Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/24/1985PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES - June 24, 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 were Tim Dow, Don Crews, Dennis Georg, David Gilfillan, Gary Ross, Sharon Brown, and Ingrid Simpson. Linda Lang, alternate, was not present. Board members absent from the June 21, 1985 worksession were Linda Lang and Don Crews. Staff present included Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Steve Ryder, Joe Frank, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, and Gail Ault. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Ms Hopkins to review the consent agenda which consisted of: The May 20, 1985 Meeting Minutes; #45-83D, Troutman PUD 2nd - Amended Preliminary and Final; #3-85A, Ice Arena and Pool PUD - Final; #32-83C, Timberline Village PUD - Preliminary and Final; #25-85, Redwood Village Center PUD - Preliminary; #48-84D, The Corral Business Park, Phase 1 - Final; #65-82E, Charleston at Fairbrooke PUD - Final. Chairman Dow noted item 203-79E, Wagonwheel Third - Phases 1 & 2 Final, on the discussion agenda had been continued to July. Member Gilfillan asked the consequences of the Board's decision on #3-85, Ice Arena and Pool PUD, if the City Council discussed this and made changes. He wondered if Board should provide a recommendation to Council rather than a final decision. Ms Hopkins replied the option of an Administrative Change was still open to handle suggested changes or, if changes were great enough, another Board review could be scheduled. Chairman Dow indicated under the LOGS the Board is the final authority and should make a final decision. Member Georg felt if the plan was signifi- cantly modified, the Board should review it. Motion by Ross to approve Consent Agenda, Items 1-7, with a second by Simpson. Chairman Dow abstained from voting on Items 3 and 4 due to a conflict of interest. The motion carried 6-1 with Member Gilfillan voting No. #26-85 ROBINSON PIERSAL PLAZA PUD - Master Plan #26-85A ROBINSON PIERSAL PLAZA PUD - Preliminary Elaine Kleckner gave a project description noting both items would be reviewed together but voted on separately. Bill Neal, Managing Partner of Wheeler Realty, representing the developer noted several project personnel were available for questions and commented on the strategic location of the property. Planning and Zoning Bc 1 Minutes June 24, 1985 Page 2 Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects, described the project and talked about the phasing. The mixed use was proposed because of the property's value and contiguity to the central business district. The prime location was the reason for the "plaza" setting with cars driving up to the retail area. It is on a bus route and within walking distance to employment. He noted this Safeway is one of the most successful grocery stores, per square foot, in the county. The height of the project provides good identity and there is good access on Remington and College. The apartment structure will have adequate security. Mr. Zdenek presented a revised plan for the service area. They plan to redesign the south end of the parking lot to handle various concerns as well as pay for the restriping on Remington. Truck movements on Magnolia and Remington have been addressed. Neighborhood concerns also were addressed and there will be daily trash removal. The sound impacts are minimal and, although there will be 23 on -street parking spaces removed, there are 37 excess parking spaces in the parking garage. Member Crews questioned the tower height and Ed replied the total building was 120 feet, the Safeway 30 feet, the residential portion adds an additional 90 feet. Ms Kleckner outlined the master plan request explaining certain structural decisions were necessary in phase 1 to provide for phase 2. Chairman Dow asked if phase 2-preliminary would need to be reviewed prior to the Board's decision on phase 1-final. She indicated City staff can support the probable traffic demands with some changes. There were one formal and two informal neighborhood meetings. The neighbors like the Safeway/retail area but were concerned with what goes on top and the traffic impacts. From a staff perspective the increase in sound wouldn't be significant because the building itself would buffer much of the sound. Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to the following conditions be submitted at final: A safe, efficient design for the Mulberry Street access; a left -turn bay to Magnolia and assurance the developer will participate in financing of same; pedestrian and vehicular lighting needs to be reviewed as well as a signage plan; landscaping needs to be intensified; and additional information is needed on the residential package. Member Ross questioned the loss of 27 on -street parking spaces which involved some all day parking. While he didn't feel lack of adequate downtown parking was the project's concern it is becoming an obvious problem. Ms Kleckner indicated staff didn't see substantial problems with the loss and may pick up some street parking on Magnolia. Member Simpson questioned traffic impact. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, noted the City is working with the East Side Neighborhood in developing a policy plan for streets in this area and has asked the developer of this parcel to remain somewhat flexible. There will be an increase in traffic on Remington and that is appropriate. Analysis indicated the impact is acceptable regarding signalization but site access on both Mulberry and College will be right-in/right-out only with Remington having full access. The landscaping needs work while the project provides parking, it generates it as well, causing a concern. Planning and ZoniBoard Minutes • June 24, 1985 Page 3 Chairman Dow and Member Georg discussed the need for an extra lane on College and Mr. Ensdorff indicated it should be provided for now while construction is occurring. Member Ross wondered if the raised entrance to the parking would eliminate the "short cut" between College and Remington Mr. Ensdorff felt it made it less attractive as a short cut but not necessarily eliminated the possibility. The applicant is trying to keep option open for widening of Magnolia and Mulberry and eventually there will probably be a median in Mulberry. A redesign of circulation of the garage needs to be looked at but the problems are workable. Gary Ross wondered if the eventual expansion_ of United Bank into the old Safeway lot would cause any additional traffic problems and Mr. Ensdorff indicated those projections had been incorporated into the Parsons -Brinkerhoff analysis. Regardless that intersection will be as busy as any in the City and must be monitored. Member Gilfillan questioned cross traffic on interior parking lot, flow, upper and lower deck access, size of current Safeway's service area and service area as proposed. Mr. Ensdorff and Ed Zdenek addressed their concerns noting the store's request was for the small service area. Member Gilfillan felt the double wide area was preferable. Member Brown concurred. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant was willing to have phase 2-preliminary reviewed before phase 1-final and Mr. Zdenek indicated the timing to get a preliminary approved made it prohibitive. Member Crews was concerned if phase 2 should change or not occur; where the elevators were and where the moving trucks would park. John Schofield, 1801 Lakeshore, representing the owners of 323 and 330 S. College, would like to see quality improvements in the area and supports the overall concept of the project. He expressed concerns over specific details as 1) suggest access by tractor trailer be done on site and out of the ROW; 2) no objection to loss of parking on south side of Magnolia but don't reduce the ROW; 3) will 5 foot wall hide any garbage stacked outside; 4) tearing out street improvements not yet paid for; 5) landscaping in existing ROW must be maintained by developer; 6) deciduous trees are not sufficient to reduce impact of massive building, some coniferous should be planted; 7) elimination of on -street parking not a great concern but the continuous lane on College would eliminate too much landscaping and should be looked at; 8) utilities for the project are from the alley to the north which was just paved and residents don't want an uneven patch job; 9) drainage onto Magnolia is a problem that needs to be addressed; and 10) the building elevation will impact buildings to the north and he is concerned over the shadows. He then reiterated they did support the project. Chairman Dow indicated a shadow analysis had been done and gave Mr. Schofield a copy. Planning and Zoning Bc 1 Minutes June 24, 1985 Page 4 Ken Bonetti, 306 E. Elizabeth, CAN representative, indicated the residents felt the land use was acceptable and appreciated the amount of landscaping they had put in. However, they were not in favor of the 120 foot height and felt that set an undesirable precedent for the neighborhood. The East Side Neighborhood Plan opposed the one way couple on Magnolia/Mulberry and, were concerned the delivery vehicles and construction traffic be directed away from the residential side streets. Some assurance that the eliminated on -street parking would not be displaced to the residential streets would be nice, maybe through signage. Earlier communication on projects of this size is necessary in order for the neighborhood to provide proper feedback, perhaps three weeks of review by the neighborhood before the staff review. The neighborhood wanted to be sure approval of phase 1 in no way indicated approval of phase 2 which they oppose. The size and scale of the project are of great concern to the neighborhood. Chairman Dow asked when final would be submitted and Mr. Zdenek indicated he hoped at the August 5 submittal. He was willing to meet with CAN whenever they desired. Ms Kleckner indicated she would forward submittal information to CAN. Barbara Liebler, 817 Peterson, one-half mile south of project, liked this type use. The East Side Neighborhood would like Mulberry widened and hopes the developer will leave the flexibility for an extra lane on Mulberry in the project. Member Ross liked the mixed use but felt reviewing the project was difficult without more information on phase 2. Member Georg felt concerns which needed to be addressed at time of final included: service access, parking lot flows have problems, parking garage lighting and impact on street, landscape treatment on the east should be intensified, and how the mechanical structures would look. Member Simpson felt traffic and landscaping were concerns and more coniferous trees on south and east should be included to mitigate mass. Member Ross questioned emergency service access to lower parking lot and Ms Kleckner indicated it was not noted at time of review but she would recheck. Member Brown felt it was an excellent project but was concerned with pedestrian and traffic flow in street and in parking and service areas. She felt any alternative could not intrude on the ROW. Member Crews also supported the concept but felt the service area should be reconsidered as well as Magnolia Street traffic. Motion to approve #26-85 Robinson Piersal Master Plan made by Member Georg and seconded by Member Crews. Approved 7-0. Motion to approve #26-85A Robinson Piersal Plaza PUD-Preliminary made by Member Crews, seconded by Member Gilfillan. The following seven staff conditions were included in motion: 1) A design solution for the Mulberry Street access; 2) A design for the left turn bay onto Magnolia; 3) Developer participation in financing of left turn bay; 4) Submittal of area lighting specifications; 5) Submittal of signage plan; 6) Intensification of landscaping; and 7) Submittal of structural information on residential parking, Also Board conditions to reconsider the service area as well as Planning and ZoniBoard Minutes • June 24, 1985 Page 5 Magnolia traffic and that sufficient information- be provided at final relating to phase 2 and demonstrating how the two phases will work together. Motion carried 7-0. Member Ross was not sure the extension of a lane on College north of Mulberry was good. There seemed to be no logical reason to continue the lane north to Magnolia. Chairman Dow disagreed indicating now was the time to lay out future traffic flow. He felt perhaps 10 feet on one side of the building could allow for enlarging the service area, and early traffic flows. /196-77D NORTHSHORE OFFICES PUD — Amendment Steve Ryder gave description of project. Allen Curtis, representing the applicant, gave presentation indicating only 3220 square feet would be added to the existing project for a total of 6000 square feet. Neighborhood compatibility, exposure, and parking were concerns which have all been addressed. Member Ross asked where the storage part of the building was located and Mr Curtis responded it was a portion of the basement. Member Crews asked about window placement on the east and Mr. Curtis referred to a rendering indicating there would be a fence between the buildings. Steve Ryder gave staff recommendation for approval indicating parking was a concern which was addressed by the applicant limiting useable square footage. a pointed out the maximum building height is 34 feet and this building is only 20 feet. The staff received letter in opposition. Member Brown questioned the pedestrian access on the western side. Mr Curtis felt sidewalk on the eastern side of the west building was sufficient. Also landscaping would need to be eliminated if a sidewalk was provided. Member Ross questioned not having a sidewalk because landscaping would be eliminated. He felt that was merely an indication the building was too tight for the area. Limiting some square footage of a project to storage may start a poor precedent. Chairman Dow concurred. Member Simpson moved to approve #196-77D Northshore Office PUD—Amendment and Member Gilfillan seconded. Motion was defeated 3-4 with Members Georg, Ross, Brown and Dow voting no. #203-79D WAGONWHEEL THIRD—CASA GRANDE PUD — Preliminary Joe Frank gave project description. John Freeman representing the developer gave presentation indicating they have marketed three similar projects in Loveland. The homes are designed for the "empty nester" with double garages and back doors opening onto open spaces. Planning and Zoning B( d Minutes June 24, 1985 Page 6 The staff recommendation was for approval. Two previous staff conditions regarding Seneca Street and Laredo Lane had been met. Two design issue conditions remained: final landscape plans should be done by a qualified landscape architect and variety of building design should be provided to the extent possible. Member Gilfillan asked if staggered setbacks would help and Joe felt it was not a problem. Member Simpson asked about the design and apopearance of the door and stoop. Mr. Freeman indicated there would be decks private to each unit on the front as well as decks in the back. Member Gilfillan indicated he would like to see more detail at final on the renderings and Member Crews felt the buildi.ngs were too close together, many being only ten feet apart. Member Brown wished further input regarding the setback from Laredo Lane. Chairman Dow felt the project had many good items like planned use and open spaces but needed more variety to buildings and staggering might help appearance. Also landscaping design needed to be significantly improved and a professional landscape architect would help. Member Brown wished materials and colors be presented at final. Motion to approve project subject to two staff concerns (use of a qualified landscape architect and providing for a variety of compatible building styles) and the three Board concerns (input regarding materials and colors of buildings, improved landscape design, and more variety, perhaps staggering, in buildings as well as moving buildings further apart) was moved by Member Gilfillan and seconded by Member Ross. Motion carried 7-0. #10-85 BOARDWALK CROSSING PUD — Preliminary Joe Frank gave location and project description. Jim Cox, representing the applicant, gave presentation for the project to include a Kentucky Fried Chicken. Member Georg asked about landscaping and the deceleration lane. Mr Cox indicated it would be put in during phase 1. Member Brown asked about access and Cox replied ingress/egress to Kentucky Fried Chicken would be off Boardwalk. Member Ross was concerned the deceleration lane needed temporary landscaping. Member Georg stated the Board was more conscious of setback issues. Mr. Frank stated it was a workable plan and staff was recommendating approval with four conditions: 1) remove acceleration lane on final; 2) setbacks of buildings C and D should be 45 feet not 25 feet; 30 final landscaping needs in terms of quality and quantity should be improved and a professional landscape architect or designer should be used; and 4) existing trees at Boardwalk/College should be preserved. Planning and Zoni *Board Minutes • June 24, 1985 Page 7 Member Brown questioned the height of the one story building and the layout of the parking lot. Mr Cox replied the mechanical apparatus was covered. They could look at angled parking but not sure it would solve her concern. Member Gilfillan asked if applicant was aware of staff's conditions and Mr. Cox replied they were. Member Georg moved to approve plan with staff's condition and modifying item 2 for applicant to agree to consider setbacks or staggered buildings to create interesting streetscape including architecture and landscaping. Member Ross seconded. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Legal Representative Accistant City Attorney Steve Roy reported on a memo regarding the enforcement of PUD conditions. Chairman Dow asked whether additional "teeth" given the Board through amending the development agreement would be more effective than citing the developer for a misdemeanor, etc. Also Subsection C, Page 3, (see attached) "barring future development activities" seems to be an extremely powerful tool to give any government entity and should be used only in a very serious and repeat situation. Member Georg was concerned the Board needed to maintain credibility through explicit follow up. He cited the First Christian Church's failure to comply and City's lack of follow up on same. Residents expectations for follow up on the City's part are poor. Member Ross questioned whether the development agreement was the proper tool to achieve the owner's commitment and Bonnie Tripoli indicated the owner is always signing the agreement. Chairman Dow felt follow up and quality assurance also needed to be addressed. Steve Roy asked what kinds of relief the Board had and of the possibility of broadening the remedies (such as withholding further review of proposals). Chairman Dow felt all developments of the developer should not be penalized for one project's faults and asked that Mr. Roy also look into revoking the Certificate of Occupancy or making it conditional. Joe Frank indicated a minor action could be to not approve administrative changes for the project. Mr. Roy asked for feedback regarding the avenue of criminal liability being better defined, or strengthened. Chairman Dow felt it should be strengthened. Mr. Roy will work with staff on revising the development agreement provisions. Chairman Dow reviewed Wednesday's agenda. Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.