Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/25/1988• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES January 25, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colo- rado. Board members present included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairperson Laurie O'Dell. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Debbie DeBesche, Mike Herzig, Kari VanMeter, Linda Ripley, Ken Waido, Rick Ensdorff, and Renee Joseph. Legal representative was Paul Eckman. Planning Director, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included Item 1, Minutes of the December 14, 1987 meeting; Item 2, #53-85J Centre for Advanced Technology, 4th Filing -Preliminary; Item 3, #35-86E Clarendon Hills Patio Homes (Ashford Commons) PUD (Tract C of 1A of Clarendon Hills Master Plan) - Final; Item 4, #14-83B Moreland PUD - Preliminary; Item 5, #28-86C San Cristo PUD, Filing 1 -Fi- nal; Item 6, #60-87A Chaparral PUD -Final; Item 7, #72-87 Poudre Plains Subdivision - Preliminary; Item 8, #73-87 Harvard PUD, The Egg 6 I - Preli- minary and Final; and Item 9, #6-88,A Link-N-Greens Second Annexation and Zoning. The Discussion Agenda included Item 10, #53-85I Centre for Advanced Technology PUD -Amended Master Plan; Item 11, #26-85F Robinson- Piersal PUD - Amended Preliminary and Final; and Item 12, #4-88 Revised Urban Growth Area (UGA) Agreement. Tom stated staff was requesting Item 5, San Cristo PUD , Filing 1 - Final be placed on the Discussion Agenda. Members Crews and Kern abstained from voting on Item 2, Centre for Advanced Technology due to a perceived conflict. Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Member Strom moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 2. Member Klataske sec- onded. Motion passed 5-0. SAN CRISTO PUD, FILING 1 - FINAL Member Edwards noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote. Ted Shepard gave the description of the project. He informed staff wanted this item pulled as summarized in the memo the Board members received along with the memo from the City Attorney. In researching the final documents staff found a legal description that did not quite close. He stated staff recommends approval subject to the condition that the final documents not . be recorded until the surveying is complete, the legal description is clar- ified and the dedication is attained for loth Street. Page 2 Dick Rutherford stated he is the engineer on the project. He explained the problem with the project. He informed where Mr. Sunset's property begins is 12 feet east of the existing dedicated property, therefore; there is a 12 foot strip down the middle of loth Street that is really questionable as to whether it is dedicated to public use. He stated the City is determined the applicant needs to get a quit claim from the original owners of the property to the City of Fort Collins. If this is not possible there will need to be condemnation. The applicant can not dedicate the 12 feet because he does not own the property. The original land owner from 1939 or his heirs need to sign for dedication. This is a surveying problem of such but not an error that can be corrected by himself, the applicant or the City. Paul Eckman informed he had visited the site. He stated if the fence pres- ently is on the property line, which staff thinks it is, this strip of land that neither the City owns nor the developer owns would appear to be along the edge of existing loth Street. He informed the choices would be to somehow come into the ownership of the strip of land either by deed, con- demnation, or quiet title action. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the procedure is difficult. She asked if the owner was known. Paul Eckman stated the City and the applicant does not know who the owner is at this time. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the procedure of locating the owner would be at the expense of the developer. Paul Eckman stated the City might be in the best position to resume the ownership and therefore would incur the expense. Member Kern inquired what type of time span was involved. Paul Eckman stated if the ownership was protested there is no time limit. But with default, the issue could be resolved in a half year or less. No trial would be required for default. Member Kern inquired what effect would this have upon the financing of the development. Vern Sunset indicated he would try to get a quit claim deed from the heirs of the Sam Webster Estate. Paul Eckman stated without the ownership the City might have a problem with the issuance of title insurance for the lots that will be sold. The title company could become concerned about the lack of legal access to 10th Street. Member Kern inquired about the application to HUD. Page 3 Vern Sunset stated the issue could be resolved quickly. Legal problems could arise if a lot purchaser or homeowner could not cross the strip legally. Member Strom asked if the worse case occurred would there be a chance the issue would not be resolved. Paul Eckman stated if the heirs were not located a quiet title action could be filed. If the heirs, when located, do not sign the deed there would be objectors to the quiet title action. The courts would have a question of fact to decide whether or not the public has asserted enough dominion over the property to quiet the title in the public. Member Strom inquired if there were a problem with the quiet title would the last resort be condemnation. Paul Eckman stated this was possible. Member Klataske inquired what the time frame would be. Paul Eckman stated a half year without a trial. He added an opponent could prolong the decision. Immediate possession within a few months would occur . with condemnation. He indicated the City hoped to get the deed; this is the easiest process. Ted Shepard stated normally staff does not place conditions on final PUD's. He informed staff recommends the Board to pass the project with the condi- tion. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if staff is open-ended for a time frame. Ted Shepard responded yes. Member Kern moved to approve San Cristo PUD, Filing 1 - Final with the further condition in the memo from Ted Shepard. This memo stated the final document can not be recorded until full dedication of the land occurred. Member Crews seconded. Motion passed 6-0. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PUD - AMENDED MASTER PLAN Members Crews, Kern, and Brown all noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote. Ted Shepard gave the description of the project. Frank Vaught, the developer of the project, stated the 1985 approved plan was in response to the market place. He commented master plans must have the ability to change. He indicated the goals of the project, as stated in • the 1985 plan, are to create a mixed use plan with High Tech, retail and recreational uses. The proposed inclusion of residential uses in the mas- Page 4 ter plan only further enhances the ability of mutual support between dif- ferent land uses. He stated General Note 1 included this objective. He commented the Board members received a copy of the letter from the Pro- spect/Shields Association. He thanked the association for their input. He stated he aqreed with the comments in the letter but took exception to the issues concerning Tract G, P, and S. First, Tract G is considered beinq out of the flood plain, accordinq to Bob Smith. This smal.l parcel will be used for storage. He stated this is a "house cleaning" item and has no major impact on the concept. Second, the developer has no intention to build student housing on Tract P. The parcel is 9 acres and it is not feasible to develop 10-12 units per acre. To achieve maximum flexibility 18 units per acre is appropriate. Third, the developer was unable to attract tenants to the community center, therefore the parcel will be split into three tracts. These tracts include Retail and Industrial Office usage which will be second to the other tracts of retail use. Finally, to clar- ify the High Tech issue Section DI was defined to compliment the low den- sity use. Second, the corporate facility would be similar to IBM, Kodak, etc. Third, the Holiday Inn is phase one of the incubator space for the project. He then defined retail. He stated Tract S would include office, industrial and retail uses. The office use would be developed largely. Tenants for these uses would fall into the category of Concept Promotional Incorporated, in the first buildinq, and Norlarco Credit Union. Currently in the buildinq already constructed the space is 78% leased. Plans will be submitted April 5, 1988 that include an additional 19,000 sa. ft. of Simi- lar flex -type space, as well as, a total of 250,00 sa. ft. of overall office and industrial type uses. Member Strom inquired about the density proposed for the multi -family resi- dential. Ted Shepard stated Tract P would be developed for 1R dwelling units per acre. Alan Lamborne stated he is the Chair of the project review committee for the Prospect/Shields Association. He commented many issues had been raised in the letter submitted to the Board. He informed the Prospect/Shields Association was in support of Tracts J and M. But there is significant opposition with the development of Tracts G, P, and S, he informed. He stated the December 3, 1987 aaenda was chanced by CSURF which caused confu- sion at the neighborhood meetina. He concluded by stating (1) Tract G be tabled due to a process flaw; (2) Tract P be left in the High Tech use development; and (3) the Board could accept the chances and delete the use of retail to protect the development in Tract P. Chairperson O'Dell explained why Members Crews, Kern and Brown did not Par- ticipate in the discussion and vote. Wayne Shepperd stated he can see Tract P out of his kitchen window. He feels it is inappropriate to include Tract P in the master plan. He was concerned where the children in the development would go to elementary school. Paae 5 • • Ted Shepard stated the children would attend Beattie Elementary School. Wayne Shepperd stated there has been no provisions made for the children walkina to school. He was concerned about the impact on traffic, the fact that no plans had been made for crossings, and that the additional traffic had not been considered. He added he was also concerned about the retail use and inquired what the difference was between Tract R and V. Ted Shepard informed the uses are the same. The purpose is for flexibility for different developers and proposals. Wayne Shepperd inquired about the size of Tract V. Ted Shepard stated the parcel is four acres. Wayne Shepperd inauired how large the buildinq would be on Tract V. Ted Shepard stated the building would be retail use and approximately 4,500 sa. ft. Chairperson O'Dell inauired about the introduction of housinq. Ted Shepard stated this is a question of sequence of how the tracts are • developed. Each tract is responsible for developing a situation which buf- fers all of its adjacent uses. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the adjacent uses were similar uses would there need to be as much buffering and setbacks. Ted Shepard stated the function of land use is the bufferina achieved by several ways, therefore creating flexibility in the system. Dave Edwards discussed the hiqh density residential in Tract P. He asked the applicant to justify the use of this density. Frank Vauqht stated at this point the use is the developer's most educated best guess. Referring to the original 1985 master plan, there were certain tracts that were indicated that could go to a 30 ft. heiaht. Given that height requirement, Tract P was one of these specified, several types of residential uses could be. imaqined. Member Strap asked the developer to explain why Tract S would be developed as industrial office retail as opposed to Tract T. He inquired if the developer had a better idea where to include the retail use. Frank Vauqht stated the Tracts were planned in this manner to allow for flexibility for future uses. He commented he wanted to keep Tract S open for a large tenant since the tract is so large. He indicated at the pre- sent time no large tenant has committed to the parcel. 0 Paqe 6 Member Strom inauired how important it is to delete Tract G from the master plan. He asked if the developer would object to not removing it. Frank Vaught asked staff if a procedural issue was present. Ted Shepard stated there was no procedural issue with Tract G remaining industrial. In response to a auestion regardina the format of the neigh- borhood meeting, he informed neighborhood meetings are not structured like the Planning and Zoning Board meetings. Frank Vaught pointed out possibly one thing that added to the confusion, with regards to the Bay Farm, is currently an enaineerinq study is being conducted dealing with the whole drainage basin. This change happened con- currently with some new efforts. At that time the developer felt it was inappropriate to discuss. Chairperson O'Dell stated anytime something changes from green (recre- ational park) to industrial it is obvious this will cause problems. She inquired if it has been determined that the area is not in the flood plain. Frank Vauqht commented yes. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the change is being made because something is already on the parcel and ultimately has a desirable use. Ted Shepard stated this item is considered a house cleani.nq type issue. Chairperson O'Dell inauired if it was appropriate to make the change because there is a fuel tank on the parcel.. Ted Shepard stated he agreed future unanticipated uses are inappropriate for the industrial use. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if it is necessary to out this on the master plan. Ted Shepard indicated there is no plan to change the fuel storage tank and its preferable to reflect the reality of what is present now. He stated it was better to do this than to remove the tank and call it something else. Frank Vaught stated this issue was considered only a house cleaning item. He indicated he did net want to represent the areen with the fuel tank existing today. He stated he was willing to make the area T-Transitional if the Board would prefer. Chairperson O'Dell stated she felt this was more appropriate. The plan should illustrate what will be seen in the future on the master plan. Page 7 • C, J Paul Eckman commented on the names of the streets on the master plan. Mem- ber Edwards inquired if staff was recommending approval of the entire mas- ter plan. He asked staff if they were willing to change parcel G to T-Transitional.. Ted Shepard stated he disagreed that there needed to be three separate votes. He suggested the Board make a very clear motion as the intention for Tract C. Tom Peterson inquired if Chairperson O'Dell felt it necessary for the changes to be read so the Board could put them into a context for the motion. Ted Shepard commented on the proposed changes. He stated the changes are: that existing Tract D has been redesignated as Tract J, and deletes the transitional land use in favor of elderly housing, health care and multi- family; that existing Tract D has been reconfigured into Tracts N, P, and .Q; Tract G has been reduced from 12 to 8.5 acres and redesignated as Tract L; old Tract A has been reconfigured into Tracts T, U, W, and X, with new acreage totals; existing Tract B has been reconfiqure.d into proposed Tracts R, S, and V, with new acreage totals; and, the new proposed Tract G (2.6 acres) has been created to reflect the existing fuel storage tank. • Chairperson O'Dell informed the Board of their options. She stated the requested changes would have to be reflected in the motion and therefore reflected on the master plan. Member Edwards moved to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology PUD -Amended Master Plan as recommended by staff but added with the inclusion proposed of Tract G being designated as T-Transitional Member Strom stated an additional stipulation: that new Tract S not be all retail but small uses instead. He stated this parcel is very important to the site and would hate to see this section become a major commercial development. Member Edwards stated he accepted Member Strom's additional motion. Member Strap seconded the motion. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the percentage anticipated for retail use on the master plan. Ted Shepard stated the retail. use would include approximately 12.6 acres. He commented he hesitated to attach percentages to these numbers. Member Edwards inquired if the applicant aqreed with this. Frank Vaught stated the current use includes 350,000 sq. ft. of retail. He informed he did not agree with attaching percentages to the retail use. Page 8 Chairperson O'Dell inquired if Members Edwards and Strom wanted to change their motion because of Mr. Vaught's feelings. Member Strom stated he is not sure where the Board stands at this point. He inquired what the Board's options were. Ted Shepard stated if the intention of the Poard is to limit the amount of retail in Tract S then a note should be stated on the master. plan. This note might state that retail use in Tract S will not comprise more than 50% of the parcel. Member. Strap stated the question is more procedural. He inquired if the Board was within their authority to revise the master plan or turn down the application. Paul Eckman stated the applicant wants a ves or no for his project. Chairperson O'Dell stated Frank Vaught had made a good point by defining retail use. She commented she felt everyone agrees no one wants video stores. But by saying "retail" the use is not clear. Member Strom inquired why the major parcels R, S, and V are being changed. This brings up a question of balance in the development plan. Frank Vaught inquired if the Board would accept a definition as to retail being accessory uses to the industrial within this tract. He stated the developer could also work with staff to create more specific lanquaoe that would identify some of the retail uses. He stated retail does not mean department stores but more accessorv-type uses. Member Strom stated given acceptable language he would be comfortable with this. Frank Vaught inquired if staff had such a definition that could be used. Tom Peterson informed staff could not come up with an acceptable definition tonight that would effectively combine the Board's comments. Frank Vaught suggested the Board avoid tabling the project. He requested two votes; one for CSURF and the other for Everett Co. Member Edwards stated he was withdrawing his motion entirely and wanted to make a new one. He moved to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology POD - Amended Master Plan with the provision that proposed Tract G be desig- nated as T-Transitional. Member Rlataske seconded. Member Edwards commented he always appreciates thoughtful, responsible neighborhood input. He stated the concerns of particularly the Pro- spect/Shields Association were well communicated but personally he stated he did not agree with some of the conclusions that were made. Page 9 • C, J Chairperson O'1)Pll stated she felt confident that at the time a specific development is presented to the Board they are better able to judqe the aspects of the project. Member Strom stated he supported the motion. He. informed he avoided amend- ing the motion with the intent of not blocking the amendment to the master plan. He stated it would take a good arqument to convenience him of having general commercial for Tract S. He commented the retail uses Mr. Vaught discussed are acceptable. Motion passed 4-0. Member Edwards noted a perceived conflict and abstained from the vote. Kari VanMeter qave the description of the project. She stated the project is a 4.82-acre site located on the northeast corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue. She indicated the neighborhood had several concerns which included: the encroachment permit, parking, the shadows and ice build-up, truck stackinq, and traffic circulation. She summarized these concerns. Encroachment Permit: the neighborhood feels the Robinson-Piersal owner is unfairly utilizinq a portion of a public right, of way (Maqnolia Street) without due compensation to the City. They are very opposed to the conti- nuance of the encroachment permit. Parking: the modifications to adjacent streets as required by the PUD have resulted in the loss of several on - street parkinq spaces. These modifications include the installation of the left -turn bay in the median on College Avenue at Maqnolia, acceleration and deceleration lanes on Pemington and College, and the loading area and buf- fer strip along Magnolia. There modifications were required to accommodate the traffic demands of the original development, and are not subject to change with the proposal for amendment. Kari VanMeter continued by statinq, however, with this amendment, the staff has required additional site design elements intended to mitigate this loss of on -street parkinq. Shadows and Ice Build-up: the oriqinal PUD contained a residential tower which cast lengthy shadows during the wintertime onto Magnolia Street and the Schofield property. The proposed amended plan shows a single story structure. Truck Stacking: delivery trucks unloading at the Safeway will be. a daily occurrence, and will access the loadinq docks on Magnolia and Reminqton. The Schofield Family Partnership is highly concerned about the safety and aesthetics of trucks stacking up on Magnolia, waiting to unloading their deliveries. Traffic Circulation: a variety of concerns pertaininq to required right-of-way improvements and traffic circulation have been expressed. These include the reduction in width of Magnolia to 50' and the elimination of on -street oarkinq on Maqno- lia; the location of the service area on Maqnolia; reduction of the width of the median planter located in Colleqe Avenue at Maqnolia with the reduc- tion of associated landscaping and on -street parkinq; a long range plan for Maqnolia to eventually become one-way westbound, when required traffic • improvements are designed exclusively for eastbound traffic and the lack of left -turn access to and exit from the site for Rilberry Street traffic. Page 10 Ed Wenek, one of the developers, discussed tho history of the project:. lip stated the plan no longer includes housing which proved not to be economi- cally feasible. Re stressed the remainder of the design is compatible with the downtown character. He commented the building is 25 ft. high which is consistent with the scale of downtown. He stated the elevation along Col- lege has been deliberately made higher for the reasons of the inclusion of loft space and to keep the buildinq in scale with downtown. He informed the Board that the materials are masonry, also consistent with downtown. He stated the design elements included a green area between the street and the building. The special amenities include a seat wall with benches peri- odically, three levels of pedestrian activity, and a seating area on the Remington side of the building. He stated the whole basis of the encroach- ment permit was for screening of trucks and other vehicles in the service area. He stated the developers feel they have gone in excess by adding the walls for screening. He informed in normal conditions the walls would not be present. Bill VanHorn stated he understood that there were two main concerns. First, is the concern that the changed plan does not develop the site to its full potential. Second is the concern about the encroachment permit on Magnolia now that the housing is no longer on the plan. He stated he had come before the Board when the encroachment permit was being discussed. He had made it clear to the Board that he did not feel that the encroachment per- mit should be attached to the housino portion of the project. He suggested eliminating the frontages and using this area for store space on College Avenue, which he commented is not as acceptable. He stated he was con- cerned that this is not considered an intense enouqh development. Kari VanMeter stated staff recommends approval of the project. Chairperson O'Dell informed Mr. VanHorn that it is inappropriate to criti- cize the Board when he was not present at the work session. She stated work sessions are not dress rehearsals for the monthly meetinqs and, there- fore; the Board members feel better about asking dumb questions and makinq more philosophical comments concerning projects. Bill VanHorn commented he did not want the Board members to feel he was criticizing them. He stated he was trying to address what he believed to be worthy concerns. Barbara Schofield stated her husband and herself are the owners of two office buildings in the area of the proposed project. She discussed their concerns. First, the reduction of. Magnolia Street riqht-of-way to 50 ft., which would not leave room for the current parking situation; second, the revokable easement which does not meet the quidelines at present; third, the amount of land given to the developer; fourth, the service and loading area on Magnolia, which is a great concern as the five foot screen will not mitigate the impact off the service trucks or the stacked crates and boxes; fifth, the reduction of the planter on College; sixth, havinq the encroach- ment eliminates the future one-way traffic plan; and, seventh, the elimina- tion of the 30 parking spaces on -street is not realistic even though it Page 11 meets the City's guidelines. She suqqested the Board consider these con- cerns when deliberating on the project. Also she inquired why the prelimi- nary and final were beinq reviewed at the same meeting. She stated she felt only the preliminary should be reviewed toniqht. She stated it is her understandinq that the Board has made the policv that no more grocery stores can be added on Colleqe and wondered why this had no effect on this project. She informed the Board that she is askina for a redesign of the service area so that the access would be on Remington and not on Maqnolia. Bill Fredrickson, the Chairman of the Ft. Collins Downtown Development Authority, stated keeping people in the downtown area is vital. He com- mented grocery stores are an excellent source of people traffic. He stated this project design and landscaping is above averaqe for a grocery store. He stated the loss of the housing is regretted. Member Crews asked if the Board turned the project down would Mr. Wheeler have the option to buildina the project use-by-riaht. Kari VanMeter stated this was correct. Member Crews inquired what control or lack of control would the Board have on such a design. . Tom Peterson stated the use by riaht requires the developer to apply for a building permit and be reviewed on the staff level. He indicated no Board review would be required unless a variance was being requested. Member Crews referenced Mrs. Schofield's complaint about the vacation of the street. He inquired what the north side of the building would look like if it were built use -by -right. Tom Peterson stated the buildinq would look similar to the existing Safe- way. He informed the Board that the PUD is a negotiating process. With the use by riqht there is very little the City can say because there is no negotiation; the developer meets the formulas set by the building depart- ment. Member Kern stated the construction of the Safeway does not bother him but the setting of precedents does. He indicated he was concerned that the developer will build to the edqe of the property. if there is to be any kind of landscaping then an encroachment needs to be granted. He stated the Board received a memo from Chip Steiner regarding the proposed PUD overlays for downtown. He inquired if the project falls under the consid- erations in the memo. Tom Peterson stated no. He commented in terms of the ordinance that the DDA is referring to is a result of suggestions made during staff's review of this project. . Member Strom inquired if there are set backs in the zone if the project is a use by riqht. Page 12 Tom Peterson stated no set backs are required for a zone increase, accord- ing to Joe Frank. He stated the project has to meet parking set backs. Member Brown inquired if the buildinq would sit on the lot line. Tom Peterson stated yes. Member Strom commented reqardina the point chart. He inmiired if the pro- ject receives points for being mixed use or for being total commercial. Kari VanMeter stated the project was accepted for the difference in the retail and other commercial uses allowed by riaht in that none district. Tan Peterson stated because of the combination of office and mixed retail the project received the points. Member Strom inquired what part of the building was the office space located. Tom Peterson stated the entire second floor facing Colleqe is office space. Member Strom inquired what the square footage in the floor ratio was with the housing. Kari VanMeter stated approximately 50% which equals 51,000 sauare feet. Member Strom inquired what the typical floor ratio was for downtown. Joe Frank stated the floor area is normally two times the size of the lot area. Member Strom commented on the revokable permit. He inquiredl if it would meet the current standards. Tom Peterson stated the current guidelines are staff initiated. At present this PUD would not meet the encroachment guidelines. Member Strom inquired what are the requirements. Tom Peterson stated these are staff guidelines. He commented he did not have a copy with him to state the requirements. Paul Eckman stated if the City Code has a conflict with these quidelines the City Code would prevail. Member Strom stated he was concerned about the pedestrian access. He asked staff and the developer to discuss the considerations as to pedestrian access to the site and the downtown area. • Page 13 • 11 Kari VanMeter stated all curb cuts and sidewalks meet the minimum stan- dards. She added the applicant has proposed extensive treatment along Remington so the area will he very user. friendly. Chairperson O'Dell inquired how the pedestrians would access the Remington side of the project. Ed Zdenek stated there is a design problem which involved the storage areas around the periphery. But the design solution would be. to create and encourage pedestrian activity in the area. He stated the downtown area does not have set backs; this is the design norm. He stated a stop sign would be placed on Magnolia and the stop light on Remington and Mulberry would help with pedestrian access. Chairperson O'Dell asked where the pedestrians would cross. Ed Zdenek explained the truck service area would be one access point. Chairperson O'Dell stated if a truck comes back up the ramp how easy would it be to see a pedestrian. Ed Zdenek stated the truck driver would be able to see the pedestrians. . Member Strom indicated he was concerned about the uses on the street fron- tage and if they are acceptable. Ed Zdenek stated this is indeed a concern that needs to be reviewed. Member Brown inquired if the "No Parking" signs on Remington and Magnolia would read "No Parking, No Standing". Rick Ensdorff stated the primary objective on Magnolia is to keep the traf- fic moving. Mr. VanHorn informed the Roard that only one semi -truck would be in the service area at one time. He stated this is part of the management proce- dures. He commented the managers would have to schedule the deliveries to accommodate this procedure. Member Crews inquired where the items seen in the pictures Mrs. Schofield presented to the Board would be placed. Kari VanMeter stated exterior storage of material not in a closed area is not permitted. Member Strom inquired who is responsible to maintain the landscape. Kari VanMeter stated the developer would be responsible. • Chairperson O'Dell inquired which side of the project is being encroached upon. Page 14 Kari VanMeter referred to Exhibit R. in the Board members packets. Mike. Herzig stated the encroachment is approximately 20 ft. for the loadinq area and 10 ft. for the sidewalk and curb area. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the slight left jog will remain at Colleae and Maqnolia. Rick Ensdorff stated the streets line up better with the project. Chairperson O'Dell inquired if the left hand turn from Magnolia and College would be. eliminated. Rick Ensdorff stated the area would remain the same. Member Kern inquired if there were any other encroachments of this nature in the downtown area. Mike Herziq stated yes, but not to this degree. Member Brown inquired if revoking the encroachment would mean takinq away the service area. Paul Eckman stated this was correct. He indicated there are other ways to get the goods into the store. Chairperson O'Dell inquired what the policy was regarding grocery stores on College. Ken Waido stated the City policy specifies that no more grocery stores can be constructed on College Avenue south of Prospect. Member Kern stated there is definitely a problem with the encroachment. He does not want to see Magnolia becoming a .loadinq zone instead of a street. Member Klataske inquired when the one-way street would be. constructed. Rick Ensdorff stated 15 to 20 years in the future. Member Klataske inquired if the ramp was within the property lines on Maq- nolia. Rick Fnsdorff indicated this was true. Chairperson O'Dell suggested postponing the decision for approving the pro- ject. Member Brown suggested asking the developer for his comments regarding Chairperson O'Dell's feelings. • Page 15 • • • Mr. VanHorn stated he did not want to postpone the decision. He commented the use by right would be one option. Ed Zdenek ^uage^Fed the Board meet for a work f-ossion to further discuss the project. Paul Eckman stated the would be an acceptable suggestion if the Board approved. Chairperson O'Dell stated the options the Board had at this point. These options were to approve the project as is, approve with conditions, or deny the project. Member Brown inquired if the Board could approve the project with review by City Council regarding the encroachment. Paul Eckman stated the Board needs to decide if the use for the land is acceptable or not. Member Brown inquired if the encroachment is qranted for community qood. Tom Peterson stated the issue of encroachment permits is an issue for City Council. • Member Brown commented she felt Paul Eckman and Tom Peterson were sayinq conflicting things. she inquired if approving the project would mean approving the encroachment as well. Paul stated since this is part of the Droject, by approvina the project the encroachment would also be approved. Member Brown asked if it could be stated some other way so that the encroachment could be referred to City Council. Tom Peterson stated this could he done. Mr. VanHorn stated since there is a problem with the encroachment he would be willing to withdraw it to qet the project approved. Member Crews asked Mr. VanHorn if he wanted the Board to review the project as a PUD. Mr. VanHorn stated yes, but withdraw the encroachment permit. Member Crews commented there are not many projects with a use by right. Ed Zdenek stated the objective is to get the improvements made. The 20 ft. area would include the walls and landscaping. 0 Page 16 Member Brown stated the 20 ft. area was not strictly for the walls and landscaping, but also for the van service area. Mr. VanHorn stated the back side of the store would be the same as the cur- rent Safeway building. Member Strom moved to continue the discussion of the Robinson-Piersal PUD -Amended Preliminary and Final until Monday, February 1, 1988. Member Kern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Chairperson O'Dell stated the work session would begin at 5:00 p.m. REVISED URBAN GRORTH AREA (UGA) AGREEMENT Ken waido summarized why the agreement is beinq revised. He stated the current agreement expires in Auq_ust of 1988; and, through the history of the aqreement the City has always had the opportunity to fine-tune and revise problems that were perceived to exist. He stated the agreement is in draft document form and is not ready to be adopted at this time. He informed the Board that there will still be meetings so that the Board and the public can give their input. Member Kern referred to Page 7, Line 20 . . . major revision. He inquired as to who defines "major". Ken Waido stated the word major should be stricken from the sentence. Member Kern inquired if the Board could veto. Ken Waido stated the Board could not veto. Member Kern asked if recommendations could be included. Ken Waido stated yes, recommendations could be included. Member Crews stated that this is a good document. He commented that the strongest point of the agreement is the time period for which it runs. This allows for planning. Member Strom also commented that this is a good document. He then asked what action the Board should take at this point. Ken Waido stated he is asking for feedback and for consideration of the agreement from the Board. He commented this would be seen on the February aqenda. With no motion to be made, Member Kern moved for adjournment. Member Edwards seconded. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES The continued meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 5:00 p.m., February 1, 1988, in the CIC Room, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. At 7:05 p.m., the meeting was moved into the Council Chambers. Board members present at the meetinq were Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sandy Kern, Don Crews, Bernie Strom, Sharon Brown and Jim Klataske. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Kari VanMeter, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank, Gail Ault, and Paul Eckman. ROBINSON-PIERSAL - #26-85F Planning Director Tom Peterson stated that the continued meeting was to review neighborhood concerns, urban design elements, traffic issues and discuss the use-by-riaht questions raised at the January 25, 1988 session. Ed Zdenek, project architect, used slides to pinpoint improvements in design. He proposed, on Magnolia Street, to 1) pull the trash compactor wall back eight feet and turn the area into a green area and, 2) raise the wall six feet with two feet of wrought iron. He also reviewed project prog- ress over the last three years. He indicated that there had been no change in the landscaping plan nor the building footprint. The elevation had been • E:nriched in detail. He explained ingress/egress and parking, screening and landscaping resulting in the plaza concept, ending with the statement that the 1985 perspective remained the same. Mr. Zdenek went on to compare the use -by -right plan with the PUD. He indi- cated that it would result in less landscaping along the street. There would also be less detail (and expense) involved in the facade. The seatina area along Remington would be eliminated, as well as most of the pedes- trian -level amenities on College Avenue. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, outlined the public meeting concerns including pedestrian crossings, parking issues, loadinq issues at Magnolia Street, and indicated there would be a possible 4-way stop or signal at Remington and Magnolia. Staff has attempted to improve pedestrian opportu- nities in the downtown area. There would be a right -in, right -out restric- tion on Mulberry and a right -in, right -out turn at College Avenue. With future traffic circulation unknown, several possibilities are available for a future one-way couplet. There will be no parking permitted on the site perimeter. He stated there had been more restrictions on this development than on most to account for future traffic issues. Member Kern questioned how many parking spots would be lost on Magnolia Street. Staff stated that twelve spaces would be lost on Magnolia. Mr. Ensdorff stated that traffic circulation would work. 0 Planning & Zoning Board February 1, 1988 Page 2 Chairwoman O'Dell asked about the radius at College and Magnolia. Mr. Ensdorff confirmed it was proposed at 25 feet versus the existing 10-15 feet at the northeast corner. of Mulberry and Remington. It would make turning easier. The store manager would be responsible to schedule deliv- eries at other than peak times. Member Kern asked how many large delivery trucks there would be. Bill Van Horn, the applicant, stated that there would be one such delivery truck per day. Member Strom asked if there was a similar situation in town. Mr. Ensdorff could not recall one. Member Brown asked about the proposed curbcut at the southeast corner of College and Mulberry. Mr. Ensdorff indicated that it would be eliminated. Ms. VanMeter noted the improved urban design considerations in two areas: 1) building elevations, architectural style, and 2) pedestrian related amenities. The facade had been more defined. The east elevation will use a variety of materials and techniques to break up the 170 lineal feet of unbroken wall. The pedestrian plaza area defined the formal street pattern and was consistent with other downtown improvements. The benches enhanced the urban pedestrian environment. Member Brown asked why the encroachment was granted. Mr. Peterson stated City Council granted the permit. Paul Eckman stated at the time Council made it's decision, they felt the public benefit from the project outweighed the detriment. Member Strom asked how LDGS Criteria 26 had been analyzed integrating site plan elements with the neighborhood. Mr. Peterson gave a presentation showina the site plan was a Good example of urban design and very "user friendly." Staff had attempted to integrate the parking structure with the Mulberry traffic and pedestrian passersby. He viewed the concept as a gateway to the City and felt it tried to give College Avenue an open feeling and clearly articulated pedestrian consider- ations. Member Strom had concerns. The structure design relating to the site was good, however, it was a suburban supermarket on an urban site. The addi- tional landscaping was needed to make the structure "fit" and maybe some other design examples should be looked at, such as those at Toddy's or Steele's, which opened their deli areas to interact with the street. Mr. Peterson stated the increased landscaping helped. Member Strom then asked if there should be 500 feet of wall, referring to the eapt elevation of the building. He asked whether or not there could be retail space on Remington Street. Planning & Zoning Board February 1, 1988 • Page 3 u • • Mr. Zdenek stated that corporate Safeway allowed very little deviance in floor plans. He felt architecturally they had gone as far as they could go. He added he personally believed Remington Street was more important than Magnolia with its many pedestrian connections. The design plan for Reming- ton Street contained a significant landscaped area, as well as pedestrian amenities. Member Strom indicated that the added store frontage on Colleae helped make the project more dynamic and wondered if something similar could be done on Reminaton. Mr. Zdenek noted the developer felt the Remington soaces couldn't be leased. Mr. Van Horn indicated they didn't want Safeway to become a "hall- way" for other businesses. Mr. Peterson asked why the delivery section was so long. Mr. Zdenek responded it was necessary because of the turning radius required by the City. Mr. Zdenek felt the truck screening was a high priority and they had worked with that design constraint in mind. Member Brown asked if her perception that the trucks had to back in from Remington was correct. Mr. Zdenek stated the concept was to stay off Remington with a loading area. However, Remington would be used in truck maneuvering. Mr. Peterson noted the wall would be covered with vegetation during the growing season. Mr. John Barnett, ZVFK Architects, indicated the covering_ was ivy. Member Kern stated Mr. Zdenek had done as well as could he expected but wondered why the developer was initially given City property. He presumed it was a trade-off for architectural style. Mr. Peterson noted that the City's current encroachment policy was not in place at the time the permit was issued. Member Kern added that, in his opinion, the Board went along with encroachment because of public benefit. Perhaps the Board was seeing the item differently with the revised design. Mr. Zdenek stated the permit was not a trade-off and was asked for as a means of better servicinq through the screening. Member Brown asked about the 30 foot encroachment and the ten feet of screening. Mike Herzig, TWvelopment Coordinator, indicated the 30 foot encroachment was to insure all curb, gutter, landscaping could be included. Actually, it is less than 30 feet to the edge of the gutter but allowed some leeway in the event the street must be rebuilt. The encroachment permit is for 18-20 feet of service drive and 10 feet of landscapina_, side- walk, curb and gutter. • Ms. Schofield asked where the sidewalk was. Mr. Herziq replied that it was within the right-of-way. Plannino & zoning Board February 1, 1988 Page 4 Member Kern asked if the building shadow would ever touch the Schofield buildinq. Mr. Zdenek replied on December 21, the worst day, it wouldn't hit the building. Chairwoman O'Dell opened the discussion to the public. Ms. Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore Drive, property owner of building to the north, had several concerns. She felt the truck traffic was being forced to South College because the design was poor and she couldn't understand the rationale. She asked what other options had been looked at and why weren't they pursued? Truck turning would be difficult, and she felt staff was not giving accurate answers. She asked about_ trucks from the north turning east and whether they would block southbound College and felt the circulation constraints would have a terrible impact. She felt the City wanted truck traffic off College except in this instance. Also the one-way hadn't been sufficiently addressed. She could not comprehend why the street was being minimized or what would happen if their property decided to expand. Should the City give up the land with the encroachment permit ($175,000 value)? other developers add amenities on their own property and feel that it is intrinsic to the property value, not lust for the public gam' Regarding the use -by -right, Ms. Schofield indicated control of curbcuts had never been mentioned though it was sure to have an impact. The encroachment permit also didn't look as though it was set back at all on the new site plans. Should the wall screening be owned by the City? She added a small portion of the building to the north was a separate entity with it's main entrance on Magnolia and the truck traffic would affect this tenant partic- ularly, as well as her other tenants. They, as property owners, were not delighted by this project. Ms. Schofield also brought up the point that with the C.A.T. pro-iect, the Board indicated the later project must be sensitive to what exists and she would like the same consideration in this instance. She added the Scho- fields were not the only persons with concerns on this project, as Board members also had expressed concerns. Reqardinq truck traffic, she noted trucks don't go on College now to deliver to the old Safeway. Steele's doesn't impact the downtown near as much as this project. She was also concerned that the 30 open parking spots would be used by downtown employees and not actually benefit the downtown traffic. She also felt the store's manager would schedule truck traffic according to the store's convenience, not downtown traffic con- cerns. In closing, she indicated, as adjacent property owners, they felt the Board's discomfort, including concerns with the encroachment easement, and the Board should turn down the project. They should not be held hostage by a developer with the threat of a use -by -right. Planning & Zoning Board February 1, 1988 • • Page 5 Is Chairwoman O'Dell asked Mr. Zdenek a question regarding the four foot of building at the north and was told this takes less space than the deletion of parking on the south side of the street. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the project could be moved four feet, or if the retail space could qive up four feet. Mr. Zdenek replied the loading area needed a minimum of 20 feet and there was three feet allowed for sidewalk and landscaping. The Safeway store configuration can't be changed. Mr. Van Horn stated Safeway was committed to the site and their other site is sold. They have discussed the use -by -right and would reduce the number of users if this possibility is followed. The result would be a major redesign and change the cash flow, therefore the landscaping, building materials, etc., would be reduced to make up for the reduced cash flow. They didn't intend for the encroachment permit to be anything more than a way of managing the grocery store loading area. It was not related to the Senior Housing. They entered into this project in good faith and feel now the rules are changing. He added it was very discouraging and to shave four feet at this time would be a redesign and he really questioned whether anything would be gained. Mr. Zdenek added the landscapinq was consistent with what currently exists across the street. The downtown was looking for pedestrian spaces and this project provided that. Mr. Zdenek believed Mr. Ensdorff felt this was the • correct solution. Member Brown asked about the green area on Magnolia and what it would look like in the winter. John Barnett addressed her concern indicating a slush buildup frequently occurred under coniferous trees, and hence the landscap- ing plan would include Boston Ivy and Autumn Purple Ash (a deciduous tree). Chairwoman O'Dell asked if someone on the Board could make a motion. Member Kern moved to approve Robinson-Piersal, Preliminary. Member Brown seconded. Member Kern stated his reason for recommending the preliminary was that he felt additional discussion was necessary on the final. He believed that the Board should be addressing the basic question "Do we want to approve this project as it stands right now?" Member Crews stated the encroachment issue should not be an issue as it was a City Council decision. He was concerned with this project being done as a use -by -right, trading 80 trees for 19 and 600 shrubs for 150-200, and would support the project as a PUD. Chairwoman O'Dell asked for any other comments. U1 Planning & Zoninq Board February 1, 1988 Page 6 Member Brown indicated that she struggled with the encroachment policy and felt very frustrated, however, the encroachment was granted not because of the housing but because there was public benefit. City Council should review this project to see if the public benefit still remains. She was personally troubled by the service area but, because the volume wasn't great, she felt traffic would flow better. The streetscape and building design were good, therefore she would vote for the preliminary approval. Member Strom felt the encroachment permit helped the project. He stressed that he was voting on site design only. He was concerned with the suburban store on an urban site, having two to three good sides and one and one-half poorly designed sides. He didn't feel he had the leveraqe he desired and ended by reiterating that the Board not tie the vote with the encroachment issue. Member Kern appreciated Member Strom's comments and felt preliminary approval would give Council one month to examine the encroachment permit if necessary. He felt he liked the "looking better" prospect to the use -by - right and would vote for the preliminary approval. Chairwoman O'Dell questioned the public parking and asked if the lot could be signed. Mr. Ensdorff indicated it was a possibility, or City could sign the street parking, freeing that up, and the lot could be used for employee parking. Chairwoman O'Dell felt while the choices were not the best, the City would be better off with the PUD and she would vote for it. Motion was carried 5-1 with Member Strom voting No. There was no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. 0 0 0 .......... ...... N COUNTRY C U %........ f7 70.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-� . . . . . ... . . . N. LEMAY PLAZA 'ROBINSON W PIERSAL HIGHWAY 14 A VAL MEDI C X ",'DRAKE OFFICE PARK, Lot ll::