Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/16/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Meyer, and Torgerson. Member Colton was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Jones, Wamhoff, Virata, Stringer, Harridan, Bracke, and Dodge. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 17, 2002 and April 10, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED) 2. #43-941 Carriage Auto Service Shop at Horsetooth East Business Park, Project Development Plan. 3. #47-95B Longview Marketplace, Project Development Plan (PULLED TO DISCUSSION BY MEMBER OF AUDIENCE). Discussion Agenda: 4. #5-94 H/1 The Summit Fort Collins Shopping Center, Overall Development Plan and Phase One Project Development Plan. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 5. Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of the Downtown Strategic Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following items: 6. #29-01A Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan. 7. #6-03B Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards. A member of the audience asked to pull Item #3, Longview Marketplace, to the discussion agenda. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Item 2. Vice - Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6- 0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 2 Project: Longview Marketplace, Project Development Plan, #47-95B Project Description: Request for a supermarket -anchored shopping center containing 121,000 square feet of leasable floor area on approximately 20 acres. Uses will include a supermarket, retail shops, restaurant, bank, and fuel station. Located at the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Carpenter Road (CR 32) and zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Jeremiah Roar, citizen of the area, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he did not have any direct objections to the development but did have concerns about CR 32, specifically relating to left -turn and bicycle lanes. He stated that the road is heavily over -traveled currently, resulting in one fatality last year. He stated that through his inquiries, no one seems to want to take responsibility for the roadway. He asked that the Board reject this development until the CR 32 issue can be addressed. Brian Debuce, 233 Parkplace Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he was against the project for the same traffic reasons on CR 32. He stated that he was also against the project because it seems to be leapfrog, fringe development. He stated concern about the intersection being a problem and stated that the roads should be dealt with first and development second. City Planner Steve Olt replied that there is a great deal of residential and commercial development around the site and stated that as there is very little infill land between this site and development in the City of Fort Collins, he would not consider it to be leapfrog development. City Engineer Sheri Wamhoff stated that the City is requiring this development to do the road improvements to the extent that the Code will allow. In accordance with the traffic study, they are doing improvements at the intersection of Carpenter Road and South College Avenue. They will be widening the intersection to make it a 4-way intersection instead of a "T." They will be adding Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 3 another lane going westbound so there will be a left -turn lane, through lane, and right -turn lane there. They are also doing extensive improvements along College Avenue in both directions, adding turn lanes, medians, and other improvements. Engineer Wamhoff stated that she did not believe the City had the ability to require improvements beyond what they are asking for on Carpenter Road beyond this intersection. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates, gave the applicant's presentation. She stated that the neighbors had expressed concerns at neighborhood meetings which were held over the last couple years. She stated that this project has had great deal of off -site improvement requirements. If the intersection is already not performing, this development will help because the improvements will get made. The project will also pull revenue from shoppers in Loveland, revenue that the City is not currently getting. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the neighborhood meeting minutes were just given to the Board. Planner Olt replied that he thought the minutes were in the packet but that they were handed out at worksession, which Mr. Gavaldon did not attend. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if all the citizen questions from the August 19, 2002 meeting were answered. Planner Olt replied that there was no follow-up other than the second neighborhood meeting. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that the same issues came up at the August 19 meeting as at the February 10, 2002 meeting and asked why they were not addressed the first time. He asked Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations, about the questions from the meetings. Mr. Bracke replied that he did not have any citizens call him regarding the project and that he could not say if he had received the notes from the neighborhood meetings. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon expressed concern about the citizens not getting questions answered. Chairperson Torgerson stated that they had been told tonight that the project is being given the greatest amount of obligation regarding the streets as possible, according to the Code. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 4 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked Matt Delich, traffic study author, about an issue in the traffic study relating to the intersection. Mr. Delich replied that his recommendation for the intersection is to install a signal when it is warranted; the timing is tied to development. Mr. Bracke replied that the signal will be constructed within the next couple years. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about a condition that was placed on the Life Style Center project. Mr. Bracke replied that this type of shopping center does not need a similar condition. There has already been some traffic calming in the neighborhood but cut -through traffic from the shopping center is not anticipated. Member Schmidt asked if Carpenter Road east of College Avenue was immediately County property. She asked what changes were slated for that section of road. Engineer Wamhoff replied that there are portions of CR 32 that are already in the City and other portions that are out of the City. As development is occurring, improvements have been made. Member Schmidt asked if the area about a mile from College would be a capital improvement project and if it would be City or County. Engineer Wamhoff replied that it would be capital improvement unless it was redeveloped at some time. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner, stated that the long-range vision on the City Master Street Plan for CR 32/Carpenter Road between College Avenue and the Interstate is to be a 4-lane arterial roadway. That has been on the Master Street Plan for a while. It would likely be a combination of development and capital improvement. Member Craig asked about the intersection and what traffic movements are possible there, westbound. Engineer Wamhoff replied that cars can go right or left, and possibly through but there is only a curb cut on the other side. This project will allow the through lane as well as additional width for a bike lane to a certain extent. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 5 Member Craig asked if the new through lane would handle people going into the shopping center. Engineer Wamhoff replied that it would Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that, as the item was pulled off the consent agenda, the modification of standards request needs to be voted upon separately from the project development plan request. He stated that the modification request was related to the orientation to a connecting walkway standard. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the Land Use Code article number for the modification was 3.5.3(B)(1). Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Longview Marketplace, Project Development Plan Modification of Standards to Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(B)(1), File #47-95B, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Longview Marketplace, Project Development Plan, File #47-95B, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that even prior to 1997 this site was slated for a neighborhood center because it would be a good location. She added that she could understand the frustration of the City not addressing Carpenter Road. Though it is going to be a capital project, there is not money for it now. As a Board, Member Craig stated, the issue cannot be addressed because the Board must abide by the Land Use Code. If the neighbors feel strongly about this, they need to make City Council aware. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that this project was planned in 1996-1997 and all residents were told that the project was coming. He stated disappointment with the follow-through of the neighborhood meeting comments. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 6 Project: The Summit Fort Collins Shopping Center, Overall Development Plan and Phase One Project Development Plan, File #5-94 H/I Project Description: Request for both an Overall Development Plan and Phase One Project Development Plan for a Lifestyle Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Harmony and Ziegler Roads. The ODP is 89.6 acres in size. The Phase One retail center is 58.09 acres and would contain 414,000 square feet in a mix of retail stores, restaurants and a variety of other service and entertainment uses typically associated with a regional shopping center. The property is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Staff Recommendation: Approval with a condition on the PDP Hearing Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner, gave the staff presentation recommending approval with one condition on the PDP. He stated that expected stores include a department store, grocery store, and bookstore as well as other uses. Member Craig asked for an illustration as to where the ODP and PDP were. Planner Shepard replied that the applicant would be able to address that. David Silverstein, Bayer Properties, gave the applicant's presentation. He spoke about The Summit projects in Birmingham, Alabama and Louisville, Kentucky and cited the positive economic benefits of those projects. He introduced the land planner for the project, Bruce Hendee with BHA Design. Mr. Hendee introduced Everitt Hatcher, project architect, Jim Allen Morley, civil engineer, and Matt Delich, traffic engineer. He answered Member Craig's question regarding the limits of the ODP and PDP. He stated that the site will not extend to the north far enough to make street connectivity with the English Ranch subdivision. He stated that the connectivity standards will be met but will be done in a discontinuous way so as not to encourage traffic to flow north through the English Ranch area. He spoke about the planned streets and connections with Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 7 adjoining neighborhoods. He stated that the ordinance allows only 85 acres of "Lifestyle Center." The remaining area will be Harmony Corridor Plan which has a 75/25 rule — 75% primary employment and 25% secondary. The first phase of the project will be somewhere between 415,000-540,000 square feet; the requested approval is for the larger proposal. The two fundamental areas are the Village Green and the Village Shops. The Village Green is about the size of a football field and would include sports fields, cultural activities, etc. The storefronts would open onto the Green area. Mr. Hendee stated that this will not look like a strip mall and will include very high -quality architecture. Mr. Hendee stated that it is important to provide an alternative -mode connection to the neighborhoods to the north, even if a vehicle connection is not made. He stated that Bayer Properties is more than willing to provide a pedestrian access to the north. The needed permission has to come from LSI first, however. With respect to Corbettt Drive, the project will provide parallel parking spaces to create a more urban feel. Parking has been broken into a number of smaller lots with intervening pedestrian ways. Mr. Silverstein stated that there will be shuttle service throughout the site if people choose not to walk after they have parked their cars once. Everitt Hatcher, CMA Architects, gave a description of some of the landscape features of the project noting that there would be some second -level office space likely incorporated into the project. He showed some signs illustrating the other "Summit" projects in the country. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked for the meeting minutes for the September 9 neighborhood meeting. Planner Shepard replied that they were handed out at a previous worksession and stated that three neighborhood meetings had been held on the project, all of which were summarized in the staff memo. Public Input Marie Killian, 5251 Cornerstone Drive, gave her testimony to the Board. She commended the project and Bayer Properties and encouraged the Board to approve the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 8 Robert Schutzius (sp?), 3208 Mesa Verde Street, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated his support for the project and encouraged swift and unanimous approval for the project. Chris O'Neal, 2713 Stockberry Drive in the English Ranch subdivision, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated his support for the project. Bill Atwell, 2806 Antelope Road in the English Ranch subdivision, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that this is probably the best project that could be developed in this area. He stated that it is a well -designed project that will bring in positive revenue for the City. David Meyer, 2833 Sunstone, gave his testimony to the Board. He asked about connectivity through the neighborhood, asking what the benefit of the City's connectivity standards are. He stated that as this is a very large development, there may be a detriment either by minimizing traffic into the neighborhoods and increasing collector street traffic, or by not reducing cut -through traffic in the neighborhoods. He asked what the traffic impacts would be on the neighborhoods. Public Input Closed Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations Department, stated that the main purpose of the connectivity standard is to allow people to walk to bike to other opportunities in the neighborhood, primarily for convenience reasons. It is a very important standard to transportation services. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the applicant paying for the traffic calming project, which is a condition in the staff report. Mr. Bracke replied that staff is actually asking the applicant to pay for a conceptual design of a traffic calming plan. It is something that the neighborhood was promised and the City has an obligation to provide it. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the applicant for the King Soopers at College and Carpenter was not asked to provide a traffic calming plan for Avondale. Mr. Bracke replied that there is a large difference between a neighborhood shopping center and regional shopping center in terms of the number of cars traveling to the site. We need to make sure it is not convenient for people to use the neighborhood routes and it was promised to the neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 9 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked why this was not done for the Super Wal- Mart. Mr. Bracke replied that there were no neighborhoods impacted with Wal-Mart. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon replied that there were. He stated that he did not see a need for this condition in this project or wanted to see the same condition on every project from neighborhood centers to larger projects so every neighborhood gets treated fairly. Planner Shepard stated that there are two sides of the equation on traffic calming — physical devices built on to the roadway and improving the surrounding arterial streets to make the perimeter arterials more efficient and more attractive so people do not cut through neighborhoods. We are not mandating physical devices on locals and collectors. Planner Shepard stated that this is a course of action condition of approval, not a requirement to build something. The condition requires a great deal of information in terms of data -gathering, what is happening with the roadways, etc., before anything gets built on a local or collector street. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that those measures were not taken with Wal- Mart and stated that he would like to kill this project because of the condition. Mr. Bracke stated that the Board did not have to accept the staff -recommended condition but that he would work with the neighborhood regardless. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that because it will be dealt with anyway, he saw no reason to put the condition in writing. Member Craig asked what improvements would be made to the surrounding streets at build -out of Phase One. Mr. Bracke replied that the fourth leg of Corbett Drive needs to be constructed, including the intersection at Harmony and Corbett. The southbound lane of Ziegler will include a double left turn. There would be a signalized intersection at Ziegler where it lines up with the HP entrance. Improvements would be made to the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler which would likely be signalized. Member Craig asked if that signal would come in with the center. Mr. Bracke replied that he anticipated it would. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 10 Member Craig asked about pedestrian traffic between English Ranch and the other side of Ziegler Road. Mr. Bracke replied that a number of counts have been done but many pedestrians have not been seen there. A pedestrian refuge put in at some time will help. Member Craig asked where the transit stop will be City Engineer Dave Stringer replied that it would be on Harmony Road but the exact location has not yet been determined. The project is to work with Transfort on the location. It will probably be on the west side of the Corbett intersection. Member Carpenter asked what the minor walkways would be like. Mr. Hendee replied that the minor walkways will be more like a detached sidewalk but will not include some of the features of the major walkways. The notion for the pedestrian walkways was to spend the most money on the areas where we really want people to stop or slow down to look at things. Mr. Silverstein stated that the parking lots are about 6 inches lower in elevation than the walkways through the parking lots. Member Carpenter asked what kinds of things would be different about the Summit project here in Colorado than the Summit project in Birmingham. Mr. Silverstein replied that the other Summit projects are very Mediterranean in feel and the architecture for the Colorado project will be more "western" including a lot of stone and wood. Member Craig asked about the modifications dealing with the parking distributions for large retail establishments, specifically the one just east of Corbett and why the standard could not be met for parking at that area. Mr. Hendee replied that it had to do with a parking relationship with a major retailer that would go there. Trying to find the area necessary for the amount of required parking is also an issue. Mr. Silverstein replied that it is driven in large part by a specific department store that may occupy the site and their parameters and requirements for parking for their store. The lot has several entrances. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 11 Member Craig stated that she wanted it on the record that the large building will have an entrance on the west, south, and east. Mr. Silverstein replied that the department store has not made a certain commitment yet but that they normally have three entrances and there is no reason to believe they would change at this point. Chairperson Torgerson asked where the office use would be on the site. Mt. Silverstein replied that it was not yet definite but that it could be at certain levels throughout. The on -site management office would likely be on the second floor and other office uses may be located on the second floor as well. Office is not necessarily a certainty in the project and there is not an abundance of office space. Mr. Hendee stated that the idea of office is not something to commit to tonight but it would be an important use. Chairperson Torgerson stated that this is required to be a mixed -use activities center and he assumed the mixed use is retail and office. If office is not part of the project, the mixed use definition is not met. Mr. Hendee replied that the ODP indicates office as a use. Chairperson Torgerson asked if the mixed -use requirement could be met at the ODP level or if it was required for the PDP. Planner Shepard replied that the ODP was sufficient Member Craig asked about the western boundary of the site and what the separation would be between the project and the trailer park. Planner Shepard replied by showing site shots of the area and stated that there is vegetation on the backs of some of the trailer lots. There are trees on the southwest corner of the project site as well as the mobile home park. Member Craig asked if noise, lights, etc. were addressed. Planner Shepard replied that he had a great deal of confidence that those issues could be addressed and stated that there are large retail centers that are closer to residential than some of these buildings will be. Lighting and landscaping standards will address the issue. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 12 Member Craig asked if the community detention pond would serve as a buffer in that area. Planner Shepard replied that the pond would be north of the Summit property. Member Craig asked if it was originally going to be on the west side. Planner Shepard replied that there was no original location and that it is a master plan concept. Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Department, stated that there are several planned ponds — he illustrated the locations on a site plan. There is a regional pond shown somewhere on the property but its location has not been cited exactly. Member Craig asked if the cost of the regional pond will be picked up by the City. Mr. Hamdan replied that there would be cost -sharing between the properties once it is determined how much each property contributes to the ponds. Those determinations are based on the percentage of flows coming off the sites. The City would pay for the percentage of flows coming from off -site. Member Craig asked if it would be built along with the center, or if it was needed at that time. Mr. Hamdan replied that it is needed right now so the City would repay the developer for the regional benefit. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the backsides of the buildings were to be buffered with berms of a sufficient height yet flows were to be captured from the west. Mr. Hamdan replied that plans were not detailed yet. Member Schmidt asked about vacant shops and how the storefronts are tailored to each tenant as they come in. Mr. Silverstein replied by showing site shots of existing retailers at the other Summit projects and stated that a key element of the projects is the location of specific retailers. Member Craig asked about the 50% standard and if the applicant would meet that. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 13 Mr. Silverstein replied that he anticipates meeting and exceeding that standard, including having a minimum of 25 stores. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of the Summit Fort Collins Shopping Center modification request as written in the staff report citing findings in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he was having some difficulty supporting the motion as the Board was being asked to say that what the applicant is providing is equal to or better than compliance with the standard. The motion was approved 6-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of The Summit Fort Collins Shopping Center Overall Development Plan, File #5-94H, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved for approval of The Summit Fort Collins Shopping Center Phase One Project Development Plan, File #5-941, including the condition, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig asked to add a condition that the applicant seek a pedestrian connection to the north through the LSI property into the neighborhood. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon and Member Carpenter accepted the amendment. Member Craig asked that the final plans for the project be brought before the Board. Director Gloss replied that Section 2.5.2 of the Land Use Code gives staff the authority to review the final plan and if it is found to be either not in compliance, or in questionable compliance, the final plan can then be referred to the Board at Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 14 a public hearing for final review and action. Absent of that, if the staff review finds the final plans to be in compliance, it would be approved without being brought before the Board for formal action. The progress of the design could be presented to the Board in an advisory review capacity at any time. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the information presented thus far is ambiguous enough that it will be difficult to determine if the final plans are compliant with preliminarily approved plans. He stated that the information is so ambiguous, that he would probably vote against the project without a condition like this. Attorney Eckman stated that the Code indicates that the "Director's decision shall be final and no appeal of the Director's decision shall be allowed; however, the Director may refer the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board when the Director is in doubt as to the compliance and consistency of the final plan with the approved project development plan." Mr. Eckman stated that if the Board wishes to make a condition that this come back to the Board, that would have to be consented to by the applicant. If the applicant is willing to waive its right to have the final plan decided by the Director, that would be fine, but it would require a waiver by the applicant. Mr. Silverstein stated that his dilemma was that he is either entitled to move forward with the project or not and he did not want to get turned down. He stated that he had no problem coming back to the Board and sharing the plans once they are finalized. He asked the Board to allow the submitted documents and record to speak for themselves and stated that the staff will protect the City's interests by making the Lifestyle Center follow the criteria in the new Code amendment. He asked that the Board not put that condition on the project but stated that he respected their concern. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not accept the friendly amendment. Member Meyer stated that staff is fully capable of making final approval. Member Schmidt stated that if this project goes forward like this, there may be other projects that ask for the same kinds of approval. Mr. Silverstein stated that the criteria placed on the project through the Lifestyle amendment itself are pretty stringent. The cost of creating detailed elevations and plans without knowing that the project can go through is prohibitive. He stated that it will be clear to staff whether he has lived up to his commitment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 15 Attorney Eckman stated that the approval of a Project Development Plan is not a vested right; the development can not be completed based on that approval. He added that the plans are not as detailed as most PDP submittals and that, normally, the Director would have no doubt when it comes to final plans because they look just like the PDP. In a case like this, the Director, when looking at the final plan, may be looking to see if it is at least this good if not better. If there is any doubt in the Planning Director's mind, it will be referred back to the Board, which may be an incentive for the applicant to make the project at least at the level of the drawings, if not better. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if this came to the Board too early. Director Gloss replied that this is a complete application based on the PDP submittal requirements both for engineering and for architecture. Architecturally, we do not have every single elevation. Those shown are representative elevations. It is not possible until the tenants are secured to have elevations for every building. Considering those factors, this application has been deemed complete. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would not accept Member Craig's friendly amendment. Member Carpenter stated that she felt comfortable with staff making the final decision on the PDP. Member Schmidt asked if this situation was unique enough that it would not set a precedent for lack of information. Director Gloss replied that it was unique enough and that staff would exercise some professional judgment in making the final determination. If the final plans are too ambiguous, staff will bring it back to the Board. Member Schmidt expressed concern over setting a precedent for similar projects coming in with too little information. Director Gloss replied that we have adopted design standards throughout the community that are pretty specific. Also, this is somewhat unique but is also a trend for the future as some submittal requirements have been changed to require less detail architecturally and in the landscape plans for the PDP level. He added that the City of Fort Collins has, in the past, required more detail than other communities, which has been a criticism of our system. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 16 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he was not comfortable with what we are doing now and that as the process is in flux, he would like to know when the changes started. Director Gloss stated that in a worksession, the Board was told that the Zucker Report findings would be adopted and some changes would be made immediately as soon as it was approved by City Council. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion even though he did not like the traffic -calming condition. He did commend the project as a whole. Member Carpenter commended the project as well but disagreed about the traffic -calming condition as staff is responsible for looking at the individual situations and conditions. She asked that staff look carefully at preserving the neighborhood above connectivity. Member Craig stated that she would not support the motion as she was not comfortable with what the Board was being told to do and cited the difference between Type I and Type II projects. Member Carpenter asked if Member Craig would be comfortable with having the project come back as an advisory even though staff would make the final decision on the project plans. Member Craig replied that the vested right does not happen until final compliance anyway so requiring the condition does not ruin a vested right. Member Schmidt stated that she was conflicted on the issue but that she would be supporting the motion based on the history of the developer. Chairperson Torgerson stated that his concerns were not focused toward the project, the development team, or even confidence in staff. He just wanted to make sure the Board was doing their job. The project was approved 5-1, with Member Craig being the dissenting vote. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 17 Project: Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the Downtown Strategic Plan Project Description: Recommendation to City Council for adoption of the downtown Strategic Plan with the intent to address key Markey, urban design, and transportation issues for downtown. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Timothy Wilder, City Planner, gave the staff presentation. Public Input Mickey Willis, developer: Mr. Willis wanted to talk about building height. The reason he was here tonight was to try and identify an issue that he sees that is typically inappropriate on a particular parcel of land he is associated with and has a partnership in developing. He referenced Block 43 which currently is in the Downtown District Sub -District Civic Center and has a current height restriction of 168 feet as does all the Downtown Civic Center and all the Canyon Avenue Sub -District of downtown zoning. What he is trying to do is address what he thinks has been a reduction that has gone too far. Eighty feet is over a 50 percent reduction from 168 feet and is inappropriate. On this particular block, of all blocks, it has gone from 168 feet and reduced 73 percent to 45 feet. It already has a buffer, which is the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, which he believes can go 3 '/2 stories, and 45 feet would allow you to do 4 stories. He believes the reduction is way too much beyond what should be sufficient to accommodate a step-down from the urban core. The maximum height that any building can be in Old Town Center is 56 feet, four stories. It is surrounded by 80 feet, 80 feet, 115 feet, 150 feet, 150, 80, 80, 80 and 115 and it did not seem to be a problem putting big buildings around this area, which is the core of the downtown, but to take it over here and randomly reduce it 73 percent is beyond acceptable. Mr. Willis felt that 80 feet could still accomplish a 6'/2 - story building appropriately with the new standards that are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 18 going to be submitted. Step -backs after the second story requires what would normally be accomplished in a four story building now has to be accomplished it a 6- story building. The overall cost of that building becomes spread out to an incredible amount of money. The higher you go the more expensive it is to build. We can accomplish higher density downtown, blend in well with our Master Transportation Plan to create that parking demand. We need to do it in appropriate building heights. Mr. Willis was in agreement to reduce the current height restriction, but on Block 43 in particular, 73 percent reduction is way too much. Mr. Willis submitted to the Board as an example the Old Statehouse in Boston, built in 1713. Although it is definitely a historic building -- the Declaration of Independence was read from its balcony in 1776 -- surrounding buildings have not been limited to its height of 3 stories. In fact, in the handouts distributed by Mr. Willis, a building three times that height looms in the background. He suggested that there is a way to do things that preserves historic buildings and allows good new things to happen, too. Mr. Willis said that the 45-foot height restriction will allow his project to be only 3 stories high. He doesn't want it to be the tallest building on the block, but asks the Board to give him the 80-foot height, even though this project may not be more than five -and -a -half stories. Jerry Hefner, property owner: Mr. Hefner owns two industrial -type buildings at Maple and Meldrum streets. He and his wife Carol have owned these buildings for a long time and have signed a contract with Bob Stemwedel to develop them into a senior housing project. Knocking the allowable height down to 45 feet takes the project out of reality. It would be a great addition to the neighborhood, and such a project would be a nice thing for all of Fort Collins. If this project doesn't go forward, it will be a long time before anyone else with the vision and resources comes along; this could be the best shot to improve the neighborhood by eliminating the industrial buildings. It has to be taller than 45 feet, maybe not the full 80 feet, but at least 50-60 feet to realize economies of scale. Dean Parson, Terracon, corner of Howes and Maple: Mr. Parson's property occupies the southeast corner of Block 43. He is concern that the 45-foot height restriction could reduce his property values by restricting opportunities for redevelopment or expansion of his building in the future. He supports the increase to the 80-foot height limit. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 19 Gregory Gleanor, property owner: Mr. Gleanor owns property at 325 Cherry St., which was granted a parking variance. He said he had little to add to what he had already submitted in a letter to the Board. He leans toward taller buildings and tighter infill, and feels this particular block is ripe for cleaning up. But this radical reduction is a little bit much. He understands the economics of creating higher density in Old Town, near proposed transportation corridors, and feels that if this project does not go forward, the town he fell in love with 20 years ago will have lost an important opportunity to achieve this. The block is surrounded by NCB zoning to provide a buffer from commercial activity, so he supports the change to an 80-foot height limit, although he would like to see it left at the existing 168 feet. Bob Stemwedel, developer: Mr. Stemwedel has a contract with Jerry and Carol Hefner to buy the property in question. He has been looking for a site for a senior housing project for over a year, and knows there is less expensive property available in the southern part of town, at Drake and Centre, which is also close to a number of medical and other facilities for seniors. It is more typical to place senior housing in similar areas. His vision is to provide housing in neighborhoods to ease the transition from family homes grown quiet and lonely, to provide an opportunity for mostly elderly women to live in a community where they can interact and stay active. The Old Town area is a treasure, where you can walk in safety and don't need a car to perform everyday errands. His project is targeted to middle-class seniors. He does not intend to put up an 80-foot building against the residential neighborhood, but 45 feet doesn't work. He asked the Board to consider amending the height allowed on Block 43 to 80 feet. END OF PUBLIC INPUT Jerry Gavaldon spoke in favor of preserving the lower height. It is appropriate to support the existing NCB buffer, so residents can feel like they are living in a neighborhood, not a walled city. He disagreed that the block needed cleaning up, it just needs some TLC. He said the 45-foot height limit will not kill projects, but require developers to become more visionary in their design. Clark Mapes explained that staff had considered options such as splitting the block and retaining the 3-story limit on the north and allowing greater heights on the south. The alley runs north and south, however, and historic buildings sit across the street from the south blockface. Staff and representatives from Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 20 organizations including the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Downtown Development Authority and neighborhood organizations have walked the entire district, and purposefully set 45-foot height limits in a total of four areas. This area is currently mostly historic and residential structures of one story, but because it is in D Downtown zoning, the residential uses are not protected. Jerry Gavaldon pointed out that the existing neighborhood is viable, and he sees no changes to Washington Park, the Police Station, or the City Building in the near future. He also pointed out other structures in the area that won't likely up and bolt, and argued for keeping the 45-foot designation. Clark Mapes said staff was looking at the long term when assigning height designations to the area, and what would be appropriate should development occur. Sally Craig spoke in general against allowing 12 story buildings -- they're too tall. She could support a maximum of 7-9 stories, but questioned specific areas where even buildings of that height are allowed: the Larimer County Justice Center at Mountain and Mason, which provides a looming backdrop from Old Town Square; Mason and Laporte, where the western views and light would be blocked from the Northern Hotel; and Mason and Maple, where the light would be blocked from the Transit Center, creating ice hazards and cold conditions for bus patrons waiting for their ride. Mikal Torgerson brought up the topic of parking downtown. He said that while ther is a problem, it seems to be localized around Mountain and College and a block or so east and west. He suggested that stepped -up enforcement of parking regulations throughout the Downtown area would not be appropriate, and said it was a good thing that the report gives more autonomy to Parking Services in making these determinations. Bridgette Schmidt added that the problem may be more localized even by times of day, such as lunch and dinner hours. She would like to see more cooperation with CSU to provide shuttles during those times. She also agreed that while there were many ways to look at individual blocks, in general, 12 stories is too high for Downtown buildings. Sally Craig would like to see better coordination with CSU to tap into the campus employee market by conducting a pilot program to provide a reliable shuttle that could get them downtown for lunch in 7 or 7 1/2 minutes. They wouldn't be stuck with fast food on campus, and they could leave their cars parked. She wold also like to the DDA, DBA and maybe the BID make it a top priority to recruit more Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 21 employers that pay higher wages to Downtown to help support the retail and dining sectors. She wants Stormwater to leave the Oak and Magnolia Outfalls at their current five-year priorities rather than moved up to three-year, because there are other parts of the City, such as Buckingham and the area around the proposed Lifestyle Center, that also need work, and a great deal of money has already been spent in the Downtown area. On parking mitigation, she would like to see other options presented, including imposing a fee in lieu of parking on new development and allowing modifications to parking plans, such as providing initial surface parking then upgrading to a parking structure. Imposing a fee rather than just giving parking waivers would help finance needed improvements, including bike stations. Mitigation should be better defined in the document and the multimodal LOS. Jennifer Carpenter stated that she, too, was uncomfortable allowing any 12-story buildings Downtown, and would prefer to see a 7-9-story maximum throughout, with significant setbacks and step backs to minimize impact on historic buildings. Block 43 is between Downtown and the beautiful homes on the Westside, and a taller building would change the character of the neighborhood. Jerry Gavaldon agreed with the maximum height of 9 stories. Changing the height of Block 43 supports what we don't want -- we don't want Fort Collins to look like the Boston presented in Mickey Willis's handout. He would also like to see the City start charging licensing fees for bicycles to help cyclists pay their fair share for the many bike facilities provided throughout the City. He estimated that a $10 annual bike license fee could generate $250,000 for traffic management. Mika[ Torgerson felt the Downtown building heights had already seen significant downsizing, and he would not support any more. The current plan represents a fair compromise between many differing viewpoints. Bridgette Schmidt said that, from the viewpoint of attracting folks from the south of the City to Downtown, reducing the impact of construction projects would be good, especially for pedestrians. She suggested more construction activity take place in the evening, but other Board members pointed out that night time is the busy time in Downtown. Judy Meyer wants anyone who reads the Downtown Strategic Plan to pay particular attention to the Vulnerabilities section, and absorb its lessons. If we stop where we are today, it won't be our Old Town in the future. On the issue of Block 43, Bridgette Schmidt suggested that while 45 feet is rather low for a property in the heart of the D Downtown district, the developers could Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 22 ask for a modification for their specific project if the restrictions stayed at that height. Its location is unique, and the surrounding buffer could afford room for fluctuation without reflecting on the residential neighborhood. Jerry Gavaldon moved for approval of the recommendation to City Council for the Downtown Strategic Plan document Sections 1-4 -- Plan Summary, Framework Plan, Market Action Plan and Transportation Section. Comments made by Planning and Zoning Board members regarding height differences, parking and other comments should be forwarded to Council so Council can see the issues and concerns that have been noted. This summary should also be distributed to Planning and Zoning Board members. Judy Meyer seconded; the motion carried unanimously, 6-0. The Board declined to make an overall statement on building heights, since no consensus could be reached. Timothy Wilder and Clark Mapes were directed to compile the Board's comments, pros and cons, on the issues for forwarding to Council. Mr. Mapes confirmed that the wording of the document will not change as it is circulated to other Boards and Commissions for input. Project: Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, #29- 01A Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for permitted land uses. The proposed uses are lodging establishments, standard and fast food (with drive-ins) restaurants, office, retail, and convenience retail store with fuel sales. The area for the ODP is comprised of existing (Fort Collins Motor Sports) and proposed commercial development on 24 acres located at the southeast corner of the Interstate 25 and Prospect Road interchange. The property is zoned C, Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 23 Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Schmidt asked about a site plan figure. Planner Olt replied that it is an indicator of a multi -modal transportation area. Member Schmidt asked about the Overall Development Plan approval with respect to level of service standards. Planner Olt replied that the approval of an ODP does not give any vested rights. No final plan for any phase of this development could be approved under the adequate public facilities criteria if it is failing. Compliance with level of service criteria is determined at time of Project Development Plan and Final Compliance. Member Meyer asked about funding for roadway improvements. Director Gloss replied that the developer can go in, after PDP approval, and reserve right-of-way. When final plans are approved and permits are pulled, the fees are then paid, including street oversizing and off -site improvements. The improvements at Prospect & 1-25 will have to be in place in order for development to occur. There are some interim improvements that could be made to accommodate some minor uses in the area. Currently, the complete intersection improvements have no funding in place. Building permits could not be issued for this property without the intersection operating at an acceptable level of service. Member Craig asked about this site being and activity center and therefore meeting mixed -use criteria. Planner Olt replied that the site is shown on the 1-25 Corridor Plan as commercial uses. Member Craig stated that an activity center is a commercial use which also requires mixed -use, transit -oriented development. Planner Olt replied that the 1-25 map shows the property as having a variety of commercial uses. Member Craig asked if the future PDP plans are held to the "bubble' diagram of the ODP. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 24 Planner Olt replied that the ODP breaks the property up into several parcels with general types of land uses in each. This determines the general street network and the location of certain types of uses. Generally speaking, a PDP has to convey some level of conformity with an ODP. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about bicycle parking and lanes on and around the property, specifically if they would be along 1-25. City Engineer Marc Virata stated that the traffic report shows bike lanes along the frontage roads which operate at a collector level of service. Ric Hattman, representing Paradigm Properties, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that discussions with Transfort indicated that they did not plan to extend services out there until something is actually built. He stated that the sub -area plans do not allow residential uses within '/4 mile of the Interstate. Therefore, mixed uses that incorporate residential uses, other than the lodging facilities, would not be allowed. There will be lower -intensity uses such as offices as well as the highway -oriented businesses. He added that he anticipated development would not occur for 5-10 years given the lack of level of service. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Member Meyer moved for approval of Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, File #29-01A citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Chairperson Torgerson asked if that parcel was identified as commercial on the I- 25 Sub -Area Plan. Planner Olt replied that it was. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about possibly continuing the item for more information on the 1-25 Sub -Area Plan. Mr. Hattman asked to which meeting the item would be continued Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 25 Director Gloss replied that the October 30, 2003 meeting is largely dedicated to the City Plan Update Transportation Master Plan. If the item did not go on that agenda, it would go on the November 20, 2003 agenda. Mr. Hattman stated that as he would not be in town October 30, he would prefer the item to be continued to the November 20 meeting. Member Meyer and Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon withdrew the motion to approve the project. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon moved to continue Paradigm Properties, Overall Development Plan, File #29-01A to the November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Cambridge House Apartments — Modification of Standards, #6-03B Project Description: Request for a modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces. The site is located at 1113 W. Plum Street and is zoned Community Commercial. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending approval. He summarized the two prior modification requests — the first to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 213 to 175 which was approved, and the second to reduce the number required from 175 to 160 which was denied. This request is for one of two alternatives — Alternative A has a mixed -use component to the building that is along Shields Street; Alternative B would be exclusively a residential building. With Alternative A, the applicant is requesting 170 spaces, including the 1,900 square foot non-residential component. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 26 Alternative B would have a parking deck on the ground floor rather than the non- residential component. That would need a reduction to 174 spaces. Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, gave the applicant's presentation. He gave a slide show illustrating the proposed project with both Alternatives. Public Input There was no public input. Public Input Closed Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if Planner Jones had gotten a chance to go over a survey with the applicant. Planner Jones replied that the applicant would reply. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that there seemed to be some inconsistency with the number of cars each surveyed person had and the number of cars the survey showed. He also stated that the parking lot has been fairly full the last couple days. Planner Jones stated that the survey was filled out by residents; it was up to them to accurately indicate the number of cars they have. He stated that the survey was meant to confirm the information on the number of permits issued. Mr. Brookshire stated that though there may be some degree of inaccuracy in the survey, the results are roughly the same as the number of permits issued. Member Schmidt stated that there are usually vacant parking spaces on the site. She stated concern about the fact that people may not be purchasing the permits and parking for free on side streets. She stated concern about the parking for the commercial uses on the site being difficult to get to. It seems more convenient to park at neighboring properties and walk to the site. Mr. Brookshire replied that it is safer for the access to be onto Plum Street than Shields Street. The Shields Street accesses do not get used as much. Planner Jones stated that the mixed -use component was required with the first parking space reduction approval. That is why the Alternatives are presented as they are tonight. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 27 Chairperson Torgerson stated that he felt very strongly that the mixed -use component needs to be in that area. Thought it may be difficult to get to by car, there would be a great deal of pedestrian and bike traffic going by. He asked if the three -bedroom units could be reduced to two -bedroom units, thus meeting the parking space requirements. Chris Wray with Cambridge House Apartments replied that the building will require a lot of rent to make the project economical. Planner Jones stated that it would require a modification to reduce the number of bedrooms. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he wondered why the modification was being requested at all in an area that has already been shown to have a parking problem. He stated that the demographics of the apartment complex residents could certainly change and more parking spaces would be required in the future. Mr. Brookshire stated that this project meets some of the goals of City Plan in that it uses land space in a more efficient manner. Chairperson Torgerson stated that he agreed. Member Schmidt asked if bike racks were planned for the new building. Mr. Brookshire replied that there are pedestrian connections along the north and south of the building. There is room for bicycle parking along the south and front of the building. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the distribution of parking with respect to standard versus compact cars. He asked what the total parking space count would have been if they had only used standard spaces. Mr. Brookshire guessed that the project would loose about 6-8 spaces if they were all standard size. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked how it would work if there were more standard -size cars than spaces. Mr. Brookshire replied that he followed Land Use Code requirements. Planner Jones stated that long-term parking allows for more compact spaces because of the lower turn -over. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 16, 2003 Page 28 Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the entrances on to Shields Street. Mr. Brookshire replied that both entrances onto Shields from the property will be disconnected. The widths of the Plum Street entrances are adequate as they are now. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there would only be one entrance now. Mr. Brookshire replied that there are two. Member Schmidt moved for approval of Alternative A for the Cambridge House Apartments, Modification of Standards, File #6-03B citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Schmidt stated that the parking lot closest to Shields Street is usually relatively vacant. If cars are truly parking in the neighborhood, the neighbors should start having cars towed and force the apartment residents to buy permits. Vice -Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Chairperson Torgerson voting in the negative. Other Business Director Gloss stated that at the next worksession, the Board would be discussing the new Project Development Plan checklist. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Approved by the Board February 19, 2004.