The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBEST BUY PUD PRELIMINARY - 29 92 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 22, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney. Member Walker was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 18, 1992 Meeting; Item 2 - Little Caesars PUD - Preliminary, #28-92; Item 3 - Potts PUD -Final, M6-92A; Item 4 - Best Buy PUD - Preliminary, #29-92; Item 5 -Hampshire Square II - Preliminary Subdivision, N31-92; Item 6 - Silverberg PUD - Overall Development Plan, N12-92; Item 7 - Prospect/Overland PUD - Final, N5-84D; Item 8 - Resolution PZ92-8 Vacation of Utility Easement (Continued until July 27, 1992); Item 9 - Resolution PZ92-9 Vacation of Temporary Easements for Access, Drainage and Utilities; Item 10 - Dakota Heights Subdivision - County Referral, #32-92; Item 11- Woody Creek Subdivision - County Referral, #33-92; Discussion Agenda - Item 12 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas; Item 13 - Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan, #52-82D; Item 14 - Southside Service Center PUD, Phase III - Site Plan Advisory Review, 852-82E; The following items continued until June 27, 1992 - Item 15 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overall Development Plan, N54- 87F; Item 16 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, N54-87G; Item 17 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, #21-92B; Item 18 - Stoneridge PUD, 1st Filing - Preliminary PUD, N21-92C; Item 19 - Dakota Ridge PUD, 1st Fling - Preliminary PUD, X60-91D. Item 2, was pulled for discussion by the applicant. Item 4, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 5, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll. Item 6, was pulled by a member of the public. Member Klataske stated he had a conflict with item 7. Member Carroll moved for approval of items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page S neighborhood. The Square across the street was also brick. As far as the "Pizza Pizza" sign, he would support deleting the condition, for staffs benefit, this points out another area of the audit, the applicant was able to use the fact that he faces on two streets for sign frontage but then takes the sign frontage on Mitchell and moves it around to the north and west sides of the buildings, which was a concern to him. He thought obviously the applicant was proceeding within the law, but it was something that needed to be addressed to prevent when we do the audit to prevent stacking of signs in one location. The motion was approved 6-0. BEST BUY P.U.D.. PRELIMINARY - #29-92 Member Carroll stated he was the one who pulled this item and was wondering about the line of trees that runs along the north edge of the property against the back of the Fountainhead P.U.D. The site plan they have indicated Elm Trees would be selectively removed. It was his understanding that when this was addressed by an earlier Planning and Zoning Board that line of trees was of some importance. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, on behalf of Best Buy Inc., replied that selective in his mind was that the trees that were healthy and could be saved, would be saved. The back of the Fountainhead Retail Center was not particularly something they wanted to expose to College Avenue so they were not only saving the healthy trees, if they are elm trees, but adding some landscaping along that side. Member Carroll asked if he thought that could be addressed at final, if they would be along that far to where they could make that determination. Mr. Vaught replied they could, they could even go out with the City arborist and tag the trees that he thought acceptable to be saved. Member Carroll understood that they were chinese elm, not the type that most landscape architects would put in these days. The south wall of Fountainhead is not one of Fort Collins' aesthetic features and sometimes the folks that were removing the trees have not talked to the architects. If it says selective, and there was someone in a bull dozer, he was concerned. Member Clements -Cooney asked about a letter the Board received from Fountainhead Center Partners which had a number of design questions. Had the applicant received the letter and would these questions and concerns be addressed. Mr. Olt replied that he also received that letter today and provided the applicant with a copy of the letter. The three concerns were drainage from the site, that would be addressed as part of the overall drainage plan for Best Buy and there had not yet been a concern expressed. The applicant and Staff has had discussions throughout the review process about the potential for the service vehicles for Best Buy using the Fountainhead driveway. That would be something that Staff would want assurance on as we move through the process as to how that was going to occur. P & Z Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 1992 Page 9 Member Clements -Cooney stated there was another concern about a fire hydrant which might have to be removed located in the driveway which was going to be extended to the south to connect with the existing Phar-Mor Center. Mr. Olt replied that he did not know how that was going to be resolved, but did not consider that an issue of significance that would be accommodated. It falls within the confines of the driveway as proposed as it continues to the south. It was a minor item. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member Carroll moved for approval of item 4, Best Buy P.U.D. with one condition, that the retention of existing landscaping on the north boundary of the property be more specifically addressed at final with in mind to retain as much of the existing foliage or landscaping as possible. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. HAMPSHIRE SQUARE 11, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, #31-92 Member Carroll stated the reason that he asked this be pulled was the treatment of the border between the fence and the street which was shown on the plans to be rock and sidewalk. This was questioned at our work session basically under criteria two, if this was really compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment. He thought that the question they had in mind was if this was a proper treatment for that streetscape, keeping in mind what was present to the west and east of it. Perhaps you've had a chance to look since then and could address that with us. Steve Olt, Project Planner replied he had. Hampshire Road goes to the north and the project then would be serviced off of Hampshire Road. There was an existing detached sidewalk all along the street frontage on West Drake. There was about a five foot wide parkway that existed from curb to sidewalk, then a five foot sidewalk, then approximately seven feet from the existing sidewalk to what would be the back lot lines of the proposed lots. Along that lot line would be a six foot high wood fence with brick pillars approximately every 100 feet. What the applicant had proposed in the parkway was street trees in the form of shade and deciduous trees. What we had to work with here, however, was not only street lights, and there was a minimum separation requirement by the City that there be a forty foot separation between street trees and the light posts, that were existing in this area as well as a high voltage transmission line all the way along the frontage. It actually might be adjacent to the fence as you see it here. That was controlled by Platte River Power Authority and they had a requirement that trees did not really grow any taller than about 30 feet to avoid the sag in their lines along this frontage. They also had a thirty foot separation between their poles and he thought there were, only two poles in this area, Therefore, the selection of the trees addressed the concern of both the City Light and Power standpoint as well as the