Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/17/2002Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Colton, and Gavaldon. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Joy, Wamhoff, Reavis, Reiff, Jackson, Shepard, Barkeen, Olt, Stringer, Phillips, Stanford, Moore and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Chairperson. Member Craig nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. There we no other comments. The vote tied 3-3. Member Colton moved to postpone election of officers until the February 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Member Craig seconded the motion. The vote was approved 6-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. #36-96F Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three, K.F.C./Taco Bell — Project Development Plan. 2. #43-01 Webster Farm Annexation & Zoning. 3. #33-01 Fossil Lake Annexation No. 1 (Continued) 4. #33-01A Fossil Lake Annexation No. 2 (Continued) 5. #33-01 B Fossil Lake Annexation No. 3 (Continued) Discussion Agenda: 6. Recommendation to City Council for the South College Access Plan Update. 7. #4-97B Mason Street North — Major Amendment 8. #37-98C Larimer County Courthouse Offices — Site Plan Advisory Review. Other Business: 9. Resolution PZ02-01 — Easement Vacation Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 2 Director Gloss recommended that Item 9 be moved to the Consent Agenda. Member Craig pulled Item 1, Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three KFC/Taco Bell — Project Development Plan. Member Colton moved to add Item 9, Resolution PZ02-01, Easement Vacation to the Consent Agenda. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Items 2 and 9 of the Consent Agenda. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three, KFC/Taco Bell — Project Development Plan, #36-96F Project Description: Request for a 3,661 s.f. drive -through restaurant on 1.08 acres on a portion of Mulberry Lemay Crossings Shopping Center, Filing Two. The parcel is located on the southeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Magnolia Street. The property is zoned C, Commercial. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence. Member Craig stated that the only issue she had is Section 3.5.3 (13)(2), which is the orientation to build to lines for street front buildings. She asked Planner Shepard to base his presentation on the build to line, walkways and the layout of the lot. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner replied that the orientation of the building is a combination of a lot of "givens". It is a rectangular site, building and it is a drive - through facility. It is a pad site in a shopping center and it is at the corner of a collector and arterial street. All of these factors came into play. Building orientation was looked at very closely with the applicant, even in pre application conferences, knowing that building orientation would be the key. What staff is trying to accomplish is streetscaping along Magnolia, pedestrian safety and trying to create as much of a pedestrian amenity within the shopping center as a whole Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 3 as possible. Part of that means that instead of a typical shopping center layout, where you have the anchors pushed way to the back and the pad sites pushed way to the front, you get this perimeter placement of buildings that results in a very large interior field of parking. That is what we have in a lot of our Community Regional Shopping Centers that have been built in the last 10 to 15 years. That large field of parking sometimes results in people driving from anchor to pad and pad to anchor instead of walking. That creates a kind of pedestrian hostile environment. Since the Harmony Village Shopping Center staff has been discussing how to minimize that phenomenon. One of the ways to do that is to pull buildings together the best you can. In the Big Box Standards we can do that because of the distributed parking requirements. The anchor gets a little closer to the street. However, on the pad sites, we are still seeing the tendency to push the pad all the way out to the arterial. In this particular case, working very closely with the applicant, we were able to pull the pad building closer to the anchor and bring it up to the corner and the internal access drive. That particular corner is also a convergence of a lot of sidewalks. We get the front of the building facing north, which faces the Wal-Mart and the front of the Wal-Mart faces south. They are able to pull the pad closer to the future anchor of Lot 2 and we are able the minimize the parking that large single expanse parking lot and we are able to get more distributed parking in smaller clusters out on the perimeter. Staff thinks that with the drive -through pushed to the east, that we have minimized the conflicts between drive -through users and people who drive, park and walk in. We have minimized the conflicts for pedestrian walk-ups, we have created some streetscaping and we are trying to create setting up an ambiance in the center south of Magnolia where we don't have that large single field of parking. The build to standard does allow us to move the building further back. In this case we wanted to do that so the drive -through lane was not right on top of Magnolia Street. We wanted that to be moved as far south as possible, minimize the conflict there and still create a nice front lawn area with pedestrian amenities. It does exceed the build to standard, but staff thinks that with the lawn and the pedestrian amenities, that it satisfies the exception to the standard. Member Craig's concern was that the pedestrians that are coming from the big boxes are going to be on the other side of the shopping center, which would be to the east. If they decided to walk, then they will have to walk across the drive - through lane, and there is no door there, so we are making it a long way to get to a door. Planner Shepard replied that he understands what she is saying. The pedestrian desiring to dissect the parking lot from anchor to pad can take two directions. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 4 can cut the parking grid on a diagonal or he can walk in a perpendicular fashion. Either way it will take you to a crosswalk, the crosswalk will take the sidewalk right to an entrance. Sidewalks and crosswalks get you to both entrances. Member Craig's other concern was where the transit stop would be. Kathleen Reavis from Transportation Planning replied that the transit stop would be north of Magnolia. Doug Brown, applicant, addressed the board and stated that they had worked very hard with staff to come up with the current design. Mr. Brown spoke about the location of the drive-thru. He thought that the site has been very successful for encouraging internal pedestrian travel to their facility. He felt that they have done everything they could to encourage people to walk and not drive between pads. Public Input None. Member Carpenter was concerned because this project was not in compliance with the goals of City Plan which were to bring the buildings closer to the street so there would be not parking lot to look at. Planner Shepard replied that if you looked at all the alternatives, there are negative attributes to all of them. This one seemed to work out the best given the constraints we are dealing with. Staff feels that we had a choice of orienting this building to either Lemay or Magnolia. Staff thinks that it is superior to orient towards Magnolia and that means there is a parking lot between Lemay and the building. Staff does not think that violates City Plan. Staff feels that the orientation that is proposed tonight promotes City Plan. This is the best pedestrian orientation that we could possibly. Member Carpenter asked if this was a departure from the way we have done things this far for City Plan. Planner Shepard replied he did not know the answer to that because we have not had many pure City Plan shopping centers. This shopping center is basically a "hybrid" because it was approved as a PUD. The pad sites are coming in under the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code standards a used to implement City Plan. Staff feels that the PDP meets the standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 5 Member Carpenter asked if staff saw this as a precedent to the way we are going to interpret that statute in City Plan. Would we be orienting to the interior of the site. Planner Shepard replied that he did not think that staff interprets any particular PDP as a precedent. We look at every plan and proposal in it's context, location, parcel size, shape and access as unique sites. He did not think that we limit ourselves in that way. Member Carpenter felt it was troubling for her having sat on CPAC and that was a very important piece of what they were trying to do, which was create streetscapes so when you walked or drove past, you did not have parking lots. Planner Shepard replied that in this case you have to pick a street. Staff decided to pick Magnolia because it is a smaller street and will have less traffic and lower speeds. It will be a more pedestrian friendly street. It does face other buildings as opposed to Lemay, which is carrying more traffic, five lanes separated by a median. Staff does not feel that is as pedestrian oriented as Magnolia. Staff feels that Magnolia will be "the street" on which to orient this structure as opposed to Lemay. Staff has had these conversations with other shopping centers as well, Harmony Village, the Safeway Shopping Center. The concept is not new, but maybe for the board because it is the first time they have seen it implemented. Mr. Brown showed a sketch and explained all the options that they had looked at. They are a very small building on a 40 acre site with a lot of cars. They think they have done the best they can do with that shape site, drive-thru, parking and pedestrians coming in. He urged the Board to not continue the project and any redesign would come right back to where they are now. Member Gavaldon asked how necessary the drive-thru was. Mr. Brown replied they do not have a project without a drive-thru. Member Torgerson asked about the build to standard and that 30% of the building perimeter needs to oriented to the build to line. In this case there seems to be about 270 perimeter feet, which would make the width of the building that needs to be oriented to the build to line over 80 feet. The facade that is oriented doesn't seem to meet that standard. Planner Shepard replied that the way we interpret that standard, on a corner lot, you pick the street that needs the orientation. In this case it is Magnolia. The build to line says that you can't be set too far back from Magnolia. There are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 6 exceptions. This building is set further back than what the standard calls for, but the exception language allows that because of the pedestrian lawn amenity area. Member Colton asked if there was landscaping on the west boundary right at the edge of the parking lot. Planner Shepard replied that there is a solid shrub hedge along the entire parking lot frontage on the west. Member Colton asked how tall those shrubs would be. Planner Shepard replied 4 to 6 feet at maturity. Member Colton has some concerns with this project, but helping screen the parking lot was good. He feels like this is a step back from what we have seen on other projects like the Harmony Towne Center. May there is still a problem with our big box standards where we still have these huge big boxes set up there and these pads 300 and some feet away. It is not going to be pedestrian friendly no matter how you cut it. He had a problem of whether the whole project met the parking requirements and felt that too much was on the west side and this just proves that is true. Member Torgerson moved for approval of KFCITaco Bell PDP File #36-96F. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would be supporting the motion. She is willing to give staff a chance to see if this will work. It will only end up being two lots by the time they get done with this. She completely agrees with Member Colton and that was one of her concerns when this center came in as a preliminary and she would have liked to see the big boxes come even more to the south so we did have more of a "town center" look, instead of this big asphalt space between the buildings. She felt they tried real hard to make this pedestrian friendly. Member Carpenter would also be supporting the motion. Partly because we are at this point with the development in a position where she believes that the applicant actually has done that we as a city have asked for. She would like to request that this discussion that she thinks we need a worksession on because she feels that what was expected in City Plan is not being accomplished. Member Torgerson commented that for him it always boils down to the Code and this clearly complies. He also appreciated the through scrutiny that Ted and the applicant gave this project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 7 Member Colton concurred with Member Torgerson. He stated that it was hard to fit in all the things here with the drive-thru. He hoped we could continue to minimize parking lots exposed to people driving by, which he does not think this does. He also did not think that the primary width of the building is facing either of the roads. To the west you have the parking lot there so there is a large setback and to Magnolia, just a narrow part of the building. Neither street is really getting the benefit of the pedestrian scale of the building being close to either one of those roads. Member Gavaldon would support the motion but he thought there was more opportunity to design things differently. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for the South College Access Plan Update Project Description: The purpose of this project is to update the existing Access Plan for South College Avenue (US287) which was originally approved in 1989 by the City of Fort Collins and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Bernth declared a conflict of interest on this project. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner gave the staff presentation. Ms. Reavis stated that this project has been ongoing for about a year and a half. The City of Fort Collins and CDOT have been working on Access Plans for all the State Highway Systems within our community. There are approved Access Plans for North College, Jefferson and Riverside and Mulberry (State Highway 14). In addition there are Access Plans for Harmony Road and South College which have been in place since 1989. She stated that the components of the update Plan include extending the southern boundary of the Plan to include the portion from Trilby Road to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The goals behind the project and why staff believes it is important to update the Plan at this point are many. It is very important to have a long-range vision for this important corridor of the community that reflects the current conditions as Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 8 well as the future conditions for that area. It is important to have a Plan that works for not only the City, CDOT and Larimer County, but also works for the businesses and property owners along the corridor. It is important to stress that this Plan is a long-range vision Plan for the corridor, it's not an immediate fix, but it is setting the frame work for how this corridor can grow and change over the next 20 years or beyond. The public outreach component of this project and the Plan update has really been the cornerstone of their work. They have done over 11 public workshops and meetings with community members and property and business owners along the corridor. They have done direct mailings to everyone along the corridor, and they have done a lot of individual one on one meetings with people. Ms. Reavis spoke about the funding of the projects associated with the update. She stated that funding could come from public funds like City, County or CDOT funding mechanisms to address improvements along the corridor that are access related. The other mechanism that would bring forward the changes is through the development or redevelopment process of properties along the corridor. In that case the funding is provided through a combination of public or private sources. The other way these changes come about over time is just through property owners making improvements to their frontage of their property. Ms. Reavis reported some of the issues facing them on the South College corridor today. • The close proximity of the frontage road intersections at the side street being too close to the main highway intersections. • Insufficient pedestrian facilities. • Large areas where they just have open undefined access points that have been developed on their own over the years. • Making left turns due to sight distance and limited visibility. Ms. Reavis reported that the existing traffic volumes along the South College corridor range from 28,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day. The projections that are being looked at for the year 2020 is almost double that along the corridor. Those are areas that we look at today and say that they are fine, but when you are looking at trying to carry twice the traffic volume through the corridor, that is where they start to see some problems. Ms. Reavis touched on the State Highway category, which is established by the City, County and CDOT. The last time this was looked at was 1998, where all the State Highways were looked at within the Growth Management Area and it Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 9 was established what was the most appropriate category for those roadways based on how they function today and how they will continue in the future. The section of South College Avenue south of Harmony Road to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road) is classified as a non -rural arterial A type of roadway. The section north of Harmony to Swallow Road is a non -rural arterial B. The difference is that the A category is a much higher level highway and has higher design standards and is intended to be a primary through movement corridor for our community and the region. The B category would allow closer spaced signals and more access. They are also looking at the portion of South College that today the current posted speed limit is 55 mph. All of the agencies involved in the project recognize that as the corridor continues to grow and traffic volume increases as development and redevelopment occurs, that speed limit will need to be reduced to 45 mph in the future. Ms. Reavis went on to say that South College Avenue south of Harmony Road is projected to be a 6-lane arterial roadway. Ms. Reavis reviewed the highlights of the short-term plan: • The short-term plan specifically covers the area from Bueno Drive on the north to Trilby Road on the south. • Is based on the existing land use of the area. • Is based on the existing frontage road system in the area. The plan does offer some additional changes to that to compliment that system. • Safety improvements. • Recommendation of a new portion of collector street on the west side of College between Skyview and Trilby. • No additional new traffic signals, only the existing signalized intersections that are in the area. • Defining driveways. Ms. Reavis reviewed a portion of the long-term plan, which sets the vision and framework for the corridor. In addition to some of the elements she mentioned under the short-term plan, they are recommending additional parallel circulation streets along the corridor, both on the east and west sides of South College. There will be new signals proposed as part of the long-range plan for the corridor. One will be at Triangle Drive, which is the signalized intersection of the Shenandoah development. That signal was part of the Overall Development Plan for the Shenandoah neighborhood. In addition to that there are two potential signalized intersections they are showing. One is at Fairway Lane and South College, the other is at the intersection of Crestridge and Smokey and South College. They are also recommending as part of the long-term plan that a Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 10 signal that was shown in the 1989 Plan, six hundred feet north of Trilby Road be removed. Ms Reavis stated that most of the intersections along South College can meet the City's level of service D requirement. There are three locations where they have found that they were not able to achieve that in the future given our standard level of improvements. Those locations are Harmony Road and South College, Horsetooth Road and at Swallow Road. These intersections will be looked at when the City's Transportation Master Plan is updated later this year, those will be components that will be addressed in terms of how we are going to tackle these intersections that are not meeting our minimum level of service standard. Changes to the City's Master Street Plan are also being taken forward with this plan. There are two areas that new collector streets are being recommended as part of the system. Those are the areas between Trilby and Skyway on the west and Trilby and Bueno Drive on the eastside of South College. There is no difference between the 1989 Access Control Plan and this update in terms of signalized intersections. Both Plans have 14 signalized intersections included. There is a substantial difference in the number of right -in -right -out and three-quarter movement access points. The new plan that is proposed for the update has 14 additional right -in -right -out and 8 additional three-quarter movement access points. Ms. Reavis reviewed the public involvement process and what highlights and changes were made to the plan based on the input from the community. The Short Term Plan was developed specifically based on the public's suggestions and concerns. The potential signal at Crestridge and Smokey was added which was not part of the initial recommendations for the Long Term Plan. The 22 additional direct three-quarter and right -in -right -out access points along the corridor were added. Also some of the rear circulation roads have been removed that did not seem to be workable from a detail standpoint. There have been some additional median openings along the corridor, where it was felt that the initial assumptions about cross access between properties were just not going to be realized in the short term. An issue that has come forward through the project has been some specific points raised from the community along the area near Skyway. The five points raised were: • The plan offered right of safe entry both northbound and southbound to College Avenue. The plan has been gone through and made sure that it is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 11 possible to get to all areas along the corridor both northbound and southbound. In some cases you have to rely on the circulation streets that are part of the plan, but there is access back to signalized intersections from all the areas along the corridor. • That the frontage roads remain to the existing businesses. The Short Term Plan is based on using the frontage road system along the corridor, though it is complimented by other connections in the area as well to get travelers back to the signalized intersection at Skyway. • Ingress and egress to businesses not be circuitous or confusing or indirect. Staff has worked very diligently to make sure that the access is as direct as possible, not confusing and easy to understand by the traveling public. • Developers should be required to compensate for all the changes along the corridor. Through our standard City and County process, there is already a mechanism in place that as new development occurs; they are required to mitigate their traffic impacts along the corridor. • An economic impact study be done along the corridor to gauge whether or not there are any economic impacts associated with the access changes that are being recommended. There has not been a separate economic impact study for the project. What has been done instead is we have looked at our local community — again, access management principles are not new to Fort Collins, and they have been in place since 1989. We have corridors that have built out under those types of conditions in other areas that have similar types of access to them. We find that the businesses and properties along those corridors are doing very well and they have good safe operating and convenient access in and out of those areas. Overall most of the points that have been raised by the community members along that portion of the corridor, the City, County and CDOT agree with. There is one area of their request that we have not been able to meet and that is the request for an additional traffic signal between Trilby and Skyway. The options have been looked at and have been considered. We cannot recommend that there be an additional traffic signal added in that half -mile section. Ms. Reavis reviewed the next steps of the Access Plan Update for South College. Included in the final draft for the plan report includes the cost estimates for the corridor. What they have found for the cost of all of the associated improvements is thirty two million dollars. Three million dollars associated with the short-term improvements and twenty nine million for the long term. They are also working to finalize the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and CDOT that would go hand in hand with the Access Plan. Safety is a very important piece of this project and something that staff believes would be achieved through these recommendations. Another benefit is the enhanced Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 12 gateway features they offer through installation of raised landscaped medians and the landscaped parkway along the corridor that offers visual improvements to the corridor as well as functional and safety improvements. Public Input None. Member Craig asked about the IGA and the enforcement of this Plan. If a project comes in and they are in the city limits, do we show them the Plan and tell them that this is what is needed. Also, is that the process in the County? Ms. Reavis replied that was why the IGA is so important, because it does make it a regular part of our development review process as well as a regular part of the County development review process. Everyone is operating off of the same book regardless if a project comes in in the city limits or the County. Member Craig asked about the Mulberry Access Plan and with that plan there is the same three partnership agreement and there are some County projects that have not gone along with the plan. Her concern is that we are making a plan, but as long as a lot of the sites are in the County, the Plan might not be implemented. Are we going to end up with a lot of blotches that become existing deficiencies when the property comes into the city and then the City will have to make up for those deficiencies? Ms. Reavis responded that as part of developing the IGA for South College, staff has been using the experience of the Mulberry Corridor learning experience. We are finding what worked well and what did not work. Mulberry was one of the first corridors where we added Larimer County as a signing agency on the IGA. In the past some of the corridors have just been between the City and CDOT. By going through the process of looking at the IGA for South College in a lot of detail and determine if there are areas that need to be strengthened or changed in order to reflect the County development review process. If there is a problem with something that is coming in through the County, we would try to work with them as best we can to get the improvements, or at least improvements that are working toward the Access Control Plan recommendations. Member Craig asked if the property owners were comfortable enough with the Plan, so that when redevelopment does happen, we would get a buy in. Her concern is that we would make a plan that we would have to go to the voters or dig into our very empty pocket and say how we are going to make this happen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 13 Ms. Reavis felt that was a good point and the impressions that we have received from the businesses and property owners along the corridor has been mixed. There are people along the corridor who think the plan is a good plan and is needed and supportive of it; there are other business owners that are not happy with the plan and feel that they would rather have no plan at all for the future. We have been working with them as best we can to explain why the plan is important and why the elements being recommended in the plan need to be done. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the traffic signal proposed at Fairway Drive, and directly south there is one at Cameron Drive. He asked if the Cameron Drive signal would go away. Ms. Reavis replied that they are not proposing that the signal at South College and Cameron Drive be removed. It is just showing a potential location for where a future signal could be at Fairway and South College Avenue. Ms. Reavis stated that if conditions would change in the future and there was a way to get a direct connection to the existing signal at Cameron, we certainly would re- evaluate that and decide at that point if we could go without a signal at Fairway. It is only shown as a potential signal. It would have to meet all the signal warrants and design requirements that the City and CDOT have for a signalized intersection. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he supported a trade off for one or the other. He favored the Fairway signal and felt that the signal at Cameron should go away. He asked if that was the spot that the southside connection for the Mason Street Corridor would be. Ms. Reavis replied that the south end of the transit system for the Mason Street Corridor is just south of Spradley Barr and would be accessed off of Fairway. Chairperson Gavaldon felt that was a good argument for eliminating the Cameron signal. He felt there should be some serious consideration be put to one or the other. Ms. Reavis responded that those were good comments and it is something that has been looked at as part of this project. She asked the Board to keep in mind that Cameron on the west -side of College does not look like much in terms of traffic volume or generation, but the signal at Cameron is Fossil Creek Parkway on the other side of the intersection. It connects now over to Lemay and does carry not only a lot of traffic today, but is projected in the future to carry a lot of traffic through there. It is the only east/west connection between College and Lemay. She did not think that it would be possible in the future to remove that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 14 existing signal at that location. She did agree that there would have to be a lot of thought and a lot of deliberation would have to be done before a signal would be added at Fairway. Member Craig had a concern with the collector street shown between Trilby and Skyway. She asked if staff worked with the Natural Resource Department with putting that in because she is aware that area does have some natural resource value. She was concerned about the protection of that area. Ms. Reavis replied that they have worked closely with not only the Natural Resources Staff but also other City Departments with all the recommendations that the Plan is showing. The center of that alignment could vary and could curve to address the existing Natural Resource concerns that are on the site. Member Torgerson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the South College Access Plan Update. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig commended staff and the hours that were spent trying to make property owners, Larimer County and City officials happy. She appreciated that because when you get into roads and private property, it is very conflicting. She is also very pleased that they have revisited the IGA, because she feels that there have been many problems in the past with the County in regards to putting together an agreement, but the enforcement is not necessarily always there. She felt that was very important because there are so many pre-existing conditions, we don't need new development coming in and creating more deficiencies. Chairperson Gavaldon also expressed his thanks and felt the work was good. He felt that the citizens were listened to because it shows in their data. He felt there was an attempt to give everyone a fair view on giving his or her input into the Plan. He also thanked CDOT for their support and the reinforcement of the I GA. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Bernth did not vote because of a conflict of interest and Member Meyer was absent. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 15 Project: Mason Street North Major Amendment, #4-97B Project Description: Major Amendment to Lot 12 and Tract A of the Martinez PUD. The proposed development will consist of three 2-story, mixed -use buildings, with associated parking, on 2.22 acres. The total floor area of the three buildings will be 42,050 square feet, and 2,672 s.f. of office/retail uses. Building B will contain 8 residential dwelling units, totaling 9,677 s.f. and 7,118 s.f. of office/retail uses. Building C will contain 8 residential dwelling units, totaling 10,537 s.f. and 6,894 s.f. of office/retail uses. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Mason Court and Cherry Street, approximately 700' west of North College Avenue, ease of North Howes Street, and is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that there were also two modification requests for the project. There is also one condition of approval: The developer must provide (to the City for review and approval) sufficient design of a proposed median, with pedestrian refuge, in Cherry Street mid -block between North Mason Street and North Howes Street. This median will align with the proposed pedestrian spine in the Mason Street North development plan and the pedestrian spine to the south of Cherry Street as part of the City's Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. The design of the median must be accepted by the City prior to the final Mason Street North development plan being approved, recorded, and filed. As recently as this afternoon, staff has been made aware that there is a portion of the Project Development Plan that will encroach into Martinez Park. It would involve a small section of sidewalk around a parking lot and completion of a trail connection in Martinez Park. These are currently outside of the property boundary for Mason Street North. The city Parks Department and the developer for Mason Street North are in the process of taking to City Council on the 5w and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 16 19t' of February actual dedication of this property to the developer to complete these improvements. However, it is necessary to include that into the subdivision plat that will ultimately be recorded with the Mason Street North. There needs to be a condition at the time of a motion on the project that will state the subdivision plat for Mason Street North will have to include to portion of Martinez Park that would enable the portion of trail and sidewalk around the parking lot to be completed. Jim Leach, President of Wonderland Development Company gave the applicants presentation and stated that they were a co -developer of the project. Mr. Leach gave a brief background of the Mason Street project. He stated that their original plan was to sell the mixed -use site that had one large building on it and the parking lot. In the process of working through the development they discovered that there were a lot of constraints of the property. They then came up with this plan to split it into a number of buildings. To make all this work, they have had to work through a lot of constraints with city staff. What they are doing from a community based approach, they have already started to have workshops with future residents and business owners that may be occupying this site. The twenty housing units will be owner occupied. The commercial properties, all the tenants have an opportunity to own a share in the commercial. They will maintain ownership as developers, as will the architects so they all have a vested interest in making this work over the long run. They have had a couple of neighborhood meetings in the process. In both meetings there was very good support for the project. The only issue that came up is a small private drive that goes from the project going north past the co - housing and the 10 single family lots and the potential for additional traffic. The traffic is not significantly different from what they had before, but there is an issue with that. They have been talking with the two associations most affected about a joint maintenance agreement since it is a private drive. John Wolf, architect on the project and a co -developer of the project stated that when they approached this, they wanted to break the building mass into many entities. The reason for that is to shape the public space around the buildings. That is their primary interest and in placing the buildings the way they have, he felt that they have created some outdoor rooms and have created a sense of place that will endure over time. The road is already in place and Mason Court has not been changed in anyway. Another objective that they were able to address is the Mason Street Corridor Plan, there is a pedestrian plan for Mason Street and they saw an opportunity to connect the park to the improvements that are being made along Mason Street. There are some properties that will hopefully, will fill in over time, but the pedestrian network will now be enhanced by taking it through from Mason Street to Martinez Park. With that in mind, they Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 17 ended up getting some great support from the Downtown Development Authority who is looking for these kinds of opportunities. They do have funds available to try and encourage developers to do the right thing and get energy going into the downtown. They like this project and they have committed about $250,000 to various kinds of pedestrian improvements that will enhance the public spaces that he has talked about. They have also worked with the Parks Department on their issue of parking for the softball fields. That resulted in a plan that they certainly helped to shape with some additional parking being placed next to the park. Mr. Wolf also discussed the architecture of the buildings and in every case the first floor of the buildings is commercial. Public Input Delores Williams who is a neighbor of one of the 10 single family homes between the co -housing and the proposed development. She commended the development as beautiful and that it is an asset to downtown and the city of Fort Collins. She has only one concern and that is the private drive. She was concerned with the drive being private and that a blanket insurance policy should be shared to cover the cost in case of accidents. Rick Price, President of Experience Plus Specialty Tours and he and his wife own Lot 1. He felt that they were extraordinarily lucky to have found this team of folks to come up and develop this extraordinarily complicated development and is really going to be a world class addition to downtown Fort Collins. This particular development application to change one massive 35,000 s.f. structure and splitting it up into three different structures is a great step forward. The project to begin with is a great idea. He is delighted that Wonderland Hills has decided to stick with the whole thing and do phase three. They are still concerned about traffic on the private lane. He is confident that with the three different administrations, the homeowners, the developers and the co -housing group, they will be able to create an umbrella organization to manage that street. Heather Manera, 411 N. Meldrum Street in the Martinez neighborhood stated that she appreciated the developers coming out to their neighborhood meeting and talking with them about the project. She also appreciates them having a local representative. She felt there would some issues with traffic on Cherry Street. She does not think that there will be an increase in traffic because she does not think that the neighborhood traffic that creates the speeding problem. Ken Smith, 415 Mason Court and President of the Martinez Park Homeowners Association stated that they are all extremely pleased to have this sort of anchor on the north side of the property. He felt it would only enhance their property and add to the quality of life there. He stated that they were willing to work with Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 18 anyone from the city or the development team as far as traffic patterns goes and anything they can do to mitigate the fast traffic through there. He stated that he is proud to be a part of this and proud to part of the neighborhood. Don Flick, 520 North Sherwood stated he felt really good about this change for mixed -use. Visually, with the changes the way it is going to look and feel when i is completed is a really nice improvement over the original design. He urged the Board to approve the change. Member Craig asked about Mason Street Court from Cherry to the housing units that are already developed, was that road originally going to be public or private. Planner Olt replied that Mason Street Court from Cherry to the existing cul-de- sac was and is publicly dedicated. From the cul-de-sac west through the "s" curve and along the single family lots was always intended to be a private drive. Member Craig asked where the parking is for the softball fields now. Planner Olt replied that the parking will be interspersed. You will see parking lots north of building C, which is the building furthest west. The parking spaces to the north of that and the parking spaces west, a portion of the parking spaces to the east of building C, between buildings B and C, and a portion if not all of the parking lot on the south side of the railroad tracks. Member Craig asked what kind of pedestrian walkway would be over the railroad tracks. Planner Olt replied that at this point in time, it would be some kind of informal access. The developers have attempted working with the railroad to attempt to get a public access across the tracks and have not been successful to date. Initially that will be an "ad lib" crossing from that parking lot to the south onto the pedestrian spine next to building C. Member Gavaldon asked about the condition for the median crosswalk and why did they not have the design now. Katie Moore, Development Review Engineering replied that in the first round of review all they showed was an outline of where they proposed the median to be. Staff's first comments requested further information and design information about the median, including enlarging the median. There second round of review showed the same median with a note stating that it would be developed at a later time in conjunction with the Downtown Development Association. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 19 Member Gavaldon asked if it was typical to let something like this come through and no pedestrian median put in place. Dave Stringer, Development Review Engineering replied that when staff gets plans ready for a PDP, they don't normally have them 100% complete, we at what we call 90% complete. Staff felt that the ultimate design of this median was really part of the 10% that we would get after hearing and work out the finite details of what staff really wants that median to look like. Member Gavaldon asked about the signage of the Lee Martinez entrance being moved from the Howes and Cherry median to the new median. If you look at the median that is on Howes, that is Lee Martinez Parks entrance and not being sure what is going to happen here, he sees a difference in scale and scope. It concerns him to not have a design and he would be very interested if the city and the developer could work with the Lee Martinez Park neighborhood in getting the parks support in moving the entrance of the signage to the new median which will blend all the neighborhoods to the park and give it that beautiful gateway look. Mr. Stringer replied he felt that was something they could do and the city installed the median at Howes Street as well as the sign. That was done in conjunction with the traffic calming measures that were done on Cherry Street. Member Craig asked Mr. Stanford to address the existing level of service on Cherry Street as it is right now and the in and out on Mason Street to Cherry and Mason Court to Cherry. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations replied that in looking at the Civic Center traffic study that was done for this overall area and the studies that were done for this project, all of them are coming in with a basic agreement on current levels of service being anywhere in the neighborhood of A and C. The access as it stands now; Mason does not add tremendous traffic to that corridor yet. Most of the traffic comes off of College or from up around the Vine area. In time as these developments will be adding traffic, the studies do come to agreement that in the long term, probably the worst movement at that intersection will be the left out from that development. Short term projections look to maintain around a level of service C. Long term it looks to move to a level of service E, which is still acceptable to our city standards for a stop sign controlled intersection. That comes with the growth of the Civic Center and all the downtown development that the city is proposing to take place. Member Craig asked if the intersection could ever be signalized. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Stanford replied there is a very good chance there will be a signal there in the future. Member Gavaldon asked about traffic calming measures on Cherry Street to get the speeds down to the posted 25 mph. Mr. Stanford replied that the city has been working for several years with that whole area. He has not been included in that but is aware of what they done. He did not think it was appropriate to speculate what they are doing as a team to do that. Member Gavaldon still feels that there are some safety concerns with the speed and he relies on city staff to help drive that speed down and put in better traffic calming measures. This development is going to have some impacts. Member Craig asked about only having 2 handicapped parking spaces for three buildings and did that meet ADA. Also there was a wheelchair parking space in the off parking lot and could they get over the railroad tracks? Planner Olt replied that they would be subject to the parking standards in providing handicapped spaces for the number of parking spaces in the lot. He would have to check with the Building Department and see if they are in compliance. The developer reviewed for the Board the parking requirements and how they have accommodated the handicapped spaces. Member Colton recommended approval of the Modification of Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) — Orientation to Build to Lines for Street front Buildings. Citing staffs findings of fact on Page 14, point C, that the project as submitted based on the land use and architectural compatibility of the surrounding areas is not detrimental to the public good. He cited point D, that by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to this property, the strict application of the standard would result in exceptional practical difficulties and impose a hardship on the owner/developer of the property. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 21 Member Colton recommended approval of Modification request for Section 4.4(E)(2)(c) for height. He cited staffs finding B and C. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Colton moved for approval of the Mason Street North Major Amendment, #4-98B with two conditions: The developer must provide (to the City for review and approval) sufficient design of a proposed median, with pedestrian refuge, in Cherry Street mid -block between North Mason Street and North Howes Street. This median will align with the proposed pedestrian spine in the Mason Street North development plan and the pedestrian spine to the south of Cherry Street as part of the City's Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. The design of the median must be accepted by the City prior to the final Mason Street North development plan being approved, recorded, and filed. 2. That the Plat for the project be drawn to include all of the 6 space parking lot facility and related sidewalk and pedestrian trail located to the northwest of the Mason Court cul-de-sac. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Larimer County Courthouse, Site Plan Advisory Review, #37-98C Project Description: Request for a new 150,000 s.f. office building that will replace the current Larimer County Offices Building at 200 West Oak Street. The building will be five stories, with a tower element of 104 feet in height. The property is zoned D, Downtown, and is within the Civic Center Subdistrict. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 22 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson moved for disapproval of the County Court House Offices. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-2 with Members Torgerson, Craig, Carpenter and Gavaldon voting for the motion and Members Bernth and Colton voting against the motion. • Member Torgerson commented that the location is generally consistent with what we would like to see and what our plans show. However, when you look at it specifically, it is not compatible and is on the wrong side of the block. It is only on that side of the block so that the building that is existing to the south can be utilized during the construction period, which appears to be a short -sided design constraint. To locate the building facing south and away from the Civic Center, essentially for that reason and to orient it towards Horsetooth and the historical location of the 1886 Courthouse seems short sided. The 1886 plan in 1959 was deemed obsolete and could not be renovated in any way, so they tore it down. In 1959, they built a building that was going to be the Courthouse for the next 100 years and was apparently designed to have another story on it, so it could be expanded. Apparently their thinking in 1959 was short -sided enough that we are now tearing it down and building a new Courthouse for the next 100 years with a design constraint that really only lasts a year or two. Locationally, it seems specifically incompatible. The building should be on the south side of the block with a public plaza on the north side as it was envisioned in the Civic Center Plan. In terms of extent, it seems entirely compatible. The height is compatible with the area; the square footage is compatible. His specific concerns relate to character, especially the framework of the Civic Center Master Plan, the open space spines are truly the backbone of the Civic Center. The County is only minimally addressing that with somewhat a backdoor and a very amorphous curvilinear plaza that is really addressing a linear arrangement of the Civic Center. The character in that respect seems totally off. It is also cutting a half a block off of what is only a three block long spine of the Civic Center spine. The City has already lobbed off the eastern wing of the cruciform area of the spine. Therefore, the City and the County are sort of equally to blame for what he sees as the destruction of the Civic Center Master Plan. This block also has no reference to Mason Street except that it is a loading dock and that is entirely incompatible with the Mason Street Corridor Plan and the Civic Center Plan. This would effectively eliminate it as a pedestrian friendly zone, one of the four blocks on the west side of the Civic Center that are on Mason Street. The County Justice Center has already done the same Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 23 thing by putting a 6-foot stone wall along Mason Street and large overhead doors. The success of the retail spaces in the parking garage attest to how successful that works in addressing those pedestrian areas. The Civic Center talks about being civic anchored. This project is adjacent to the Civic Center, but it has its backdoor to the Civic Center and is not addressing the Civic Center in any substantial way. This vision statement of the Civic Center Master Plan talks about tree lined streets with buildings being built close to the sidewalk to provide a comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians. This building is not built close to any street, except Mason Street, but the comfortable sense of enclosure that it is offering pedestrians there is a loading dock that we are trying to screen. By the County's own admission, they are trying to disguise what we consider to be an ugly entrance. Two of the four blocks are not addressing Mason Street and that will lead to the demise of the livelihood in the Civic Center area along Mason Street. The vision statement in the Civic Center Plan also talks about parking demands that is to be met by mixed -use parking structures. The County participated in the Parking Structure but appears to want to do a large surface lot, which seems totally incompatible with the project too. In terms of the Mason Street Corridor Plan, the vision statement says the plan envisions opportunities for redevelopment along the corridor. Historically development has turned its back to the corridor, it is envisioned that future development would be oriented and take advantage of the rare opportunities provided by transit, walking and cycling activities. This building is clearly turning its back to Mason Street and is clearly is doing exactly what the vision statement asks new development not to do. In terms of positives, he appreciates that the County had addressed some of the staff suggestions and concerns. He thinks that the changes that have been made are very positive. However, it is a Band-Aid to what he believes is the wrong orientation. It minimizes the concerns, but it is not something that can be done by "tweaking" a drive or adding some trees here and there. In terms of character, the positives are that they are keeping the large trees, the building massing provides a good landmark, and the idea of this being the center of the County and the tower are all positive. The reuse of the stone in the walls and walks are positive. However, when he looks at all the positives and negatives, the loading area on Mason Street is a deadly blow to the Mason Street area of the Civic Center. The generator and the transformer, seems unacceptable to him that they are just thrown onto Mason Street. Member Torgerson urged the County Commissioners to step back and continue to work with staff and consider more substantial changes, like Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 24 relocating the loading dock to maybe the southside of the building and accessing it from the area that was vacated by the drive. He urged the County Commissioners to relocate the transformers and generators from a spine the City is really trying to promote. The County appears to be considering the convenience of their employees and their budget and the project itself more than its customers. The customers will ride on the Mason Street Corridor Plan, they will come in on mass transit, and they will have to pass a loading dock and come in a side entrance to get into the building. In closing, just because the County does not have to comply with the Code, it does not mean they should not. The Code we are talking about was driven by large groups of citizens in Fort Collins and it represents their views. The fact that the only public outreach that was done was to the County employees and the DDA, illustrates that they are designing a building for themselves and not for the citizens of Fort Collins. He would not be supporting the project. • Member Bernth commented that he sees Member Torgersons certain points. It is really difficult that sometimes you cannot have it both ways. One of the biggest complaints with the City building was the cost. This is a much simpler building than some of the buildings we have seen that the City has completed, but at a $180 a square foot versus what we have looked at traditionally at $250 and above. He thinks that there is a bit of responsibility to the citizens there also. From a double move standpoint, the last thing that you want to do is move twice. He does not think the project adheres to the Civic Center Plan, especially the spine. He would rather have a tree, than to be exactly oriented to exactly what we need to do on the Civic Center Plan. He does think that there has been some compromise and some work with the staff and it sounds like everyone is cooperating making as good of project as they possibly can for a reasonable price. He would be supporting the project. • Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he was concerned about cutting more of the Civic Center spine off. The Mason Street Corridor Plan and Civic Center Plans are guidelines and are meant to guide the future. When a building comes to the City as ready as this one here. We are trying to design something that is already a beautiful model, and that model cannot be changed, because the model is already set up. The County has been responsible with their budget, but he believes that the budget can be in tact and that the City and County could work together as a staff to design the building. He believes if they would have stayed within the scope and spirit of the plans, they would have a class A building. He believes the architect had the documents and should have worked within the plans and should have come up with a building that would have been properly positioned for the next 100 years. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 25 • Member Carpenter commented that there are many things that she likes about the building. She likes the cost as a taxpayer. She believes that even within that cost it is a great landmark building and it could really add to downtown. That said, she could not support the building. She believes the spirit of the Civic Center Plan and the Mason Street Corridor Plan are not met and the fatal flaw is the orientation of the building. She felt that as citizens there was a lot of time put into these plans and she did not think that it has to cost a lot to orient and work. She understands about leaving the buildings in place, but if this building were just turned to face the Mason Street Corridor and the Civic Center spine with the parking in the back of it, it would give us the pedestrian feel that we need and she thinks it could work. She regrets the way that it is oriented now and that she cannot support it because there are many things she does like about it. Member Carpenter would not be supporting the project. • Member Craig commented that one of the things that disappoints her is the County stood up here and told us all the time and thought that went into this project, so they obviously have been working on this for a long time, yet they did not invite the City to the table at the very beginning. She thought that many good things could have come out if the City were at the table at the beginning in regards to the building orientation, etc. Member Craig would not be supporting the project. • Member Colton commented that one of the things that concern him was the limited amount of public input. The public does not see the buildings until the end. He feels that the City and County should be working together to make sure the Civic Center Master Plan would happen. He feels that it is too late in the stage to be doing things like reorienting the building. He would like to see some of the money go away from the southwest entrance tower and put into the Mason Street side of the building. He thought it would be pointless to oppose it now. Member Colton would be supporting the project. Other Business There was no other business The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Approved February 19, 2004