Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/04/2000U • is Vice Chair Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Meyer, Gavaldon, Craig and Torgerson. Member Carpenter and Chairperson Colton were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Fuchs, Bracke, Virata, Shepard and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. #18-92E Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D., Third Filing - Final Discussion Agenda: 2. #9-00 Downtown Transit Facility — Project Development Plan Member Bernth moved for approval of the consent agenda. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Downtown Transit Facility, Project Development Plan, #9-00 Project Description: Request to redevelop the historic C&S Freight Depot building into the City's Transit Center at the northeast. corner of Mason Street and LaPorte Avenue. The site is located in the Civic Center Sub -District of the (D) Downtown Zoning District Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 2 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ron Fuchs, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He reported that the Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Section 4.12 of the Land Use Code, (D) Downtown zone district. That the Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code except for Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) and Section 3.2.4(D)(3) for which alternative compliance was being requested. He stated that the alternative compliance requests accomplish the purposes of those Sections equally well or better than plans that would comply with the standards of those Sections. Planner Fuchs stated that staff was recommending approval of the Project Development Plan. Member Craig asked for the location of the lighting along Mason Street at the Civic Center Office building that is the same as at the Transit Center, and do they go north to Maple Street. Planner Fuchs responded that there is a proposed pedestrian lighting system all along the whole corridor adjacent to Mason Street. Member Craig asked about the proposed lighting plan chart and which lights were they asking for alternative compliance for. Roger Sherman, BHA Design addressed the question. He referred to the colored plan the Board was reviewing and reported that the red dots are what exist today, which are exactly like those proposed. The green dots in front of the Civic Center office that is approved but have not yet been installed. South of the Justice Center there are a few more green dots that are anticipated as future lights down Mason Street. The blue dots are 50' high street lights, some are existing and some will come with the proposed projects. Roger Sherman, BHA Design gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Sherman gave a brief orientation of the site. He reviewed the site plan, landscape plan, the detention area, circulation and access of the site. He also reviewed the canopy on the east side of the building, full tree stocking, the historic wooden dock being retained and incorporated into the plan, the bike racks, lockers and outdoor seating areas that will support the facility. Mike Rush, Aller-Lingle Architects, reviewed the design of the building. He gave a history of the construction of the building. He stated that in 1997, through a grant from the Historical Society, the building was stabilized and certain parts of the building were restored. The existing freight doors on the east and north elevations are being retained and restored to their original condition; they are adding an aluminum store front system • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 3 which picks up on the character of the existing freight doors. He stated that the existing windows on the south and west of the building would be restored back to their original condition. He also reviewed the outside lighting and rooftop screening of the building. Public Input There was none. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked if the lights on the building were in compliance. Planner Fuchs replied they were not. Member Craig asked if there was something they could do to make the lights on the building in compliance. Planner Fuchs replied he would have the applicant address the question, but it was his • understanding that they needed the brighter illumination to create a more secure area. Member Craig stated that when the Land Use Code was created she was sure that safety was considered when developing the lighting standard. Why was that not enough here when the same standard is used throughout the city. Dave Lingle, Aller-Lingle Architects responded that one of the reasons they have the building mounted lighting was in lieu of additional site pole lighting. The fixtures that are mounted around the building are of the same family of fixtures that blend with the ones that are proposed for the site, but are smaller in height and diameter. They have the same finishes and the same general photometric characteristics to them. They are using them in lieu of ringing the building and the alley with additional site poles, which would be less historically sensitive to the freight depot. Mr. Lingle stated that the part of the fixture that is not in compliance is the lamp itself. The fixture is a cut off fixture; it is just that the lamp hangs below the cut off line. He offered to look at what the manufacturer has to offer in the way of a different fixture that might be more in compliance. Mr. Lingle stated that if they were to use a more non -historic fixture that specifically met the Land Use Code compliance, they would have 30 to 40 percent more fixtures at this site. He stressed that what they are trying to do is blend with the historic fixtures that have already been installed and approved for the Mason Street Corridor as well as • Mountain and Laporte Avenues. They were just trying to tie this all in from an aesthetic point of view. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 4 Member Meyer asked if the general public had been informed and had a concern that there had not been sufficient public outreach on this project, especially informing the public about the cost. Jack Gianola, City of Fort Collins responded that the neighborhood meeting was several years ago. He stated there were not very many people at the neighborhood meeting, but it was a positive meeting. Since that time, through the Transfort and the public meetings they have, they have been through a lot of public outreach with this project. Also, when this site was selected, there was a study done in 1998, and a lot of public outreach was also done at that time. He stated that this project has been exposed to many people through public meetings with Transfort and the public transportation meetings. Member Gavaldon asked if there were records of meeting minutes for those meetings. Planner Fuchs replied that for this file, the neighborhood meeting is the public record. He stated that what Mr. Gianola was referring to was the Mason Street Corridor Plan update. This neighborhood meeting was conducted concurrently with the Civic Center Office Building. Member Gavaldon stated that the Mason Street Corridor did not address this Transit Center specifically. Planner Fuchs added that he has met with the representatives of Washington's Bar and also Autawash to discuss the project. Member Meyer stated that she was not concerned with that, what she was concerned with was this is taxpayer dollars and she felt there was some obligation on the city's part to let the taxpayers know where there money is going. Member Craig asked if the Transit Center was addressed when Transportation did its outreach at the Mall. Mark Jackson, Transportation Department replied that he felt it was presented as part of the Mason Street at the Mall outreach. Member Torgerson asked if the buses will always have to enter from the south. Mr. Sherman replied that the site was designed with a one way loop through the site. The buses can only enter from the south and can only exit onto Maple Street. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 5 Member Torgerson asked about the meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission and that they wanted the applicant to change the aluminum store front color. Was any mention made as to looking at any other type of storefront? Mr. Lingle responded that most of the discussion was centered on the glass and the color of the glass for reflectivity. As well as how to handle the historic windows in the administration area. Member Bernth asked about the size of the building and what was the cost, including the acquisition cost. Mr. Gianola replied that the city project for this is 2.9 million. The building is 6,010 s.f. The 2.9 did not include the acquisition cost. The building was purchased several years ago for Stormwater Utility. Member Gavaldon asked if Mason Street would return to a two-way traffic. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied that there needed to be much more • analysis done on that issue and if it does happen it will be quite a ways down the road. Member Gavaldon asked about the windows on the south side of the building and what measures were they taking to not have to put up the awnings again. Mr. Lingle replied that there was a lot of discussion with the Landmark Preservation Commission about that very issue. Those windows are historic, they are historic clear float glass, and single glazed, no UV or heat control at all. The LPC was very adamant in their opinion that the historic glass had to remain and it could not have exterior storms placed over them that would change the exterior appearance. The only option available to them was interior storm windows. Mr. Lingle stated that if this process does not work then the city would have to go back to LPC and have the request for awnings reviewed as a separate application. Member Gavaldon asked about the eight lights on the building that have already been installed and what process was used to install them. Mr. Gianola replied that those lights were part of the temporary lot that was built when the parking was vacated to build the Civic Center Parking Structure. At the time they had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to meet the lighting. Staff established a theme at that time. They officially did not go through the Planning and Zoning Board; they went through the ZBA. The lights were installed with the intention that P & Z would • review the lighting at this time. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 6 Member Gavaldon asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals uses the same Land Use Guidelines as the Planning and Zoning Board. Planner Fuchs replied that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to follow all the guidelines and provisions of the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon asked if it was appropriate to go to the ZBA for a temporary lot. Planner Fuchs replied that to establish a temporary lot for a two-year period, the ZBA was the appropriate Board to review it. Member Gavaldon asked if the lighting was also approved as temporary with the parking lot approval. Mr. Gianola replied that at the time they went through the process for the temporary lots, and to build the kiss and ride and the transit point for the buses, it was presented to the ZBA that the lighting would be installed at that time and it would become permanent. It was presented to the ZBA that the permanent improvements would be constructed as part of the temporary lot project. Member Craig asked about the recommended improvements from the Civic Center Transportation Impact Study and was the north bound left turn lane on College at LaPorte Avenue being lengthened as part of that recommendation. Matt Baker, Street Oversizing Department, responded that he has been working with Mr. Gianola over the last two years to get a phasing and implementation program put together to get the transportation improvements completed in a timely manner with completion of the construction of the projects downtown. He believes he has been successful; recently City Council has approved the plan with a funded and budgeted project. That project includes not all the improvements in the Transportation Master Plan for the Downtown Civic Center Area, but does include all the improvements necessary to serve the four buildings, but the off -site improvements necessary to make the connections into the existing transportation network with pedestrian, transit and automobile. The turn lane is included in the funded and budgeted program and is out to bid at this time. Member Craig asked if the sidewalk from Maple to Cherry is in the funding just approved. Mr. Baker replied that there is a walk connection in there, but at this point it is temporary asphalt until those sites redevelop. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 7 Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Alternative Compliance to Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Alternative Compliance to Section 3.2.4(D) of the Land Use Code. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon stated he would not be supporting the alternative lighting compliance. He had concerns with the permanent lighting already installed and did not feel the process was done correctly. He felt the project should be continued and alternatives presented that comply with Historic Preservation. The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative. • Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Downtown Transit Facility, Project Development Plan, #9-00. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Torgerson commented that he felt the Landmark Preservation Commission needs more objective guidelines to follow. Member Bernth commented that as a taxpayer, he felt it was pretty inconceivable to spend $500 per square foot on a restoration project. He would be supporting the motion. Member Meyer would not be supporting the motion. She felt this was incredibly expensive and she could not bring herself to support something that was $500 per square foot. Member Torgerson commented that he also was concerned with cost, but they were there to enforce the Code and that issue is not recognized in the Code. He would be supporting the motion. Member Gavaldon commented that was concerned about the process and how it has • been operating. Since we have the Land Use Code, he takes city projects as the bearer of standard in the process. He was concerned about how the lighting went. He was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 5, 2000 Page 8 also a strong believer in Historical Preservation and he agreed that this was a little expensive. He felt the design was fine and retained a lot of features and aesthetics. The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Meyer voting in the negative. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.