Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/18/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 18, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, Don Crews and Alternate Linda Lang. Member Sharon Brown was absent. Board members present at the November 15, 1985 worksession included Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, David Edwards, and Sharon Brown. Members Don Crews and Linda Lang were absent. Staff members present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Joe Frank Bonnie Tripoli, and Gail Ault. Legal staff was represented by John Huisjen and Steve Roy. Member Edwards moved to approve consent agenda items 1 (the minutes), 3, and 4. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. #26-85B ROBINSON-PIERSAL PLAZA PUD, Phase One - FINAL #26-85C ROBINSON-PIERSAL PLAZA PUD, Phase Two - FINAL Both items were reviewed together because project was to be constructed simultaneously. Chairman Dow noted the appearance of a potential conflict and did not participate in the discussion or vote. Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects, indicated he and several others were back tonight for final approval of phases one and two. The concerns about traffic, aesthetics along Magnolia, east building elevation, landscaping on the north and east sides, lessening of the Magnolia Street encroachment, and completion of both phases together had been addressed. He stated this was an important project as the gateway to downtown. To address Board's concerns they have moved the building three feet to the south, the west and south elevations remain the same but the east and north have been changed. Additional landscaping has been added on Magnolia, three feet of wrought iron have been added to the railing atop the five foot brick wall, bay windows have been added for architectural interested as well as a brick relief wall treatment. Elaine Kleckner gave staff presentation indicated support from a land use policies point. She noted applicant needs a permit for encroachment of service area in the ROW and needs to increase the landscaping in this limited space. The applicant may add on the site plan the final design of the east wall treatment and it must be approved by the City. She added there was a change of 67 versus 64 elderly housing units (people 62 or Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 2 older) in the plan. Board concerns had been addressed and staff was recommending approval. Member Kern asked the affect of traffic at the Magnolia/College intersection. Member Brown asked what year the traffic study reviewed. Member Ross asked about the turning movement. Member O'Dell questioned what would happen to the people currently parking on the vacant lot. Mr Zdenek responded to above questions. John Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore, representing the owners of 323 and 330 S. College, stated they had worked hard to enhance the area and don't want anything to compromise the area. The project is in a significant location and needs to be done properly. Their concerns deal with the streets getting narrower, the precedent of allowing a developer to use the ROW, decreased parking. He didn't believe the traffic flow would work on Magnolia even given today's scenario - future traffic would cause an even bigger problem as United Bank grows. He also asked if the City could actually revoke the ROW permit. Mr. Schofield had some specific concerns relating to the service area: unattractive and unsightly particularly to neighbors to the north, odor from trash, fumes from trucks would be objectionable, and the service area interior at 20 feet in width was too tight. While they previously supported the eastbound turn off College to Magnolia they now feel the loss of 4-6 parking spaces is detrimental. The landscaping has been changed only minimally and the north side is all deciduous trees with the largest being no more ;than 10 feet high. He would like additional evergreen plantings added to keep in character with the neighborhood. They support the project as a mixed use concept but feel there is an overall detrimental affect on the area. Member Ross asked about the screening of Safeway's rooftop apparatus and Mr. Zdenek replied it would be screened when possible. He then asked about the storage of runoff water and was told normally it takes 20-30 minutes for the runoff to dissipate. Member Kern wondered if the noise from the apparatus would bother the apartments and Mr. Zdenek stated the units were clustered to help visually as well as audibly. Member Kern asked if additional parking was available. Mr. Zdenek responded there was additional parking provided for the neighborhood. Member Ross asked about the landscaping and circulation. The area in question was quit narrow for extensive landscaping according to Mr. Zdenek and he went on to explain the one-way circulation. Mr. Schofield noted that 34-36 parking spaces were being eliminated and only 30 added for a net loss. Ms. Kleckner concurred. Member Edwards asked about the procedure and whether the project could be approved with conditions. Ms. Kleckner stated it was dependant on the extent of conditions. Planning and Zonin oard Minutes . Nov 18, 1985 Page 3 Member Brown questioned the wall facade/art feature. Ms. Kleckner felt there would be no problem with that condition. Mr. Zdenek stated they were working with the City on selection of the art. Ms. Kleckner added there could be a condition that the final design receive City approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Attorney Huisjen stated it was difficult to describe architectural standards. Member Ross asked legal opinion on the wording of the condition. Member Brown felt size of the design should be specific. Member Lang moved to approve the two final projects. Member O'Dell seconded. Member Ross noted the projects would be built simultaneously. Member Edwards thought it should be added that council will deal with the issue of a revokable encroachment. Members Lang and O'Dell accepted the amendment. Motion carried 7-0. Ms. Kleckner clarified definition of revokable permit. #4-83H CUNNINGHAM CORNERS PUD - MASTER PLAN #4-83I CUNNINGHAM CORNERS COMMERCIAL CENTER, Tract C - PRELIMINARY The Master Plan and Tract C were discussed together. Member Lang abstained from the discussion and vote due to a cnnflirt of infprpct Ms. Kleckner gave staff description of the projects. Linda Ripley, ZVFK, representing the applicant/owner, indicated the master plan changes affecting only Tracts C & D. She described Cunningham Corner, Willow Grove, Five Oaks and then the amended changes to the master plan. Market studies showed the need for a retail development in the area, hence the amendment. Chairman Dow asked about the status of the out parcel and Richmond Drive extension. Ms. Ripley replied there was a condition on the preliminary plan that Richmond Drive go through. Responding to Member O'Dell's question on what would happen to the out parcel Ms. Ripley stated it was the applicant's intent to purchase and incorporate into the condominium project. Ms. Ripley continued that Tract C will retain much existing vegetation along Shields. The proposed land uses are retail along Shields wrapping around to Horsetooth with retail in the center and fast food firms (the most intense use) located furthest from the residential areas. The project is well organized for parking and pedestrian access with primarily small scale retail firms to serve the immediate neighborhood. Office condominiums, most likely owner occupied, would be oriented at angles to the adjoining green space. Member Crews asked the distance of the two curbcuts and Ms. Ripley believed they were 234 feet apart. She showed the elevations noting they blended with each other and the existing structures. This plan required a revision to the Master Plan and 162 people were notified of the neighborhood meeting. Only four people attended and all were in favor of the project. Planning and Zoning ird Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 4 Member Edwards asked the distance of the office portion from the residential and Ms. Ripley noted it was approximately 35 feet. Member Ross asked about the left turn at the westerly most access from Horsetooth Road. Ms. Kleckner stated it was workable as planned. Member Brown questioned the setbacks on the building closest to the recreation area to its property line as well as the privacy of the people in the pool. Ms. Ripley noted at least 60 and probably 70 feet (Mr. Vaught interjected 85 feet) from the pool with 45 foot setbacks from the building corners to Shields. The tower height is 40 feet, or less. Ms. Kleckner gave staff presentation describing the neighborhood center. The staff believes it is a good design and glad the project is retaining the existing trees and planting evergreens on the perimeter adding visual relief. Richmond Drive needs to go through and will be finalized at time of final. She felt a reasonable amount of parking was provided and the applicant had used the same ratios as the City guidelines except at the fast food building. Staff is recommending approval with conditions that Richmond Drive be dedicated with final, the enclave be annexed prior to the final, a detailed parking analysis be provided at final, elevations for fast food/retail/bank be shown at final, and the child care center be included at final per Master Plan revision. Member Ross asked about child care drop-off and pick-up. Member Kern wondered what concerns neighbors had expressed at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kleckner stated there was a 35 foot setback with evergreens for shielding and this would be looked at closely at final. Member Brown asked if there was an error on the percentages on Point Charts A & F and Ms. Kleckner concurred. Frank Vaught responed there was an existing fence in place surrounding the pool and no planned fence to the south in response to Chairman Dow's question. There was no public discussion on the project. Ms. Kleckner noted she had been contacted by Jackie Lecouteur, 3162 Worthington, regarding her concerns about retail use at that location. She didn't feel the need for a shopping center and felt the Shields traffic was already too intensive. Chairman Dow needed clarification on the role of the child care center in both plans. Ms. Kleckner noted it was not necessary on the master plan but shouled be included on the preliminary. Frank Vaught indicated he would like the day care use indicated on the master plan and not have it tied down to Tract C. Member Kern moved to approve the project subject to staff conditions. Member Crews seconded. Member Kern asked to amend move to address concerns to eastern portion and the privacy for eastern residents through landscaping. Member Edwards accepted amendment as an addition to the conditions. Planning and Zonin4oard Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 5 • Member Brown questioned pedestrian circulation. Ms. Ripley pointed out the pattern. Ms. Kleckner noted staff will look at this in detail at final. Chairman Dow wondered if there was need for an acceleration lane. Ms. Kleckner stated a decerleration lane was provided per traffic engineering request but they didn't feel an acceleration lane was necessary. This also will be looked at at final. Bob Lee, Transportation, noted the bicyle lane is behind the trees on the northbound lane at Shields by Richmond Drive so there would be no room for a decerleration lane. North of Richmond there is no reason to have an acceleration lane. A signal would be installed if warranted but it is not called for in the near future. There will be a light at Horsetooth and Shields. Motion carried 7-0. p4-83G CUNNINGHAM CORNERS SEVEN -ELEVEN PUD - Preliminary and Final Ms. Kleckner gave staff description as called out in the master plan. Frank Vaught introduced Carolyn Lundgreen, Seven -Eleven in-house architect, and stated they were available for questions. He explained the circulation and stated most units are sold. Trash receptacle will be furthest from the residential uses. There is a 17 foot high parapet wall screening the rooftop equipment and he described the landscaping and buffering, lighting techniques, changes in the facade to keep the project consistent with the surrounding areas. The sign bands on the building had been removed on the east, west and north sides and replaced with brick detailing but it will occur over the front band. Member Ross asked if public restrooms would be available and where signage occurred on the pump canopy. Carolyn Lundgren, Mountain Division Construction Coordinator, indicated there would be two restrooms, fully handicapped -accessible, available to the public. This is an upgrade from previous standards. Signage is based on what is allowed by the sign code. The canopy is dark bronze aluminum. Landscaping maintenance is done by the individual store. Member Ross questioned location of the doors and why there are security lights where there are no doors. Ms. Lundgren responded lighting was provided to keep loitering problems to a minimum. Member Edwards questioned the circulation of the gas truck when dumping and lighting of the store front. Ms. Lundgren responded indicating there would be soffit lighting. The obvious decrease in crime at 7-11s in the last five years is attributed to the new programs implemented making them safer and better. Regarding outside storage she indicated there will be no ice machines. Wood bundles would be an operational decision and could be merchandised differently. Planning and Zoning and Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 6 Member Ross asked if video games would be available and Ms. Lundgren stated there would be 2-3 machines next to the sales counter. If the video machine was removed the space could be an ATM, select -a -seat ticket machine, etc. Several members asked specific questions regarding the gas pumps, deliveries, etc. Ms. Lundgren responded deliveries can be scheduled at non -peak hours, the gas service would be available 24 hours/day and the two speakers on the four columns were not loud. Ms. Kleckner gave staff report recommending denial based on a land use concern and LOGS all development criteria #2. Chairman Dow indicated this was different from what was presented at worksession for preliminary approval. Ms. Kleckner stated matching the brick was a positive change. Regarding Chairman Dow's question concerning a limit on signage she responded we must be careful to limit the PUD. Member O'Dell questioned the right -in only entrance close to Horsetooth and Ms. Kleckner felt it was a fairly logical circulation path. Member Kern asked staff's objection to the canopy and she stated the materials were not compatible with the commercial center plans or the residential. Also, from past experience, staff felt lighting would be intrusive to upper level apartments. Member Kern felt that since only downlights were present and the back lights had been eliminated it would not be intrusive. Ms. Kleckner stated the canopy needs directional lighting. Mr. Vaught clarified the material along the canopy. Chairman Dow questioned if Board gave approval, were applicant's submittals current. Ms. Kleckner stated if Board agreed canopy blended in, they still needed northern access narrowed and lighting should be more defined. Mr. Vaught stated final documentation is all in place. Linda Peters, Chestnut Village resident, was fully in support of the project. It provided a valuable convenience and steps have been taken to make it aestetically pleasing. Chairman Dow asked the width of the loading area. Bob Lee, Transportation, responded the delivery tank should have no problem with maneuvering. Member Ross asked if 35 feet was an acceptable distance. Mr. Lee stated Traffic Engineer Ensdorf had indicated 30-35 feet would be appropriate. Mr. Vaught stood up and stated 35 feet would be acceptable to the applicant. Ms. Kleckner stated an administrative change could be done or the final plan could reflect the change. Mr. Vaught stated they had also agreed to incorporate the sidewalk down to Horsetooth. Chairman Dow summarized there were three available options: to deny, to approve, and to approve preliminary and table the final. He felt the third option was the best as the applicant is not ready for final in terms of documentation. Planning and ZoBoard Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 7 Member Ross stated he felt the preliminary project could be approved and the final tabled to next Monday night's meeting subject to downward directional lights, attention given to evergreen screening, 30-35 foot entrance/exit on west, appropriate limits to signage, sidewalk to east provided. Member Kerns moved to approve the preliminary, table the final to Monday with conditions: 1) downward directional lights used, 2) minimal canopy height and number of lights, 3) attention to evergreen screening on east, 4) access width acceptable (30-35') for trucks on western entrance/exit, and 5) appropriate limits to signage, 6) sidewalks to the east. Member Ross seconded. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant concurred. Mr. Vaught responded the signage is no problem --there will be one sign on the building, one freestanding sign and one on the southside fo the canopy. The canopy light will be downward and recessed. The canopy height must be 14 feet however. Carolyn Lundgren indicated the height is regulated by the state gas department. Also if the four foot canopy dimension was narrower the design would be defeated as well as the screening of the vents. Member Edwards asked if it could be handled on consent since the Board has spent much time on the project. Chairman Dow stated that was not an approppriate part of the motion. Ms. Kleckner stated there needed to be clarification on signage indicating only signage on the south would be acceptable. Chairman Dow agreed. Member Brown was concerned that reviewing this project again on Monday would be circumventing the process and felt she would have to vote against the project. Chairman Down disagreed. Member Ross also disagreed. Member O'Dell questioned if there was enough time for staff review and Ms. Kleckner believed so. Motion to approved carried 6-1 with Member Brown voting no. A73-85 KENSINGTON AUTO PARK PUD - Preliminary Due to a potential conflict of interest Member Ross was not taking part in the discussion or vote. Bob Wilkinson gave staff introduction. Jim Gefroh, representing Paul Heffron from Boulder, gave description. The project is not associated with the previous Datsun Plan and would replace the approved final PUD. The main streets of this project (South College, West Harmony, Mason and Kensington Drive) would be joining an SID for Arbor Plaza and this project. Three existing trees will remain if they can be saved through proper trimming. He went on to explain the facade and colors. Mr. Wilkinson gave staff report recommending approval. The applicant is taking a sensible approach however there are some concerns yet to be addressed --landscaping detail particularly on south side around car storage areas and energy conservation concerns. Planning and Zoning Boa^d Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 8 Chairman Dow required additional detail on traffic circulation. Member O'Dell asked if the car areas were higher than the street elevation. Member Edwards asked to have condition #4 explained and whether applicant was responsible for building the median if they didn't participate in the SID. Mr. Gefroh responded that the street improvements will be made, hopefully through the SID. They do, however, take exception to the time limit of 1986. Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, indicated the capital improvement project is scheduled for 1987 so the 1986 date could be delayed. Mr. Gefroh noted the there is some talk about the City joining in with some SID payments. Member Brown asked about office setbacks, diameter of largest display pod and number of cars it would hold, lighting of the pods, etc. Mr. Gefroh responded to her questions also indicating 30 cars could be displayed but the format will be more pleasing than a row of cars. There will be some lighting on a pedestrian scale. Member Crews asked the setback of pods from College and Mr. Gefroh replied 31 feet from the flowline.. There was no public input. Mr. Gefroh indicated no problem with conditions one or two however he took acception to the energy conservation measures and having to prove to planning when the project doesn't utilize any points. Mr. Wilkinson stated under the absolute criteria the requirement for energy conservation remains with staff requiring standards above and beyond that of the City or State. Mr. Gefroh wondered if Planning can require these if the point chart is not utilized. Mr. Frank indicated the criteria is an expectation in return for land use flexibility. The criteria can be satisfied in several ways and is not a substitute for State/City codes. Member O'Dell questioned how other developers had addressed this problem. Mr. Frank replied through building orientation, landscaping, etc. It needs to be measureable and achievable. Chairman Dow questioned procedure if the project doesn't exceed the criteria and Mr. Frank noted it had not been a basis for denial. State energy code is very minimal and easy to exceed. Member O'Dell asked about the seven foot sidewalk around the plan. Mr. Wilkinson noted the applicant will provide that. Member Edwards moved to approve the project with staff conditions 1-4 and #5 amending the 1986 deadline as discussed with Bonnie Tripoli and staff, and #6 regarding the turnbays off College, 7 lighting plan. Member Kern seconded. In response to Member O'Dell's question Mr. Wilkinson noted there were a number of site locations where staff was requesting modification or additional provisions for sidewalks. Member O'Dell asked if Members Planning and Zonin4oard Minutes • Nov 18, 1985 Page 9 Edwards and Kerns would accept the above as part of the motion. They concurred. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Dow added he had sympathy for the applicant on Item 3 and Member Edwards concurred. #83-85 ROBERTS REZONING - COUNTY REFERRAL Elaine Kleckner gave staff description indicating applicating was requesting to change the remainder of a partially zoned commercial tract to commercial also. Craig Howe, realtor retained by applicant, stated the property was not eligible for annexation. The highest and best use would be as commercial. If this was accomplished the residence would need to be changed. City staff is recommending approval with a PUB condition. The applicant feels this is an unreasonable request as the zoning line was arbitrarily drawn. Ms. Kleckner indicated staff's concern is that the area is cohesively developed and hence the PUB condition. The County feels the applicant's request is open-ended as the applicant is not proposing a specific use and find the PUB condition reasonable. Member Ross questioned the utility situation. Ms. Kleckner and Mr. Howe responded. Ms. Kleckner stated it was staff's intent tonight's recommendation apply to the entire acreage, and that County as well as City standards are reviewed. Chairman Dow indicated there was a hardship criteria and other factors to consider. Ms. Kleckner felt it should be evaluated on County Zoning as well as what the Board would like to see happening within the City. Member Ross was not sure making everything a PUB was proper procedure. Member O'Dell questioned if the Board would review this if it was not a PUB. Chairman Dow felt it was an important piece of land and City needs to control what goes in there. Member Ross asked County's review procedure of PUB. Ms. Kleckner responded it was less detailed than ours. Craig Howe noted the state had limited access. All the applicant was requesting was rezoning a portion which was arbitrarly zoned differently than the remaining property. There was no public input. Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval to the County with the PUB condition on the entire parcel. Member Brown seconded. Motion carried 6-1 with Member Ross voting no, his feeling being it was unfair to force PUB condition on the total property. #84-85 VON FORELL EXEMPTION REQUEST - COUNTY REFERRAL Bob Wilkinson gave staff description recommending denial as exemption action in 1962 stated only one exemption per parcel of land. The Fort Collins expressway may also pass through this property. Planning and Zoning and Minutes Nov 18, 1985 Page 10 There was no public input. Motion by Member Kern to recommend denial to the county, seconded by Member Crews, was carried 7-0. Meeting was adjourned 11:35 p.m.