-link fencing along the east side and if there was a reason there was not a solid fence there. Mr. Vaught replied that there was a desire for a visual connection, and circulation of air. Member Walker asked what areas the fence covered. Mr. Vaught replied the chain fence goes from the passenger doors and wraps around the east side of the building and is broken up with the concrete column approach. Member Walker stated that they had garden shop in front of it and a lumber staging area in the back and assume that it would be pallets of 2 x 4's and why did that have to have some vi_ . connection to the street. Mr. Vaught replied that there was some outdoor lumber storage there and also things there that related back to landscaping, timbers and things of that nature. Member Walker stated with that as an entry coming off of Oakridge and they • kind of have a back door appearance if they have a chain link fence with views to pallets of lumber and so forth. Mr. Vaught replied that the landscaping that had been added and the type of landscaping would in fairly short order would certainly screen that area significantly. Member Carroll asked if a contractor comes in and buys a pallet of 2 x 4's how was that loaded onto his truck. Mr. Fiest replied that they had the ability to pull up front and load the 2 x 4's out of the two doors in front that were 8 feet high and that lumber would be able to come out front and load up. Member Carroll asked if a fork lift would go to the back and pick up the lumber and go through the garden section and then load in front. Mr. Fiest replied that it would go through the front but a fork lift would not go through there. It would be loaded by hand. Mr. Fiest replied this was not a typical lumber yard where people buy trusses, this was more of a home improvement center. Member Carroll asked if there was any loading out of the entire fenced area except the front. Mr. Vaught replied that there was loading a loading dock in the back but that was for supplies delivered to the store. Member Carroll asked if it was partially or all covered with a roof. -20- • • Mr. Vaught replied that the total lumber area was covered with a roof and a trellis area over the garden shop. Member Klataske asked if Builders Square have its own delivery trucks. Mr. Vaught replied no. Member Cottier asked at customer service pickup at the northeast corner, was there room there or would there be a situation of blocking traffic that might be accessing off of Oakridge right at the corner. Mr. Vaught replied that there was a pull out of about 12 feet deep and 90 feet long and that area was intended to handle the customer with a big order. Member Cottier asked about the note on the site plan with respect to signage. Mr. Vaught replied that there was only one tenant. Member Strom asked about the dense tree area near the farm house and if we were losing any trees at all. Mr. Vaught replied there were some trash Siberian elms that the City Forester looked at. There were some trees that were not good trees and the City Forester suggested they take them out. Member Cottier asked about the sign near Harmony. Mr. Vaught replied that Builders Square would be on the point perpendicular to Harmony and would be on both sides of the facade and Harmony Market would be on the other two wings of the sign. Member Cottier asked if there would be another of those signs down east with the other major tenant. Mr. Vaught replied that the other sign would be down at Harmony and Lemay and would be the same configuration. Member Carroll asked that if the five foot berm was continued around the south section of the vinyl area where the lumber is. What would have to happen, did it shrink the traffic lane down to much to put that berm in there. Mr. Vaught replied that anything that you would do landscape-wise, whether it was a berm or a flat surface, would certainly shrink the area. If you did a sloped surface you would be looking a needing some kind of retaining wall up at the height where the berm would die into. Member Carroll stated he did not mean a berm but a landscape strip. Mr. Vaught replied that they had a 45 foot wide lane there and did not think that five feet would necessarily hurt that. There was also a 20 foot gate area that was the loading gate and matches a door on the side of the building that material was moved in and out of, so they could not wrap it all the way around the gate area. Member Carroll stated his concern was that they mentioned the set back of the building was 220 feet from the street but the corner of the garden center was more in the tune of 175 feet and unlike some of the large commercial buildings that have their backs on the railroad tracks, this accurately has an -21- • s entrance off of Oakridge and thinks there would be a number of people entering the site from that location. He ,),'as concerned with the treatment of that particular corner. Member Strom stated he also was concerned with the chain-link fence and what was essentially outdoor storage and sales area. He would be more comfortable with this if a resolution of the aesthetic effect on the east side. Mr. Vaught replied that the evolution of the ideas and the moving of the Pace fence came prior to the addition of the landscape strip. The came up with the suggestion that perhaps they could relocate the Pace fence as a temporary screen and then as the third or fourth phase develops they would have a better handle on what to do. That did not satisfy staff and they came back and suggested the addition of the landscaping in front of the fence. Mr. Fiest replied that what they were planning on having here was that they really felt that in the not too distant future that there would be buildings that would be retail and that the only time the fence would be seen from any side was when you were turning in and coming in a back entrance and they feel if they come in and landscape this. Behind the fence was also a lot of planting and a lot of trees and it was not just looking at a fence and seeing a fence, you are going to see a lot of planting and a lot of shrubs and material behind the fence and they were thinking by moving the Pace fence over, what they were doing was putting a temporary fence in lieu of the buildings that they eventually see in there. Member Strom stated that at the present time they had a preliminary that shows it as open space. Which gives you a direct line of site for some 500 or 1,000 feet or more. Mr. Fiest replied that was why they planned on taking the Pace fence that was there now and use it as a temporary screen until the buildings would fill that five acre site up. Member Strom stated that the preliminary plan approved for that area did not show any buildings there and the problem he had was that if they put it in as just a chain link fence and if it did not fill up with buildings or even if it did the buildings would be 75 or 100 feet from the fence and they would have quite a perspective on the chain link fence. He was not convinced that they needed a chain link fence or that much outdoor display space but if they feel they do, they needed to do something with it to make it more attractive to the people that were going to be driving on that street and the ones that were going to live down the road. Mr. Fiest asked if the chain link was not acceptable even if they vinyl clad it and put it in a dark color. Member Strom stated that what they had here something on the order of 266 feet of fence on the east side plus wrapping around 90 feet to the south. They had done a fairly nice job on the north side of making it look good there and what he was suggesting was that they do something comparable or better than what they have on the east and south. Mr. Fiest replied that they certainly coul take a look at that. They were trying to address it through landscaping ar.0 put a landscape buffer, planting bed in front of it. -22- Member Walker stated that within that 266 feet they had the south most 97 of the open lumber staging. To him you could argue that maybe looking through a chain link fence would have some marketing value and he failed to see looking at the backside of a lumber staging area through chain link fence had any aesthetic quality to it. Mr. Fiest replied they were willing to work with staff to do some other things. He felt if they came in and put the columns and landscaping the feeling was that this was an outdoor area of a patio type area and they wanted to be able to see from the outside and be able to display their wares as they had done in every city. They had some 120 of these around the country and this was their prototype store and they had done it and been successful with it. Mr. Vaught replied in talking with the contractors representatives, perhaps instead of going to the effort of building the fence as a temporary screen, they could apply some of the same dollars toward necking this down and actually creating a large enough area that they could get some significant evergreen type landscaping in the corner and that would embellish the whole view as you were driving in from the curb cut. Member Carroll asked Mr. Shepard if they would approve this on a final, what would be their alternatives in regard to the lumber/garden shop fencing area so that the applicant could move on with his planning and they could still have some say on this. Mr. Shepard replied that it would be the boards prerogative and it was within the power of the board to consider a final approval with conditions reflecting the upgrades that they desire. Unless they specifically ask for the project to come back to the board, it would be handled administratively. Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Vaught to describe for him what kind materials and detail would consist in the garden shop. Mr. Vaught replied all they were doing was building it out of a precast concrete panel and have openings in areas that would be the clad chain link fence. They had highlighted one of the entrance with the same brick column and trellis treatment that they had used on the Pace store. In addition, they had added a significant landscape bed in front of the panel of chain-link. Chairman Klataske asked if the materials stored in the area would be higher than the top. Mr. Vaught replied no unless it was a tree. Member O'Dell asked when people were entering the store could they just come in that section of the store and go back out. Mr. Fiest replied that it was a controlled area and all the purchases that occur inside the store and when there was a bulk item purchased, there was a person that controls gate and allows them to wheel their cart outside. Member O'Dell asked if they anticipated having Christmas trees and things stored and would it be used year round. Mr. Vaught replied that they use it in the spring and fall and that they had not sold Christmas trees out of there in the past. -23- • Member Cottier asked if they intended to have any access to the store through the fenced and who was going to be on this side of the store to see in the fence. Mr. Vaught replied the pedestrians off of Oakridge Drive and that they did anticipate some traffic people that live in Oakridge and Southridge, perhaps that were coming to Builders Square coming in from that direction. Member O'Dell stated that she had shopped in similar types of fencing areas and it was actually rather pleasant to be inside there because it was an open feeling and buying plants and things like that, but from the outside it did not look terrific. It would be great if there could be some landscaping or other treatments that would help it. Mr. Vaught asked if the addition of some corner treatment begin to satisfy some of the earlier concerns, because with the 45 feet they could even pop that out 10 feet in that area and get it large enough so they could do some significant evergreen trees at the corner. Chairman Klataske stated if the retail was shown as site C was going to be facing the west he would think it would be an argument to have some architectural treatment there on the east side of Builders Square as opposed to just chain link or landscaping. If you could do something so they did not have the long expanse of chain link and continue the architectural flavor around the corner, not to the extent as to the north but definitely more than just an expanse of chain link with a few pillars on it. Chairman K lataske asked how the exterior elevations differ from what was done on the Pace building. Mr. Vaught replied that the brick veneer at the lower level was at 4 feet which was identical to Pace. Pace, being a taller building, they had a little different mass to work with, it was more of a horizontal building. Pace had another 6 feet above that brick that was a painted, fluted concrete material and then a small band of brick. They had elected to go with a 4 foot coat of brick, the brick columns the trellis and two horizontal painted strips that run all the way around the entire building. There are also some tile accent panels. Mr. Fiest stated that one thing they could do would be to come along and build something more like a 3 foot structure that would be behind the landscaping that the fence could rest upon it and do it in a concrete panel. He felt as though he wanted to paint the panel in a brick color and put the fence above it and it would look very permanent at that point in time. Charles Butler, speaking for Fairway Estates Homeowners' Association stated that he was there to ask for their help. Handed out a copy of some material he wanted to share to the board. Mr. Butler stated that he and other residents were involved in a recent Pace review and the approval of that time of Harmony Market. He himself did not object or oppose the Pace development during the June 1989 review by P & Z. They came in front of the board tonight to ask for their help. He did not want to read all of this but just give the points. These quotes were from the P & Z meeting of June 1989 and if there was a typo or if the transcript not full verbiage it was an attempt to expedite the points. The first point was, Mr. Fiest stated in his June 1989 presentation, "He thought the end result we -24- • were showing here was a test of the results of this how this process works". There was a lot of neighborhood activity and discussion on that particular review and Mr. Fiest felt very good about what came out of the discussion. Frankly, it was an important part of the approval process. Just this past May, at an LDGS audit meeting, Sandy Kern and a number of the board was there and talked about the angry attitude of the number of public people that came before the board and in that discussion it centered around the accountability of people. Lastly, there was an article in the Coloradoan in which Tom Peterson said developers would be held accountable for certain actions. Frankly, they came in front of the board tonight to try to secure some help in something that was pertinent in the review at that time called a deed restriction. There was a chronology associated with a deed restriction, in the beginning Mr. Fiest offered as a means of mitigating a language conflict between Fairway Estates and the Pace development. It was reviewed by the homeowners' board and basically approved it, the association did not like it and, to make a long story short, the association did not oppose the Pace approval process at that point in time. Some key verbiage that came out of the Pace review P & Z meeting with the footage notation in front of them and would like to point to the key footage beginning at 670, Mr. Fiest "GT Land, as owner of this parcel 1-G also owner of this parcel 1-B, agreed to put zoning on that parcel 1-G R-L which is the most restrictive zoning in the City of Fort Collins for residential." "When we ask for an amendment to the Master Plan, we are changing that designation on 1-G so that is carries an RL zoning which is the most restrictive." Later in that discussion Eldon Ward was asked to speak in regard to the deed restriction. Eldon Ward made a reference to the fact that Mike Byrne and Peter Kast were involved in this negotiation and fully aware of the discussions that were carried on. Mr. Ward, "In addition to that (Language on the Master Plan), the property owner has stated that if Harmony Market is approved and, therefore, there is something to buffer the neighborhood from, then a deed restriction will be imposed using the same language on the Master Plan. That is their response that the land owner (G.T. Land) has agreed to." Later Mr. Ward stated, "We don't think that it is appropriate or even manageable for the City to get into the middle of a deed restriction." Lloyd Walker asked about the deed restriction and then he said, "This meeting then that G.T. Land has made some commitment to this type of deed restriction on development of that parcel. Is that a fair statement? I want to be sure we have it correctly stated." "Yes" was Mr. Ward's response. Ms. Shepard asked, "Does that (deed restriction) apply to Parcel 1-H as well as 1-G? Eldon Ward stated, "Yes. According to the language in the note that you have, 1-G, well treat just like it is zoned RL. On 1-H, which is patio homes on the Master Plan, we are saying well treat as it's zoned as RLM. Also, on 1-G, consistent with correspondence that's gone on back and forth between the owner, developer, and Homeowners' Association„ part of this deed restriction is we are giving up the right to come back and amend the Master Plan." Shortly after the approval of the Pace proposal, GT Land requested several modifications to the position stated at the P & Z Meeting. Generally the Association rejected all of those proposals. -25- • • Later in November he personally called Mr. Fiest and informed him that no deed restriction had been filed. From that time roughly for five months, the Association heard little or nothing, until one week before the neighborhood meeting for Builders Square. At that time, a copy of the filed deed restriction was mailed to the Association. The Association had not been asked to comment on its content and it did not review the deed restriction prior to filing. A key deed restriction statement is, "Amendable at any time by requesting change through the P & Z Board." Accountability, Conclusions, Facts, the key essence of the deed restriction directly contradicts statements by Mr. Fiest at the P & Z meeting as well as those stated in writing by Mr. Eldon Ward through Cityscape to the Association. Fairway Estates is not involved at any time from this point in time regarding the deed restriction itself. The City is involved directly, as a matter of fact, at that meeting, to the best of his knowledge he was sort of paraphrasing, Ted Shepard said at that meeting, "a deed restriction was not an action that the City gets involved in, we view it primarily as an action between the landowner and the residents." The process, as far as they are concerned, did not work and, as a matter of fact, there had been no accountability, and, quite frankly, a little disappointed in Mr. Fiest in trying to make sure that this particular issue be resolved accordingly. That was the primary reason he was there tonight. The second reason was less vague and less factual but still comes back to the concept of Harmony Market and again would like to allude to statements that were made not only at the LDGS meetings but some of those that were made at the P & Z meeting. At the 1989 P & Z Meeting Mr. Fiest discussing the site plan stated, " we have reduced the size of the development to 190,000 square feet including this two story office building. This leaves 166,000 square feet for retail shops." In this particular concept in the review, including what Ms. Shepard said, they should be willing to accept what was expected at that location. He attended every worksession, went to every neighborhood meeting except for those that were specific neighborhood meetings and there were never any discussion about any buildings as large as Pace. This building is 88,000 square feet almost as large as the Pace building and once this building is completed and if he understood correctly, Steele's would go in a 55,000 square feet, that would leave about 20,000 for retail shops. Facts, in regard to conclusions, the language used by Mr. Fiest and his development team and the P & Z Board constantly refers to shops, retail shops, not another 88,000 square foot retail shop. Nothing is being proposed for the remaining, except now he understands there is a grocery store that is 55,000 square feet. But at that time we were cited in Fairway Estates as polluting the area because they had to go shop somewhere, but the fact is, once the building goes in it is very unlikely this will be a shopping center, it will never exist as a shopping center. If retail shops this size are approved we only need one more to finish the entire site. A shopping center cannot be built, there is not space for it at that point in time. It really goes back to Ms. Cottier's statements on expectations, after Pace, and all the discussions they were involved with at that point in time, he believed that every resident that was -26- • • involved felt that the future business services would provide shops and have a variety of shopping associated with them. Including as it is in the definition, general merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, and not just another 88,000 square foot building. In summary, he asked the board to not approve Builders Square. He asked them to charge Mr. Fiest to amend the deed restriction, the remove the P & Z Board as a concerned party. To inform Mr. Fiest that no development would be supported until the original agreement, which was a factor in approval of the master plan amendment, is filed. Ask Mr. Fiest to develop in compliance with the preliminary expectations associated with all the reviews that took place last year. Mark Thomas, homeowner in Fairway Estates, stated he came this evening to plead as well. All of them do something else than this for a living, he had never been involved in a process like this his entire life. He had become interested in the system since Pace was proposed. All of us are asked in our daily business to conduct ourselves in some kind of manner that deemed itself acceptable to society. One of those things is contracts. He has a contract with Mr. Fiest, the contract was made over the telephone and the contract was that if he would agree to come to the original hearing on the Pace project and not make himself as vocal as he was at the neighborhood meeting, which had about 250 screaming people at it, that he would make sure the deed restriction would be carried out in terms that were agreeable to Fairway Estates. Well, as the board has seen the evidence from Mr. Butler, that had not happened. They had planned that this would never involve the P & Z, because G T Land, Peter Kast, had promised him personally, that they (Fairway Estates) would be involved in the process. The several times he tried to communicate with Peter on this issue, he refused to take his phone calls and refused to return his. This process has generated a very serious feeling of animosity in his neighborhood against this development. Thirty of Fairway's homes would fit into the Pace building, it did not fit into the neighborhood, they had made that point, they all made points, through land buffers, transitional land uses, in the description of a transitional land use on page 17 in the Land Use Policies Plan of 79, "land uses which act as buffers between incompatible land uses are the traditional hierarchy of industrial uses, commercial uses to office uses to high density residential, to medium residential to low density residential. He would like to ask them if they had a picture in their mind of this Master Plan, if you could picture how they were going to get this transitional hierarchy between the corner of Pace and what is a very substantial residential area about some 300 feet away, how we were going to cram all that into that transition. One of the things they asked the deed restriction for was to guarantee themselves some transition. Since from the very beginning of 1987 when the Master Plan was approved, the City guaranteed them that all what was going to go in over there was a neighborhood shopping center with residential uses, that is what all the neighbors had been told. As they had seen today that is not what had turned out. The process, and he did not find terrible fault with the LDGS, except very good people, like Mr. Fiest, he was a very high quality folk, he was extremely good at manipulating the process and what they had done is come along with a series of events from 1987 to 1990 and brought us a warehouse shopping area. The Wall Street Journal had an article in it recently that these types of developments are now turning around the other way on the East Coast. We are going back to small retail shops. Ft. Collins is behind so we are just getting a warehouse shopping areas. Those warehouse shopping areas in Denver are all on major interstate highways. Harmony Road did not fit the picture. Through a series of very carefully manipulated processes from Eldon Ward's office to Peter Kast's to Tony Fiest, they now have this development in their neighborhood. He could do nothing -27- • • . about that. He was opposed, they had questions, they've made changes, they had come true on some of the issues, but he had to ask the board tonight that they consider the fact that one of the major issues was buffering for Fairway Estates. The parcels are 1-G and 1-H, they are not parcel 1 and parcel 2 as in Peter Kast's letter for the deed restriction. They had now come up with another set of descriptions, and they do not match parcel H and parcel G of the original agreement. They had changed them as well. None of this agreement is in accordance with what they were guaranteed in public asked by Ted Shepard, agreed to by Mr. Fiest and Mr. Peter Kast. They were their last line of defense, they (P&Z Board) are citizens like they are, were concerned, they were not overly emotional about this process but they need help. They had come there tonight to ask them to please help them get what they were promised in the original meeting. There was only one way to do it and that was to not approve the final tonight and to force these gentlemen to bring them a copy of a document they could accept. They (Fairway Estates) were not unreasonable people. They asked for very simple procedures, they were in writing and yet today, a copy of that agreement did not resemble anything like those agreements. A quote from the letter from G T Land, "the church had requested the ability to do some multi-family housing for their school employees on the eastern portion of their option parcel. To accommodate this request, they had simply run the eastern boundary of area I, directly north and south to provide for that request." That was not in the agreement, they (GT Land) had never brought it to them (Fairway Estates) it had never been mentioned. Because their (GT Land) commitment to provide these areas was with the Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board, they (GT Land) had provided for the board to participate in any decision to alternate these decisions. In a bolder time that would be called a lie. Today we have to say that it is a mis-quote or a mis-understanding. These people (Tony Feist, Eldon Ward) told them that Fort Collins City would not be involved in this. Ted Shepard said the same thing, they wouldn't, they couldn't be. The City Attorney said they did not have the ability to control this issue, and now we have the P & Z Board involved in a deed restriction. Why did they (GT Land) do that, so they could come back later through very careful manipulation, guys that do good work, they come back and they get it changed to something else. It was up to the board to do something tonight that would straighten out this problem. It was not an unreasonable request. Everyone has had attorney's involved and had written letters back and forth, they refused to discuss these issues. They (GT Land) simply bullied them (Fairway Estates), their bigger, their tougher, they have more money, but the one thing he hoped they didn't count on was that the board would listen to this story and believe some portion would listen to this story and believe some portion of it and find it legitimate and help them out of this problem. Chairman Klataske asked Assistant City Attorney Eckman how the Planning and Zoning Board became involved in this and what was their involvement. Mr. Eckman replied he did not recall the comments made the night of the meeting so he would assume what was shown on the screen was correct. He remembered that Mr. Kast had proposed some deed restriction language to the City and he remembered having to look at it and Mr. Kast felt that the board was involved in the language for the deed restriction and it was G Ts position that they wanted to have some permanent body that would be involved in any future amendment to the deed restriction. He did not recall how the language came out with respect to Fairway Estates, whether they to were included in the approval for any amendment to the deed restriction or not. -28- • Mr. Kast, vice president of G T Land stated they were the people that were selling the site to Mr. Fiest and own the surrounding area all the way between Fairway Estates and Lemay Ave with exception of the Front Range Baptist Church which happened to be a parcel to the east of Fairway Estates that is in between the Fairway Estates boundary and Boardwalk Drive. He stated that he was a little surprised by all of this, he did not know that they had any such problems. He stated that he always returns his phone calls and that if he would have received phone calls then he would have returned them. Even before Pace was involved they (GT Land) were discussing and enlarging the site for the Front Range Baptist Church which happened to be fronting on Harmony Road and they (church) wanted to expand and it was to expensive for them to expand on Harmony Road and the Highway Department wanted to mess with their (church) access, they had a full movement access off of Harmony Road but because of the distance between that access point and Boardwalk Drive that would eventually become a right-in right-out and they (church) needed another access. Boardwalk was the obvious, logical connection. They (church) wanted an opportunity to do two things, one was to expand their site and two was they needed a different access point and they wanted to hook into City sewer. They (GT Land) began discussions with the church and eventually we came to an agreement where we traded about a 4 acre site which duplicates their parcel on the south side of their boundary. The church traded for a strip of land which put more depth to the site between Boardwalk and the church boundary. That area was in the deed restriction area that had been alluded to and was going to be residential anyway because a church is a compatible use in a residential zone. In addition to that, the church also wanted an opportunity to expand an additional 5 acres to the south for an expanded school and to do a larger production than they currently do. The church asked GT Land for an option on some land which was another 5 acres to the south, this parcel not only went along the Fairway Estates boundary but extends out to Boardwalk Drive past the intersection at Oakridge. As part of the three year option to do that the church and GT Land had the deed restriction to deal with. They are two parcels, I-H and 1-G, and the smaller one allows for some kind of multi-family, small office buildings which would be between Boardwalk Drive and where the boundary for the church would extend to the south. The other parcel, 1-H, essentially is about a 300 foot strip which runs adjacent to the boundary of Fairway Estates, except for a bubble that comes to the intersection of Oakridge and Boardwalk. The part the church has an option on was essentially the part where 1-G sticks out over to the street and goes a little past that and then is a perpendicular line that goes over and squares off with the Fairway Estates boundary. The church has a long term goal of providing some housing for their teachers on the site and that was how the discussion came that this did not quite fit with our deed restriction. He had some discussions with Ted Shepard and Tom Peterson and then the church had some discussion with Fairway Estates and nobody really thought that the little bubble was a big issue because essentially they had 300 feet of boundary that was dedicated to single family residential over against Fairway Estates, that was a change from what happened at the final Pace meeting. Fairway Estates is more concerned that some how the City got involved in the process. Finally, GT Land came to terms with the church, we had the deeded pieces, the church had the option piece, we had come to the point where they were going to write down the language to the deed restrictions. Part of the reason for the delay was dealing with the church issue because they thought it would make a great buffer against Fairway Estates. The church wants to put fields out there for athletic things, they are not going to put any buildings in those areas they are' going to keep their buildings essentially where the buildings already are, on the north part of the site and do parking in fields and GT Land thought it -29- • was a good match. It came down to write the deed restriction and they came into some questions, had some discussions with Tom Peterson and Paul Eckman on how this was going to be done. GT Land's agreement at the meeting was not with the Fairway Estates Homeowners' meeting, in fact, not - all the people on the board would have agreed to agree to what we were talking about at the time of the approval on the Pace project. The question was we didn't have a unified body at that point from the homeowners' side and the agreement was to do something that involved the Planning and Zoning Board, the agreement was essentially with the board to do this for them. There was never any intention of changing it but the issue came up, who were we dealing with and how should we legally do it. I sent a draft over to Paul Eckman and Paul made some comments and, after rummaging through the comments, we came up with the language that was in the documents that Mr. Butler had. I sent that out May 25 and it had been two months and I had not heard from Mr. Butler or Mr. Thomas that there was a problem. This was the first I had heard that they had any kind of an issue. Mr. Butler stated that his lawyer did respond to him directly. Mr. Kast stated that he had not seen anything. Mr. Kast stated that was the process that went on and he did not think that they were doing anything irrational or despicable at the time and they did not mean to appear that way, they meant through the whole process to be good neighbors and make this a compatible use. GT Land is in the process not of negotiation for the sale of this area that will be single family residential. They never had any intent to or in their darkest heart of hearts to put an industrial use over there. From his side, it may not of gone along as smoothly as it could have but didn't have any idea they were acting in bad faith and he was sorry they felt that way. Member Cottier asked Mr. Eckman for clarification. The deed restrictions that were to be placed on parcels 1-G and 1-H, were they to be done before any more development could take place or what was the link between that deed restriction and this particular proposal. Mr. Eckman replied that the deed restriction was linked to the Pace proposal and not to this proposal and it was supposed to be generated as a result of that. Tom was involved in the negotiation of the deed restrictions and that was why I did not receive a copy of the -May 25th letter because Tom was noted as the first person to receive it. Nevertheless, Peter and I did work on the language of the deed restriction with Tom and it was Tom's feeling from the discussions before the board that the deed restrictions should not be amended at all and only if the board approved it and that was what I agreed to as well. Tom Peterson and I did agree to put that language in the deed restriction although the City was not a signator to the deed restriction. The minutes Mr. Butler presented were unclear as to how the deed restriction might ever be amended at all. That did not seem to come up before the discussion with the board. Member Cottier stated that she was trying to get at whether these were two separate issues or was the deed restriction rightly tied to the Builders Square proposal. Her recollection of the purpose of the deed restriction was to maintain some guarantees of a buffer between Boardwalk and Fairway Estates. She did not understand what that had to do with Builders Square. Mr., Eckman agreed that the deed restriction was connected to the Pace project. -30- • • • Member Walker stated there had been some disagreement as to the deed restrictions content how would he suggest that have to be resolved since there was a public record that said it was tied to this and the discussion of the deed restriction was a separate issue and he did not know what body that would be before and wanted some suggestions. Mr. Eckman stated he would have to look at the actual minutes of the tape before the board because at this point he was relying on the minutes submitted tonight and it was difficult to see in a way that the City could dictate what the deed restriction contained from the language he was reading now. It talked about a deed restriction that would match the master plan and was in fairly vague terms. His concern was that the owner of the land has some latitude in how to draft up the deed restriction as long as it meets the promises made to the board which were not that specific and at this point, how to amend the deed restriction or how to get the board out of the deed restriction. Member Walker stated his question was that if there was an issue here he was certain willing to. There was an agreement as part of the master plan, although vaguely stated but it was in the public record that the deed restriction be part of it. What it would say in it was never clarified and now there seemed to be a dispute as the content of it. He agreed it was tied to Pace and not Builders Square issue but would like to see some resolution. Member Cottier stated the deed restriction was a problem that they had not been kept up to date on. She was concerned about what that deed restriction says but her concern was only that 1-G and 1-H be maintained as a buffer between Boardwalk and Fairway Estates, that had nothing to do with Builders Square. She acknowledged that this was an issue based on what the neighbors had said and what commitments were the made. This was not the time to be dealing with it and suggested that staff inform the board more about what is going on with respect to the deed restriction and they could respond to it in the future. Mr. Eckman stated he agreed that this was not the project to deal with the deed restriction. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Eckman to be an intermediary to Mr. Kast and Fairway Estates and anyone else that needed to be involved in this and come up with something that was acceptable and report back to the board. Member Walker asked Mr. Shepard to respond to the questions brought up about the total square footage. How did this fit with the Master Plan and the issues associated with it. Mr. Shepard replied the Harmony Market was approved for 332,550 square feet of commercial, retail and a small office component for G T Land's office building. It was the massing and the bulking versus the square footage. They had looked at this and it was staffs opinion that the proposed Builders Square was in substantial conformance with the preliminary. It is retail, it is commercial, it is not a membership warehouse. It will have contractor sales, but it will have a retail flavor. It will probably be used more than a membership warehouse. Staff felt that the issue of the massing and the bulking and the large part of the building would lend itself to architectural landscaping and those kinds of mitigation measures which was what they focused on at staff review and tonight. It was staffs feeling that it was in substantial conformance with the preliminary, it was within the square footage -31- • • that was allowed and there would be more that 20,000 square feet left after the Steele's for additional retail and pad sites which, by definition, would be more neighborhood serving. Member Cottier asked when the Harmony Market PUD was approved and defined as a community and regional shopping center, not as a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. The community and regional shopping center point chart was used and that was why the master plan was amended. The master plan was amended was because Pace Warehouse came in as anchor tenant and was 100,000 square feet and that was not a neighborhood type shopping center. A neighborhood shopping center like a Scotch Pines or a Drake Crossing could have gone in the Oak Farm Cottonwood Master Plan without a master plan amendment but that was not what was submitted to them last April. That was why they amended the Oak Farm Cottonwood Master Plan for community/regional shopping center. Member Carroll stated he did have a concern with the deed restriction as well and hopefully there would be some clarity in the language as opposed to something that says that a deed restriction would be produced that would be agreeable to all parties and would be interested to see the results. If there was some violation by anybody as to what was agreed to with the City, not private agreements and he would assume the City of Fort Collins would take the appropriate action to force what was agreed to. As far as Builders Square was concerned this was approved as a regional/community shopping area. He felt that this particular retail use did fit the master plan and what had been approved in the past. His concern was the fenced area and one possibility was to table the matter till next month to allow the applicant to come up with a proposal which would satisfy the board. He was aware of the applicant time concerns and did believe the chain link fenced area was not a major area of the project. Member Carroll moved for approval with the condition that the signs be deleted as recommended and secondly that the applicant work with the staff to improve this area and bring this back to the board in August meeting to make sure that the condition of final that it meet with the boards satisfaction. Member O'Dell asked what he meant by coming back next month with this. Member Carroll replied that it was his understanding that they could approve this as a final with one of the conditions being that the applicant submit to the staff a revised treatment of the garden/chain-link area and that this be brought back to them again in August. Mr. Shepard stated the staff was prepared to review any revised landscape plan, architectural elevation and site plan necessary to accommodate the condition of the board. What staff needs was for them to set the level of expectation for that. As a condition of final their action was voted for action of approval then they would have the ability after the documents are filed to begin construction. He stated a slight benefit in the fact that the area in question was a fence and landscaping which typically would go in last. They were looking at February or March before that component goes in and would ask that they give a very strict, clear deadline such as the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting for this issue to be resolved so when they do go forward everyone knows what was expected. -32- • Member Strom stated that it seemed to him that if they were uncomfortable with this issue that they needed to see it again and could not be specific enough to the staff as how it needed to be dealt with and let them handle it then they should be thinking more of tabling and considering it at the next meeting. He did not have any problem with condition on finals such as deleting signage but when they were talking about coming back to the board to review an issue that is basically delegated to the staff to do, then they were muddling up the conditions. He was suggesting that they be specific about the expectations and was not comfortable with looking at it again if they be specific. Member Walker stated there should have been enough said along those lines. They had indicated that the large expanse of chain link fence was not acceptable. Some softening with landscaping including wrapping around the south side was what they were looking at. Member Carroll stated the condition of approval besides the condition of eliminating the signage as the recommendation was that the applicant provide to staff additional landscaping plans and softening of the chain link area in the garden area to provide a softening aspect, not necessarily to delete the chain link but perhaps to include the wall that was mentioned by the applicant, and extend the landscaping zone around to the south side up to the chain link fence. The matter be approved by staff and not come back to the board. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Carroll stated that this be done by the August meeting. Member Strom stated that the applicant suggested the possible wall was a possibility and thinks at a minimum it needed extensive landscape treatment along the east side. Suggested considering something more structural at the end or part way down the east side to break up the fencing. Chairman Klataske stated it was a good plan and was in general conformance with what was at Pace except for height. He appreciated Mr. Butler's and Mr. Thomas' concerns about the deed restrictions. His understanding all along on this development as part of the master plan and Pace was that there were deed restrictions in place and would like to see it resolved. Motion was approved 6-0. #33-90 - AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE. "ZONING. ANNEXATION. AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND" Peter Barnes gave the staff report recomme ding approval. Mr. Barnes gave a slide presentation to he oard on off premise signs and billboards. Chairman Klataske asked what the dimensions were on signage, height, and on height was it the overall height of the sign or the ad copy that was included in the total square footage. Mr. Barnes replied t, on a monument sign or a ground sign, you measure the area of the sign face and then any portion of the sign structure that exceeded one and one half times the area of the sign face. -33- L