Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/03/1988• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1988 MINUTES The regular meeting of the September Planning and Zoning Board meeting reconvened at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers, New City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Laurie O'Dell, Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Jim Klataske and Jan Shepard. Member Walker was absent. Staff present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard and Kayla Ballard. Legal staff was represented by Paul Eckman. Chairperson O'Dell congratulated the City and the Planning Department for the Innovations in State and Local Government Award. THE MARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS LOT 5, Preliminary - f96-81M Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects, stated that this was a re -presentation of the 1987 approved project. He stated that there was a 40 foot setback, 10 feet of servicing area, and a greenbelt. The project was within 20 feet of the road. This plan was a smaller building than originally presented. The greenbelt had been increased, a drive-thru added, the green area improved, and a menu board added. A second drive-thru was proposed. This will be used for the dry cleaners business. He stated that they are introducing an urban plaza with a connection to future development. There will be hearts - cape on the order of Old Town and a patio. This plan has reduced the square footage to 12,000 square feet. Mr. Shepard gave the staff report. The report recommended approval. Anna Mae Zollner, 3614 Richmond Drive, inquired about the mailed notice that stated the zoning would be reverted back to residential. Mr. Shepard replied that he was not aware of this notice. Ms. Zollner stated that progress had been made. She stated she was pleased with the convenience store arrangements. As a resident, she had seen that Shields Street had become more than a residential street. It was not easy to blend residential and commercial but felt it was important to keep that in mind. The intersection of Horsetooth and Shields was important. This intersection was one of the first views of the city so it was also impor- tant to make this intersection pleasing to the eye. She stated she approved of the church at that corner and was concerned about a liquor store being proposed for this area. Some other concerns she had were the noise level and traffic. She felt that 1.3 acres is too small of an area for this pro- posal. She asked how the retail space will be used. She suggested that the . Board give a lot of consideration if a liquor store was proposed in the future. She felt an anchor store should be placed at that intersection before the retail shops are placed. P & Z Minutes October 3, 1988 Page 2 Member Edwards asked Mr. Zdenek if the drive-thru window of the restaurant would face the arterial street. If this was the case, were there mitiga- tions measures that could be taken to deal with that situation. Mr. Zdenek stated that they have increased the buffer with a 3 foot high berm and added intense landscaping. Dense shrubbery will also provided. The entire area would be hidden with the landscaping. Only the top of the cars could be seen from the street. He stated that the service area had been pulled farther back to the building. Member Edwards commented that the screening of the drive-thru was of con- cern. He stated he would like to make this a condition of approval. Member Kern stated he had concerns in regards to the intensity of use on the site, particularly given the size of the buildings and the amount of traffic on the east and west sides. He toured the site and found the lot to be smaller than he thought it was. He stated he was concerned how the traf- fic would flow in this area, with vehicles coming in from the north while vehicles would emerge from the dry cleaners drive-thru and the fast food restaurant. Mr. Zdenek demonstrated on the site plan how the circulation of traffic would flow through the site and stated that the existing mound of dirt would be removed during construction. He stated they have the square foot- age down to 6,000 square feet of building on a 1.3 acre site. Member Kern stated there was a conflict with vehicles manevuering in the parking area on either side of the exit way. Member Groznik asked for clarification of the entrance of the parking lot. Are people expected to back up the length of the parking lot if it is full? Mr. Zdenek stated that there will be access room at the end of the parking lot for turnarounds. He stated that he will try to address the automobile movements before final and report back to the Board. Member Edwards commented that the east parking lot was very similar to the Swenson's parking area. As a user, it was not optimal, but certainly ade- quate, and if the private sector chooses to deal with that, then that was their business. Mr. Zdenek stated that the exits will be reviewed between preliminary and final. Member Kern asked Mr. Shepard for his opinion on this matter. Some of these proposals would mean that there are curb cuts in places where curb cuts were not desired and might mean the elimination of the plaza seating areas. Mr. Shepard stated that when the project first was reviewed, a curb cut was shown on the east side of the parking lot, which aligned with the Circle K curb cut. That was perceived as having an impact on the Horsetooth access drive intersection. The City Traffic Engineer asked the applicant to amend the traffic study to analyze that impact. The applicant eliminated the pro- posed cut. ti P & Z Minutes • • October 3, 1988 Page 3 . Mr. Zdenek stated that they did proceed with the traffic study which showed that the curb cut could work. He stated they chose to do it the way it was submitted because they felt it was better. Member Kern stated that if there is another curb cut there would be four entrances and exits on this site. Mr. Zdenek stated that there would be only three entrances and exits. Member Kern asked what would happen if the traffic were to go east to west instead of west to east, this way the conflict would be avoided with cars coming north and south on the eastern parking area. Mr. Zdenek stated that this would work except that the driver would be on the wrong side for the drive-thru window. Member Shepard suggested that the building be flipped and the drive-thru placed on the north side. The primary access to the retail should be on the south, she stated. She asked if there was an access or curb cut on Horse - tooth between this site and the Circle K. Mr. Zdenek stated that there was not. Member Shepard asked if the Circle K had a curb cut on Horsetooth as well as the one on Shields. Mr. Zdenek stated that the Circle K has no direct access to Horsetooth or Shields. Their access is from an internal circulation system. Chairperson O'Dell stated that there were curb cuts but they do not directly access the parking lot of the Circle K. Member Shepard asked if there was any problem, from the City's traffic standpoint, with two curb cuts on Richmond and two curb cuts on Horsetooth. Mr. Shepard stated that the curb cuts for the entire site had been reviewed at the master plan level and the preliminary level. They are reviewed tho- roughly in the process. Member Shepard asked for clarification of the width of the buffer on the south. Mr. Zdenek stated that there was a 44 foot setback. There was 25 feet of green area. Member Shepard asked if the dry cleaning would be done on the premises. Mr. Zdenek stated that the dry cleaning would be transported to their cen- tral store. Member Klataske asked if the traffic could be taken through the drive-thru window just to the east side, then go to the north and back onto the road . coming in. Could this be a one directional drive-thru? P & Z Minutes October 3, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Zdenek stated that this could be possible. He added that they will review this before final. He stated that they would like to maintain a min- imum of 9 feet of green if possible. Member Shepard asked if there was a prospective tenant for the retail space. Debbie Tamlin, developer of the project, stated that there were several prospective tenants, mostly small retail uses such as children's shops and clothing. Member Klataske asked if a liquor store was a consideration for this site. Ms. Tamlin replied that a liquor store was a consideration. Mr. Zdenek stated that a liquor store request would go through a separate board for approval and if a church had prior ownership, there was a possi- bility that a liquor store could not be placed. There was no deed restric- tion but there was a state law that would mandate a certain separation of churches. Member Edwards asked staff about the issue of leaseholders and shared park- ing. He stated the Board was asked to render an opinion on what was good, bad or indifferent, although it was on private property. He asked that when the Board was acknowledged that they are reviewed a shared parking plan, was there a way in which the Board could be relieved of the responsibility of the shared parking disputes. Mr. Shepard stated that this site was larger than the one that Member Edwards referred to. The Board has the opportunity to examine the shared uses, the peak times of overlap, the amount of overlap, and what the per- ception would be of shared parking lot. The comfort level that staff had on this project was that the balance of the center had yet to be developed and there will be opportunity in the future to provide additional parking if there becomes a conflict with the tenant users. Member Edwards stated that the Fort Collins Club site relied on shared parking. It was a nice concept but it could be abused by the tenant and even the owner. If a shared parking dispute becomes a private property fight, then the Board should leave it as a private property fight. Mr. Eckman stated that the Board should not be a referee on parking dis- putes, although they will come up. A pure cold parking dispute that has no connection with the proposal should not be something that the Board should deal with. Member Kern stated that the Board may have to confront these issues because this proposal was incremental approach. Member Groznik asked if the two islands with four trees was part of this parcel of land. Mr. Zdenek stated that it was not part of the PUD but was part of the future development. P & Z Minutes • October 3, 1988 Page 5 • Member Groznik asked if those trees will be installed as part of the improvements when this parcel gets developed. Mr. Zdenek stated that this was not the intent. Chairperson O'Dell asked where the deliveries to the sub shop and the dry cleaning would be. She also asked where the van would park and where would the person carrying the dry cleaning walk to get to the business. Mr. Zdenek stated that the deliveries would be front door service, much like parking. The person with the dry cleaning would walk across the drive- thru lane, as would the person in the van. This would happen around 8:00 in the morning so there shouldn't be too many conflicts. Chairperson O'Dell asked where the signs are proposed to be in this devel- opment and the maximum number of signs. Mr. Shepard stated that, at the preliminary stage, it had been indicated there would individual tenant signage on the building fascia walls and one monument identification sign. The large retail area to the north would have frontage on Richmond and they would receive their sign allowance on Rich- mond. Chairperson O'Dell asked for clarifications of improvements to Horsetooth Road next to the site and how that will affect the setbacks. M Mr. Shepard stated that currently there was a median and it would be extended to the west as each platted lot develops. It was proposed to go to Richmond. All turning movements on Horsetooth would be right -in, right -out with deceleration lanes westbound on Horsetooth to enter into the curb cut. Member Edwards moved to approve The Market at Horsetooth Commons Lot 5 Preliminary with the condition that attention be paid to the berming, buf- fering, mitigation of the existence of a fast food drive-thru lane facing a major arterial. Member Kern seconded. Member Kern commented that the use was appropriate but felt uncomfortable with the way traffic moves on the east and west sides. He added a further condition that the internal traffic conflicts be resolved by time of final. He stated he can not vote for this with the existing traffic conflicts in final unless they were corrected. Member Edwards agreed to this additional condition. Chairperson O'Dell stated that she could not support this motion because LOGS Criteria f33 asks "Does the street and parking system provide for smooth, safe and convenient movement of vehicles on and off the site?" She felt that this project does not meet this criteria. She also reviewed Criteria #35 "Does the development satisfy the parking capacity require- ments of the city and provide adequate space suited to the loading and unloading of person, materials and goods?" She felt there was a conflict with people going to the dry cleaning and having to cross the dry cleaning drive-thru. In Criteria #34, it asks "Is the street and parking system P & Z Minutes October 3, 1988 Page 6 designed to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site config- uration?" She felt the drive-thru on Horsetooth, even bermed, was appropri- ate to have at this site. Member Edwards commented that difficult problems to review was the differ- ence between what the Board, as public sector people, should do and what should be left to the private sector to figure out for themselves. He had concerns with the buffering and where the street leaves off and the private property access way. At the preliminary stage, there may be some issues which were not sufficient enough to deny this project. Member Kern commented that it is incumbent upon the Board not to mislead either the developer or the public. If the Board felt uncomfortable with the preliminary, it would be difficult with the present plan to pass it at final. The points that the Board had indirectly raised bear upon this pro- ject. Motion to approve preliminary only passed 4-2, with Member Kern and Chair- person O'Dell voting no. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 3