HomeMy WebLinkAbout203 W MULBERRY PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 41 90 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 9
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
• September 24, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske,
Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and
Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Steve
Olt, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kirsten Whetstone, Ken Waido and
Gail Ault.
Board Members present at the September 21, 1990 worksession included:
Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Jan Cottier,
Margaret Gorman and Lloyd Walker.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not
necessarily correct since none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
,Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the July 23, August
22, and August 27 meetings; Item 2 - Enclave at Golden Meadows, 5th Filing
-Replat of Lots 1-22, Preliminary and Final, #78-80E; Item 3 - Overland Hills
. Subdivision - Preliminary, #38-90; Item 4 - Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd
Filing, Preliminary, #38-90A; Item 5 - Huntington Hills PUD, Replat, #11-81 F;
Item 6 -Galatia Annexation and Zoning, #36-90.
Staff requested that Item 6 - Galatia Annexation and Zoning be pulled for
discussion. Citizen Tim Beatty, 2614 Powell Place, asked that the Overland
Hills Subdivision, Items #3 and 4, be pulled.
Member O'Dell moved to approve consent agenda Items 1, 2, and 5. Member
Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
OVERLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION, Preliminary - #38-90
OVERLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION, 2nd Filing - Preliminary, #38-90A
Steve Olt gave staff report on this 1987 annexation recommending approval.
He noted it would be served by City Light and Power; sanitation in the first
filing would be by the district and in the 2nd filing by septic system. There
are four conditions on each item:
1. Trail alignment will be coordinated with City including a 50 foot wide
easement for Spring Creek Trail.
2. Springfield Subdivision, 6th Filing, Amended Plat of Lots 24, 25, and 26,
must be recorded with the County prior to final approval.
3. The Development Agreement will indicate property owners of Parcel C will
be responsible for their portion of construction of both the east and west sides
of Overland Trail extension when it is built.
• 4: A HEC-2 analysis, stream profiles and cross sections will be provided at
time of final review so easements and tracts can be determined.
•
Mike Herzig responded that should Builder's Square not be completed the drive
• connection would probably be extended to the
west end of Steele's
property
and Builder's Square would be
responsible for
extending the drive
from the
west of Steele's property to the
eastern edge of
the Pace property.
He added
Builder's Square was in the final
stages of construction
approval with
the City.
Mr. Fisher indicated the berm would be 2-3 feet
high.
Member Carroll moved to approve
Steele's Market.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
203 WEST MULBERRY - Preliminary and Final. #41-90
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report recommending approval with 3
conditions:
I. Internal illumination of the proposed awning be deleted.
2. Additional landscaping be provided on Mulberry and along the western
boundary for buffering.
3. The identification sign be a monument sign.
Member Carroll questioned the use of the property to the west and the
landscaping on the proposal.
• Ms. Albertson -Clark described it as a long narrow piece of vacant property
which the applicant is interested in purchasing. The project property currently
has several crab apple trees, two existing desiduous trees and a small planter.
Member Carroll questioned the deletion of illumination on the lighted awning
and Ms. Albertson -Clark responded the awning was on the north side of the
building with 18 inch high letters and there was a fair amount of visibility
from Mulberry_
Member Walker felt requiring the identification sign be monument style was a
good idea, but wondered if the Board needed to determine the location.
Chairman Klataske asked for information regarding lighting on the lot and
height of such lights.
Ms. Albertson -Clark deferred to the applicant on the question stating she
believed they would be using existing fixtures.
Ed Hyatt, Cityscape, representing the applicant, stated this was an in -fill
project and the proposal was to use the property practically as it exists with
substantial upgrades. There would be upgrades to the landscaping, and
additional awnings for cosmetic improvement. He noted it was a difficult site
requiring a specialized use which was why it had been vacant for
approximately three years. He went on to request approval for the project
without staff's conditions. He added the additional landscaping would hinder
snow removal. Visibility will be greatly limited requiring the illumination
• because of the building location on the lot and the short distances of awning
on the facade. The maroon awning with, more than likely, white lettering,
would be fairly unobtrusive. The pole sign is an existing feature which meets
sign code and would be the most efficient way to use the site. A monument
sign would be a futile effort in terms of visibility.
Jim Vogesser, Lending Officer, Home Federal Savings, current property owner,
indicated the value of the property has decreased significantly and, while he is
supportive of the Planning Department, he can't ignore the economic situation_
The property owner might have attempted to let someone use the property for
free had they known the non -conforming use right would be lost after 12
months. He asked for favorable action by the Board that would return this
property to income producing.
Jerry King, applicant, stated to move the sign and put in a monument sign
would decrease visibility and cost $10,350. The lighted awning is necessary
because of the limited visibility. He projected four to five million dollars of
sales in the first year and hoped the Board would approve this project without
the conditions.
Craig Hau, realtor for The Group, indicated support for the project. He
represented himself as selling broker, The Group at 401 W. Mulberry as a
neighboring property, and five additional neighboring property owners (Wayne
Schrader, Jerry Moore, Mark Teets, Bill Evans, and Andy Miscio) and gave the
Board a letter of support signed by the five owners. He added the conditions
were not necessary or economically feasible.
Member Cottier asked the status of the house across the street and Ms.
Albertson -Clark replied she believed it was still a residence and to the north
was the side of a laundromat.
Member Carroll asked if two motions were needed - one for the project and
one for the variance. Ms. Albertson -Clark responded one motion with specific
wording relative to the variance would be adequate.
Mr. King added that the wording on the dark awning would read "King's Auto
Sales."
Jerry Moore stated he was pleased someone was interested in the vacant
ground. Nearby houses were owned by the Presbyterian church and used as
rental houses. He felt the illuminated sign would not affect the houses any
more than currently illuminated signs.
Betty Cook, The Group, stated she worked at night and she considered the
added lighting a safety factor.
Andy Miscio indicated he'd been trying to sell the property for two years and
actually had a prospect interested in using it as an auto repair shop. This
proposal was more acceptable and would definitely be an improvement over a
vacant corner. He felt an entrepreneur should not be penalized with additional
costs when what was existing should work.
Member Walker asked how many hours the lighting would be used, how many
poles, and the output of the lights.
Mr. King responded there were eight poles on the property and no spillage off
the property. He couldn't imagine lights being on after 9 at night unless there
was a vandalism problem.
-12-
• Member Carroll felt an undue hardship would result if the variance were not
granted and was persuaded by the location of the property and the fact there
was illumination along College that an illuminated awning was acceptable. He
initially was in favor of the monument sign; however, with the heavy volume
of traffic with stacking at intersection perhaps a monument sign was not
adequate. In addition most auto sales have a vertical sign, the one-way
northbound traffic, and the setback of the building made him support the
illumination and pole sign.
Member Carroll moved approval of 203 West Mulberry deleting all conditions
except additional landscaping be provided along Mulberry only.
Member Cottier felt this was a positive proposal for the downtown and
seconded the motion.
Member Walker could not accept the visibility problem and felt an auto sales
lot practically advertised itself, but also understood Member Carroll's points.
Member O'Dell could not support the motion and felt the applicant didn't need
both illumination and a pole sign.
Member Strom agreed, and felt more landscaping was necessary because the lot
to the west was so narrow.
The motion passed 4-3 with Strom, O'Dell, and Klataske voting no.
• FOX MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK. Amended Master Plan - 08-82F
FOX MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK Neighborhood Convenience Center
Preliminary - #8-82G
Chairman Klataske declared a conflict of interest since he was an Affected
Property Owner and would not be participating in the discussion or vote.
Member Strom became Acting Chairman.
Ted Shepard gave the staff report for both the Amended Master Plan and
Neighborhood Convenience Center, Preliminary, recommending approval with
conditions.
Frank Vaught, representing the applicant, noted the updated Master Plan was a
result of the location of the detention pond and there were no objections to
the staff conditions.
There was no citizen input.
Member Walker questioned the retail/office setback.
Mr. Vaught responded they had used Collindale PUD as an example and stated
the various setbacks. He added the setbacks were adequate and they could
have built closer to the residences but chose against that option.
Member Walker questioned the canopy for the convenience store and indicated
• he would not like to see it changed and hoped they were committing to the
pitched roof with gable top and Mr. Vaught responded they were.
-13-