Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/28/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 28, 1985 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at at 6:32 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the October 28, 1985, meeting were Tim Dow, Gary Ross, David Edwards, Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern and Don Crews. Board members present at the October 28, 1985, worksession were Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, Don Crews, David Edwards, and Sharon Brown. Staff members present at the meeting included Linda Hopkins, Joe Frank, Elaine Kleckner, Bonnie Tripoli, Matt Baker, Bob Wilkinson and Barbara Hendrickson. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting. Linda Hopkins stated Item 9 - #65-85A - First Interstate Center PUD - Preliminary has been withdrawn. Items continued to November are: Item 10 - #13-85A - Sherwood Street Commons PUD - Final; Item 11 - #55-85A - Whitcomb Greens PUD - Final; and Item 13 - #78-81E - Cimarron Plaza PUD Phase One - Final. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the consent agenda which consisted of: #69-85, Mills First Annexation, #69-85A Mills First Zoning, #70-85 Mills Second Annexation, and #80-85A Mills Second Zoning. Ms. Hopkins reviewed the County Referral Agenda which consisted of: #72-85, McMahen Exemption Member Crews moved to approve the Consent Agenda and County Referral Item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Member Kern seconded. Motion to approve passed 6-0. #26-85C - ROBINSON-PIERSAL PLAZA PUD - Phase Two - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Elaine Kleckner gave brief description of the item. Ed Zdenek, representing the applicant, stated this was a mixed use project and would agree to admit as one project and have it reviewed as one but it was two different stages. He stated there were two different financing mechanisms, one being the Fort Collins Housing Bond Issuance and the other private. Mr. Zdenek gave a brief description of the project and showed the Board the residential area with staggered setbacks of 8' and 18'. He explained that the open parking area will be closed from view and because it is open, it will lessen the hesitancy for people to use the underground parking area which is well lit. Mr. Zdenek stated that a 5 foot to 8 foot wall will enclose the trash area and will screen both the trash area and trucks which will be delivering to the stores. F Planning and Zoning Boa Minutes October 28, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Zdenek described the glassed -in atrium area facing College and Mulberry. He told the Board that, although the project is tall, does not block the view of Long's Peak and Hogback mountain area when viewed from the llth floor of the DMA building. He stated the developers have spent alot of time with the DDA, Planning Staff, and the neighborhood to make this a good project. This project would generate considerable sales tax - $428,000 with the amount from the present Safeway deducted. The goals and objectives of this project to maintain current competitiveness and to upgrade Safeway. The project is located within walking distance and promotes urban density and resident density with the Urban Growth Area. Because of easy access the project will encourage shopping and low to moderate income housing. The project will promote downtown as focal point of City and generate 178 new jobs. David Herrara, Executive Director, Housing Authority, spoke regarding the significant need to develop downtown housing. This project would allow for 30 percent of housing to low income and the balance for moderate income. His department encouraged this project to be brought about. Member Dow asked Mr. Herrara what the time frame for financing would be. Mr. Herrara stated conventional financing was not being used and, to keep the cost of the project down, grants and loans would be applied for. He asked that the preliminary and final be viewed and voted together. Elaine Kleckner briefly spoke about Phase I and Phase II. She stated Phase I Preliminary was approved 6-24-85 with conditions. She feels these have been addressed with better design for Mulberry access, use of DDA's guidelines for lighting, signage and redesign of landscape due to turning bay. In the planning of Phase II, the review process of building heights requires buildings in excess of 40' be processed as a PUD. Community scale criteria requires buildings higher than 40' be built adjacent to central business district and the present site is appropriate. View analysis showed Long's Peak from the northeast was blocked but the building has been scaled down to lessen this problem. Existing vegetation was found to screen some vision of Long's Peak. Light and Shadow Analysis requires that Wand higher buildings not have substantial negative impact on natural and artificial light on private and public property. A survey done between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., showed that the Monroe Bank building to the north would receive some shading on one-half of their building. There was no shading noted on the residential area to the east. The solar access impact has been reduced significantlywith the scaled down tower. Neighborhood Guide requires that 40' or higher structures be compatible to neighborhood and this has been addressed with the existence of the DMA building to the northeast which is 120'. Privacy would be of no consequence as there is no adjacent building similar in height. The staff had some concern for the building's elevation from College Avenue so redesign has used additional setback to keep the building from rising straight up from the street. The closest point which would be setbackfrom the office space area to College would be 8'. Phase I landscaping would create a pedestrian scale along the street by using awnings and arched windows on the shops. a Planning and Zoni•Board Minutes • October 28, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Kleckner spoke of the parking needs for this project and noted that the common standard is 1/2 space per unit for elderly housing. She cited the parking lot at the DMA has 127 parking spaces for 71 units and is rarely full. Ms. Kleckner feels the parking needs are adequately met for this project. In conclusion Ms. Kleckner feels the guidelines set by the LOGS are met by the use of retail, neighborhood housing and mixed use. Chairman Dow asked if they are presenting this in two phases. Ed Zdenek answered yes. Member Ross was concerned .about the loading areas for Safeway trucks and asked where the trucks would unload for the other businesses. Ed Zdenek answered that they can use the pedestrian walk and Magnolia St. The trucks would not unload on College Avenue and would basically unload the same way at the new Safeway as had been done at the old store. Member Ross asked where the big semi -trucks would unload to service stores on Remington Street. Ed Zdenek answered they would have to unload from the street, much as they do downtown. Member Ross noted the downtown area uses alleys as a way to unload without blocking traffic. He wondered if the project would blend in since most of the other buildings in the next block are not built out to the property line and this project has different setbacks than other buildings such as Perkins and the Monroe Bank. Ed Zdenek believed the United Bank was built out to the property line. He noted the 34' plaza in front of the project. Member Ross asked Mr. Zdenek about the right of way for this project because normally the City owned the right of way and in this case it seems to be reversed. Trucks pulling into City right-of-way look like a private taking of a City property. He asked how this arrangement was made. Ed Zdenek answered they are not taking up the right-of-way. Member Ross said it appeared to him the whole north side seems to be utilizing the City street. He understood that there was additional parking to offset this but he felt that this was unfair to the developer. Ed Zdenek replied they are screening areas not normally screened and are screening on City property. Member Ross stated Mr. Herrara draws a comparison to both the DMA and Parklane Towers and staff draws comparison only to DMA and parking ratios. He asked what are the ratios between parking spaces and Parklane Towers and why both buildings were not used by the staff for comparison. Mr. Zdenek did not know the ratio at Parklane and pointed out that Parklane is not limited to the elderly where the DMA is. The income levels and the unit sizes are also different. 6_ Planning and Zoning Bc i Minutes October 28, 1985 Page 4 Member Edwards asked about the parking garage. He wanted to know the ration of parking spaces to the square footage in the existing Safeway and how it compare to the City criteria applied in this application. John Wheeler stated there are 130 spaces and there is 26,000 square feet in the existing Safeway and he thought some the spaces were used by bank employees. Member Edwards noted the new store is 25 percent larger than the existing store and he wondered if staff could equate the parking adequacy. Mr. Zdenek stated the parking ratios is a formula developed by the Urban Land Institute and it would use four cars per 1,000 square feet for retail purposes and three cars per 1,000 square feet for office. There is an excess of 32 cars with these figures. This formula is a standard formula which is used in the suburbs and there is public transportation also available. Member Edwards wondered where the snow would be put which is removed from the parking garage and what effect that would make on parking spaces. Mr. Zdenek replied it would be plowed by bobcats and loaded into trucks to be removed for disposal and would be the responsibility of the developer. Member Edwards asked if the spaces and lanes would be the same in similar garages. Mr. Zdenek replied there was angled spacing and the width is actually wider than in the existing store parking lot. The parking bay is narrower 8'9" versus 9' but is larger than the downtown parking garage mainly due to shopping carts and pedestrians. Member Edwards asked how many feet are involved in the encroachment easement from property line to the curb on the north side. Mr. Zdenek replied there were 30' from curb to building, 20' from wall to building, and 10' from wall to flowline. Five feet of this is walk and 5' is landscaped (more at various points). Member Edwards stated concern over the easement. Normally the City owns the easement and, in this project, the City owns the property and Safeway has the easements. Would the City take back the easement if the need should arise to widen Magnolia. Also once it became a service area, would it always remain a service area. Steve Roy addressed this question by answering that the City Council may grant to a private party a temporary permit for the use or occupation of a public right of way. The developer should know that it is temporary and can revoked by the Council. He felt approval should have a condition that the permit is subject to revocation. 6. Planning and Zoni Board Minutes October 28, 1985 • • Page 5 Member Ross, in working with Old Town encroachments, found those permits only good for ninety days. Mr. Roy thought the permit Member Ross referred to was one issued by Public Works and not subject to issuance by City Council and there is a distinct difference. Chairman Dow asked if this is a development agreement or a separate agreement condition on approval of everything as presented. Mr. Roy stated it is a separate agreement which has been drafted and presented to the developer for execution but he did not believe it had been executed. Ed Zdenek stated it has been reviewed by their attorneys and is acceptable even if it has not been executed. Member Edwards referred to the landscape screening on Magnolia Street and the 30' area from curb to building. The trees seem to be substantial and he wondered if trees that large can be propagated from a such a narrow shrub bed. Mr. Zdenek answered it is possible and the project follows the current motif of suburban areas -curb, landscape, sidewalk. He stated the beds are 5' wide and the trees are successfully planted downtown in similar dimensions. Member Edwards referred to the visual view of the west facing elevation coming from Highway 14 referred to by Mr. Zdenek as the gateway. He felt, other than the few balconies, there is no relief from an urban edge as there is on the west side and wondered why the developer chose to present the backside of the building as the gateway entrance to the Cty. Mr. Zdenek perceived the focal point to be the intersection at Mulberry and College and the full view becomes apparent at this intersection. Member Kern said the views appeared barren from the east and north and saw the need for landscaping. .He and wondered whether a 5' wall wss large enough to hide a semi -truck. Mr. Zdenek stated the wall would screen from eye level but would not entirely hide a semi -truck since they can be 13' high and would require an unnecessarily high wall. The purpose of the wall is to screen permanent fixtures. Member Kern asked if any thought had been given to planting evergreens instead of deciduous trees to give yearround foliage especially at the eastern/northern edge which appeared to have a stark appearance. Mr. Zdenek answered they are dealing with shade trees as their motif and have pine trees as accent. This is in keeping with the City's planting of shade and flowering trees. k Planning and Zoning Bo, Minutes October 28, 1985 Page 6 Member Kern asked if the emerald reflective windows used in this project are significant enough that they would bother neighbors when the sun strikes them. Mr. Zdenek saw no problem. They are reflective and that the criteria for energy encouraged more reflective glass. Member Kern asked staff if the streets widths were narrowed, would this diminish any ornamentation and would the street end up close to the service area. Elaine Kleckner answered they have worked hard to maintain a width of 36' on Magnolia to accommodate any future plans and is no problem to traffic flow. The staff had the means to affect revisions to the service area if needed with the revokable permit as leverage. Both Magnolia and Mulberry would work if they go to the one-way couplet. Member Kern stated the street would be up against the wall if the street were widened. Ms. Kleckner said it would not necessitate the removal of landscape or sidewalk but there would be a lane of traffic adjacent to that wall. Member O'Dell asked about the road between the garage and the market. The main entrance to the Safeway is directly across from the ramp to the lower level and she was concerned about the safety of pedestrians. Mr. Zdenek stated the entrance is restricted by the use of bollards and they are encouraging the use of elevators to go to the lower level and that area would be used primarily by employees, not customers, due to the sloping of the ramps and use of market carts which they want used in flat areas. Member O'Dell asked what is to prevent the garage from becoming a short-cut. Mr. Zdenek answered that there is a speed undulation and this is a discouragement and as well as the color and texture. Member Ross asked if it would totally destroy the parking lot access if the street were narrowed and the building moved south. Pulling back from the property line would take away restraints to both the project and City on that street. Mr. Zdenek noted the ramp is 6 percent grade and that is the maximum and narrowing of the access would take away 10 car spaces for every 10' you drop. He did not feel it could be reduced successfully. Member Ross asked if the street could be narrower or is it the City code. Ms. Kleckner noted that the Fire Department had required the drive between the parking structure and Safeway be able to support a fire truck. At the last review, when shown the 28' width they felt it was adequate. She would hesitate to lessen the width because of the potential levels of traffic you would have and emergency vehicles. Planning and Zoni *oard Minutes • October 28, 1985 Page 7 Member Crews asked where the shopping carts would be stored. Mr. Zdenek answered that they would be stacked in the parking islands as they would at any store. Member Crews asked if the Safeway will be leasing the structure and if they support the highrise. Mr. Zdenek replied they are leasing the structure and do support the highrise. Member Dow asked the setbacks from the the property line and curb line on the east side. Mr. Zdenek answered it was 20' from flowline.to building. Chairman Dow asked what the elevation of the walls on the north and east sides. Mr. Zdenek believed them to be 25'. Member Dow asked Mr. Zdenek if he could take them through the project as a auto entering from Mulberry, options of entry and information on stacking. Mr. Zdenek noted that it is right turn in and right turn out only. As you enter east to west, there is a deceleration lane and you can turn right to go up or left to the other level. Chairman Dow asked how much stacking there was, including the deceleration lane and materials to be used. Mr. Zdenek said 440', with 130' of it in the deceleration lane. The materials to be used is blond brick with salmon accent and the emerald reflective glass. Member Ross voiced concern that if the project is not built in one phase there would be a problem with traffic and safety while additional building was going on. He asked the time frame for the construction. Mr. Zdenek answered that they don't anticipate the building to be done in two phases but, in the event it does happen, they have a construction management plan to prevent any traffic jam and any possible hazard to pedestrians. The total development time is 9-10 months with an on -site time of 6-7 months. Member Edwards asked about the cost of building in two phases and what amenities and unit sizes are in the plan. Mr. Zdenek replied there would be a recreation area, meeting area and on the second floor, there would be an outdoor area. Planned are 5 2-bedroom units, 16 efficiency units and 43 1-bedroom units with average dimensions of 720', 560' and 420'. Jim Koenig, C.A.N. Member, voiced a concern in regards to the project. He felt it should be reviewed separately and more neighborhood input was needed. He felt that the larger projects wear out the community and that they can't always keep up with new changes. Planning and Zoning Bo, October 28, 1985 Page 8 Minutes Dennis Griffith, 405 Mathews, asked that follow-up meetings be arranged to let people know what is happening. He stated he could not support the project if it wasn't exclusively for the elderly. Carolyn Goodwin noted that widening the streets would be an added cost to residents and she felt the view would be blocked from Highway 14 of the mountains. She asked why empty lots in the City were not used for these projects. Chairman Dow answered the widening of Mulberry would be paid for by the developers .and that empty lots would be used if someone had a project for it. Barbara Scholfield, 102 Remington St., asked that the project be done in one phase. She voiced concern over the access on Magnolia and possession of right of way. Randy Larsen, 330 S. College, felt over-all it is a nice project. He was concerned about the dock access for semi -trucks and where they would wait to unload on Magnolia. He felt much of public access is being used to build their walls for their private use. He stated the standard area for propagation of coniferous trees is Wand he did not feel the developers addressed solar access adequately except to the north. He asked that the project be approved as one phase. Member Crews asked Mr. Herrara about the financing. Mr. Herrara replied they are using Industrial Revenue Bonds and they could be sold within 60 days. Chairman Dow felt that the Board had four options-- approval in one phase, denal, table, or approve preliminarily and deny final. Member Kern motioned to approve Robinson Piersal Phase Two Preliminary with conditions that: 1)Phase One and Phase Two Finals be presented simultaneously; 2) traffic flow on Magnolia Street be given further study; 3) aesthetic treatment of the service area be improved; 4) the east building elevation be enhanced; 5) landscaping be increased on the north and east sides of the building, and; 5) the encroachment of the structure on Magnolia Street be lessened. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion to approve Preliminary - Phase II passed 6-0. Member Kern motioned to table Phase I and II Finals to November. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. 178-81D - CIMARRON PLAZA PUD - Preliminary Joe Frank gave a brief description of the project and its location. Mr. Zdenek, applicant, gave a description of the project giving attention to traffic, landscape and setbacks. He briefly detailed the front building materials and signage. k- Planning and Zonioard Minutes • October 28, 1985 Page 9 Member Kern asked what parking there will be for the 130 full-time employees and 50 part-time. Mr. Zdenek replied there would be a total of 190 spaces noting that the employees would not all be there at once. Member Kern stated he had gone to the site and was concerned that the balconies on the Cimarron West Apartments were only 50' from the back of the proposed building. He asked if the gap would be landscaped. Mr. Zdenek replied there would be intense landscaping done to screen the back of the building. Joe Frank recommended approval as the project is in compliance with the LOGS guidelines. Staff had concerns for landscaping, foundation and staff wanted the restaurants to be in elevation character similar to the retail store's elevations. Energy conservation was also a concern for staff but this concern, as the others, has been addressed. Chairman Dow asked if the only access from the south was Davidson Drive. Mr. Frank stated it was the only access except from Shields and Drake. Chairman Dow opened the discussion for public input. There was none. Member Kern motioned to approve preliminary plan with staff conditions including that additional screening be provided between the two closest residential buildings and the retail shops. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. #137-80C ARBOR PLAZA PUD — Amended Preliminary Joe Frank gave brief description of project, its location and adjacent structures. He noted a different layout and land use was reviewed last year by staff. It was approved for its diverse use but staff was concerned about the loss of Mills Creek. City Council approved the loss of Mills Creek and wildlife with a mitigating cost of $25,000. Jim Gefroh, representing the.applicant, Crow Brothers, gave a brief history of the project and its location. He described the changes on the site and repositioning of the retail stores. The color changes and elevations are similar to the approved PUD. Mr. Frank reviewed the staff analysis indicating three basic issues: traffic, overall design, and guidelines for a community department store. In terms of traffic, this is an important location and that the traffic be handled properly. He noted that major improvements made to the streets and will be handled at the final approval. The overall landscape meets the needs of the City with some conditions. Staff recommends approval. Planning and Zoning B -d Minutes October 28, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Gefroh agreed to work towards a common agreement to satisfy the conditions. The staff found problems with the set backs and Mr. Gefroh made note that the 28' and 32' setbacks are at the closest point and he pointed out to the Board that they do widen to 55'. Chairman Dow asked about the phasing plan. Mr. Frank stated that the Phase I Final would be on the western side of the site and included the Harmony Road, College and Mason Street improvements. The development on the east would be on Phase II. Member Crews asked about the restrictions made by the Walmart Co. He wondered if this was common for a store to do. Mr. Gefroh answered it is the particular policy of this company and they intended to work with the staff to landscape and satisfy both the staff and the company. Walmart approves the present plan and felt it was an exceptional market location as well as correct location for this land use. Member Edwards asked Legal Staff if the amendment of the previous PUD implied that the plan is preapproved. Steve Roy answered the resolutions adopted have been put to rest and a balance struck between the mitigating factors. Member Kern remarked that this project does little credit to the existing land and feels little thought has been given to pedestrians and landscaping a large parking lot. He thought the new plan should give more care to humans and the land. Member Crews motioned to approve the Amended Preliminary with the staff recommendations. He added he hoped more room would be made for pedestrians. An additional condition was added to those recommended by staff that the applicants provide for landscaping of Harmony Road and College Avenue in the Phase II karea to be installed with Phase I. Member Edwards seconded the motion with the conditions. He added that he was less than happy with the traffic and feels the visibility the I Walmart Store wishes to attain tends to .leave the front stark. Motion to approve was passed 5-1, with Member Kern voting no. #75-85 - FORT COLLINS COUNTRY CLUB PUD - County Referral Elaine Kleckner gave brief description and location of Master and Preliminary Plan. Richard Hattman, Everitt Company, gave a description the proposed PUD. The lots are located near the 9th and 18th fairways and along the pond and the homes would range from 1,800 to 4,000 square feet. The homes would would be offered to the Country Club members first and parking would be provided. &I- Planning and Zoniniboard Minutes October 28, 1985 Page 11 Ms. Kleckner asked the Board to recommend the Fort Collins Country Club be granted off -site street improvements and 1/6 contiguity waiver. She stated the issues faced in reviewing the plan were seen by City Transportation Department. The Poudre Fire Authority approved access loop that is 20' wide and goes between lots and fairways, continuing on to an access road. This was supported with the condition that the hard surfaced road be maintained year-round and cleared of any obstruction. The approval by the PFA was also based on resident sprinkling system. The area is eligible for annexation, but would require several annexations to bring into City. Included in the Master Plan are architectual design including fence, pedestrian easement to Long's Pond, waiver for off-street improvements, Poudre Fire Authority's recommendations, storm drainage information, and 1/6 contiguity waiver. Charles Callopy, Member of the Country Club and property owner, was worried that four planned lots would destroy the park -like atomsphere. He voiced concern over the notice given to members of the Country Club and felt that members should have had a voice in the planning. Chairman Dow replied he should be addressing the Country Club and, since this was only a recommendation, there would be time for him to discuss this with the members of the Country Club before the County would act on this project. Bob Everitt, Chairman of Everitt Enterprises, stated this project was brought before the members of the Country Club and, according to his figures, 83 percent of the members agreed with the project and supported it. Member Ross questioned the application of the 660' requirement and pointed out this was established for reasons other than just fire access. He suggested the plan be approved with conditions. Member Edwards motioned to approve with conditons to exclude pedestrian access to Long's Pond and added a condition whereby the City and County would work together regarding street improvements. Member O'Dell seconded this motion. Motion to approve passed 6-0. 675-85A FORT COLLINS COUNTRY CLUB PUD - Off Site Street Improvements and 1/6 Contiguity Waiver - County Referral Chairman Dow asked it a fee had been established to determine the cost of waiver. Ms. Kleckner answered that the formula was $700 X number of units and that amount would be asessed the developer. Member Ross motioned to approve with the waiver fee assessed. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 6-0. Meeting Adjourned at 11:38.