Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/23/1989PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 23, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Vice -Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Jan Shepard, Rex Burns, and Alternate Joseph Carroll. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attor- ney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Ken Waido, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank and Kayla Ballard. �Sei�l►l11393wI]xY1 Mr. Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the September 25, 1999 meeting; Item 2 - 046-89, Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning; Item 3 - #47-88,A, Orchard Second Annexation and Zoning; Item 4 - #89-12, Resolution PZ89-12 - Vacation of a Portion of a Utility Easement in the Replat of a Part of Ponderosa Park PUD; Item 5 - 037-89, Burger King at Riverside PUD - Preliminary; and Item 6 - #36-89, Foothills Parkway PUD - Preli- minary. Chairman Kern asked if anyone from the Board, Staff or audience wished to have an item pulled from the Consent Agenda. Member Burns stated that he will not be voting on Item 2 due to a conflict of interest. . Milton Workman, 3033 Moore Lane, requested that Item 2, Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning be pulled for discussion. He asked if the plot plans had been made as far as the roads, parks, and water tables in that area were concerned. With no other requests for pulled items, Member O'Dell moved to approve Items 1, 3 and 4. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. QUAIL HOLLOW ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #46-88 Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed annexation and zoning. He stated that the questions raised by Mr. Workman were typically addressed at the time of plat- ting of the property. A plan will be submitted on this property and the utilities issues will be addressed by staff at that time. Member Strom moved to approve Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. BURGER KING AT RIVERSIDE PUD - PRELIMINARY - #37-99 Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Ed Zdenek spoke representing Burger King. He introduced Norm Lucas and Joe Lucas, owners of the Fort Collins Burger King franchise. Mr. Zdenek briefly dis- cussed signage, landscaping, land use of the property, in/out access of the proposed property and the adjacent property to the southeast, the drive-thru along the southeast property, traffic needs, and future road expansions. Ted Shepard gave the staff recommendation of approval with the following condi- tions: 1) The front setback of the building shall be shifted to the east to create a larger landscaped area behind the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue in front of the drive- thru lane; 2) The parking lot setback along Lemay Avenue shall be increased to protect pedestrians from vehicle overhang and to provide increased screening from the street; 3) The overall signage of the PUD shall be reduced. In particular, the wall sign on the east elevation should be deleted, the overall height of both pedestal signs should be decreased, and the height of the readerboard should be reduced; 4) The impact of a large menu board shall be minimized. This includes moving the menu board further south, and adding trees, shrubs, and berms to screen the menu board from Lemay Avenue; and 5) All transportation issues relating to the relocation of a traffic signal, streetlight, railroad crossing, and underground utilities shall be resolved at the time of Final PUD. Member Walker asked why this project should be presented when it did not achieve a minimum score on the point chart. Ted Shepard replied that staff felt it was a compatible land use and in character with the surrounding area, that it would enhance the area as a neighborhood shop- ping center, and that it was harmonious to the adjacent development. The access point issue would have to be resolved whether or not this proceeded as a PUD or a use -by -right. Member Walker asked if there would be shared parking. Ted Shepard stated that this proposal was above the required range so there was no need for shared parking. Minimum required parking was 27 spaces. Member O'Dell asked for clarification on conditions of increased setbacks. Ted Shepard stated that in front of the parking lot where the sidewalk was adjacent to the parking lot stalls, a range of 5'-10' was suggested. Member Strom asked if there would be in/out left turns on Lemay Avenue and Riv- erside. Ted Shepard stated there would be both curbcuts and full turn movements. He added that the Transportation and Planning departments had large issues associated with this request. Member Strom felt that this would be problematic with the high traffic volume per square foot and that the facility across the street was not allowed this in/out left turn. He stated that this proposal has some serious traffic problems that conflict with an existing traffic problem at this location. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic circulation of the facility to the west of this proposal currently works well for Lemay Avenue. Transportation has reviewed existing and future conditions to establish a way to allow for the desired access. The key element was to have the southbound left into this site, which could also serve existing elements of future development. A significant left turn movement northbound on Lemay Avenue was mentioned and, to make this happen, a double left turn would need to be installed on Lemay Avenue. Transportation felt that this would be acceptable for this site. Member Strom asked if the maximum stacking was 2 cars for the left turn into the site from Lemay Avenue. 649 Mr. Ensdorff replied that it was 60 feet or 3-4 compact cars. The site would access best from Riverside, even in the peak hour of traffic. Member Strom asked what problems have arisen with the railroad crossing and sig- nals that still need to be resolved. Mr. Ensdorff replied that in moving the curb to allow for another lane, all of the northbound lanes would be moved to the east. To keep the "jog" that is by the railroad, track a safe movement, the railroad crossing arm will have to be moved to the east and the curb opened up so the traffic flow can be made safely and at the posted speed limit. This will all need to be done in coordination with the Public Utilities Commission and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads. Member Strom asked how much additional burden would be put on the existing traf- fic problem by putting in traffic intensive roadside commercial use. Mr. Ensdorff replied that it would not be significant. The left turn was a common desire and would be less intense. Transportation would like to see a double left turn in place within the next five to ten years. Member Walker asked what would happen between the time of development of this site and the time the intersection is completed, if it takes five to ten years for that intersection to be completed. Mr. Ensdorff replied that he was not sure when the intersection improvements would happen. The phasing of this site has not been decided. The southbound left turn lane would not be installed until the double left was in place. Member Shepard asked if the City had a preference as to which side of Lemay Ave- nue, the east or the west, the additional width comes from to accommodate the two left turns. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the City has been dealing with the scenario where it has been on the east side, which was the applicant's proposal. Other options have been reviewed because, as the current proposal gets more involved with the widening of the east side, the complexities have been seen. There will be a lot of infrastructure that will need to be moved which will be costly. Member Shepard asked that if the additional width were to come from the west side, would it eliminate the problem with the railroad crossing and make the "jog" less severe. Mr. Ensdorff replied that was correct. Member O'Dell asked what was the optimum of two left turn bays turning onto Riv- erside. Mr. Ensdorff stated that they are currently at that distance now. One need should not be compromised over another need. What was shown works well with projected traffic. Member Shepard asked for clarification of effectiveness of internal access as proposed, in particular entering on Lemay Avenue to the drive -up window. Mr. Shepard replied that three left turns would be required from the Lemay cut to get to the drive -up window, all of which will have to yield to on -coming traffic. -3- Mr. Eckman stated that, in respect to the internal traffic circulation, the traffic crosses property lines and contemplates shared access with adjacent property owners. To make this clear, he suggested a sixth condition be placed that states that, at the time of final, a reciprocal access agreement or easement be executed between the parties so as to clarify what the rights are of the various parties in the area. Chairman Kern asked that when a vehicle emerges the property, will it go left or right at the easternmost portion of the building. Mr. Shepard responded that it could go either way. He stated that the Riverside cut would be a left and the Lemay Avenue cut would be a right. Chairman Kern asked that if a vehicle were to make its way out to Lemay Avenue, would the car have to "wind" its way to traffic coming in. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be a sharp right turn, would have to yield to on -coming traffic, and would have to go through the parking lane. The parking width was 33 feet, which would be wide enough to accommodate those movements. Member Strom asked for justification for varying the point chart for this project. Mr. Shepard stated that the market place was bringing commercial use to this site. The location was peculiar in shape and doesn't have good access to begin with from any direction. The volumes on Lemay Avenue and Riverside, the offset intersection, and the existing improvements would be hard on any proposed development for this site. Staff reviewed the peculiar shape and hardship, compatibility of proposed use, character to the surrounding area, the impact upon the adjacent neighboring uses, the fact that it is an infill project and the upgrade of the existing site. He stated that this particular intersection, corner and site lent itself to the proposed land use. Member Walker asked what would be different about the design if this were brought in as a use -by -right. Mr. Shepard stated that the landscaping along Lemay Avenue would have to be dif- ferent unless it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance that landscap- ing along arterials be a 15 foot minimum. He added that another different would be the signage. Member O'Dell moved to approve Burger King at Riverside PUD, Preliminary with the following seven conditions: 1) The front setback of the building shall be shifted to the east to create a larger landscaped area behind the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue In front of the drive-thru lane; 2) The parking lot setback along Lemay Avenue shall be increased to protect pedestrians from vehicle overhang and to provide Increased screening from the street; 3) The overall signage of the PUD shall be reduced. In particular, the wall sign on the east elevation should be deleted, the overall height of both pedestal signs should be decreased, and the height of the readerboard should be reduced; 4) The impact of a large menu board shall be mini- mized. This includes moving the menu board further south, and adding trees, shrubs, and berms to screen the menu board from Lemay Avenue; 5) All transportation Issues relating to the relocation of a traffic signal, streetlight, railroad crossing, and underground utilities shall be resolved at the time of Final PUD; 6) A reciprocal access agreement or easement be executed between the parties so as to clarify what the rights are of the various parties in the area by the time of Final PUD; and 7) That left turn movements, In and out, not be allowed according the Criteria 026 and Criteria 035 of the LDGS. -4- Member Shepard seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that this site was a small, difficult site and that it was an intense proposal for this site. Chairman Kern commented that the use for this site was compatible and felt the infill portion was sufficient. He stated he had concerns with the low points acquired by this proposal. He felt that the setbacks were minimal and that the interior traffic pattern was clumsy. He stated he did not favor the turns on Lemay Avenue. Motion to approve carried 4-3 with Chairman Kern, Member Strom and Member Walker in the negative. FOOTHILLS PARKWAY PUD - PRELIMINARY - 036-89A Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed property. Ed Zdenek spoke representing Round the Corner Restaurants, Inc. He briefly described the land use and discussed the South College Access Plan involvement with this proposal and the circulation of the frontage road of College Avenue through the proposed development. He stated that they had discussed the moving of the frontage road with the adjacent property owners to the north. Their concerns were that the moving of the frontage road would make it more difficult to their needs. He added that the land use was appropriate for College Avenue and had dealt with the trans- portation issues correctly. Outdoor dining areas have been provided for people within the area. The landscaping issue needed to be dealt with in relation to the access plan. By providing an access into this site, the landscaping would be reduced. A 300 foot decal lane would be installed, which would reduce the median along Col- lege Avenue. He briefly discussed the building elevations. Member Carroll asked why a westerly ingress into the Steele's Market site was shown but did not currently exist. Mr. Zdenek replied that they were asked to combine the current Steele's access and the proposed access instead of relocating it. The total access to Foothills Parkway will not be increased, just relocated. Chairman Kern asked who will maintain and plow the private road that goes through the center of this project. Mr. Zdenek replied that this has not been negotiated as yet but will be part of the final PUD. Chairman Kern asked what type of lighting will be on the site and will there be substantial energy savings in the buildings. Mr. Zdenek stated that the lighting would be of the down -directed variety. The heating for the garage facilities would be a infra -red system which would heat the object and not the air which would save energy. Also, glass will be introduced in the south -facing exposures which would allow the building to be heated in a natural sense during the winter months. Member Walker asked if the eight parking spaces along the priv ite road would be there to serve the restaurant. -5- Mr. Zdenek stated that they would be for the restaurant employees since this was not a sit-down restaurant. Member Walker stated that he was concerned about these parking spaces becoming a safety hazard because the private road would become like an extension of the frontage road. He asked if these spaces could be switched so the cars would access the parking from one of the drive-thru stalls. Mr. Zdenek stated that this was in excess of a normal parking lot situation but this was not an uncommon situation, such as the mall area and The Square parking lots. These existing areas carry more traffic than would this proposal. He felt that it was a safe condition and would work safely. Chairman Kern asked if the private road would be equivalent to a 40 foot right-of- way. Mr. Zdenek replied yes. Member Carroll asked if the currently existing public right-of-way for the frontage road would be vacated from the right turn -in only to the south and revert to the ownership of the fast food facility. Mr. Zdenek replied yes. Mr. Eckman suggested that if there was to be an agreement where excess or over- flow parking can use the Steele's Market lot, this agreement should be in a record- able form, such as an easement form for that purpose. Mr. Zdenek stated that there was a concern about the recordable aspect of this agreement but something that was kept on file with the City. The attorney for Steele's Market had a concern with the clouding of the title. Mr. Eckman asked if there was a question on whether this was a permanent right or merely a temporary right to park on the Steele's lot. Mr. Zdenek replied no, this was something that the City Attorney and Mr. Fisher could discuss. He felt that this was a technicality. Chairman Kern asked if anyone from the audience wished to address this issue. Mike Dellenbach, 2272 Iroquois, spoke representing the property owners at 3111 South College Avenue, adjacent to the proposed project. He stated that their major concern with this project was the traffic flow to Dellenbach Chevrolet. In this plan, the frontage road has been closed, relocated, rerouted and a curb cut installed with the primary purpose of alleviating congestion at Foothills Boulevard and Swallow Road intersections. With the curbcut being less than 100 feet from Foothills Boulevard, they did not feel that vehicles travelling southbound would use it to access businesses that are north of this project. They felt that this would only add to the problems at the Swallow Road intersection. The new entrance of the fron- tage road onto Foothills Parkway would be approximately 190 feet further west, which would necessitate making three 90 degree turns to get back to the frontage road going north. They felt that northbound traffic going to businesses north of this project would not use this route but would continue to the Swallow Road frontage road access and go south, adding further to the congestion. He added that relocating this frontage road would severely handicap their business. Jim Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., represented Jack and Ed Williams, owners of Long John Silver's and Round the Corner restaurants. He stated that they object to the proposed project with the right -in located close to Foothills Parkway as shown on the plan. They felt that to serve all of the properties within that area, if a right -in should be located further to the north, more central to the block and be a right -in right -out, rather than a right -in that was located in proximity to Foothills Parkway, at a place where it would create a four-way conflict with traffic that would be generated on the site. They also objected to the blocking of Foothills Parkway and frontage road intersection with the concept that vehicles moving to the north down Foothills Parkway, back around through the private parking lot, back onto a public right-of-way situation, would be a potentially hazardous situation. He stated that Mr. Williams strongly objected to the plan as presented. Chairman Kern closed the public input. Mr. Zdenek stated that they met with staff and the adjacent property owner that afternoon. He stated that they were in agreement with the elimination of access to College Avenue with the caveat that it continue through so vehicles can get direct access to the north property. He stated that between preliminary and final, shared access on the north property line could be reviewed. Chairman Kern asked for an explanation why a right -in only coming off College Avenue onto Foothills Parkway, therefore getting access to the northern properties, was not part of the plan. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the South College Access Plan attempted to arrive at two solutions to provide for a future capacity need for this area. Approval of a new right -in right -out between Foothills Parkway and Swallow Road with the intention to . enable traffic to not have to use the intersection of College Avenue and Swallow Road but compass that and arrive at a decel lane to access the frontage road and into the businesses in that area. An element of the South College Access Plan was to incorporate into any development. Another concept in addressing the Foothills Parkway intersection was to relocate the frontage road access further to the west to allow for full movement. In order to move the road further to the west, a reason- able compromise would be to not make it a city right-of-way and work with future development at this site. He added that the City would resist putting in a median in Swallow Road similar to the one placed in Foothills Parkway. Member Klataske asked if the right -in off of College Avenue could be moved fur- ther north and the private road be on the north end of the property. Mr. Ensdorff stated that this came closer to the solution but questions could be raised by the adjacent property owners that share in the cost and how they get their access. Member Shepard asked that if the access off of College Avenue were moved north to the property line between this project and Dellenbach, would that be far enough north of Foothills Parkway to allow for a right -out. Mr. Ensdorff replied that it would be far enough. Member Walker asked if a right -in with a decel lane could be installed in front of Dellenbach. 0 Mr. Ensdorff stated yes. -7- Mr. Shepard gave the staff recommendation of approval with the following condi- tions: 1) The final landscape plan shall provide for the mitigation of the loss of street trees along College Avenue. Such mitigation shall be approved by the City Forester. 2) The amount of screen material in the area of the menu board and along Foothills Parkway shall be increased so that the menu board is not visible from the street. The screen material may consist of berming and landscaping. Mr. Eckman reiterated that the shared parking agreement needs to be in writing for possible future buyers of the land. He suggested that this be a condition to the recommendation. He stated that there was a permit that could be revoked, and if it were revoked, there would be no shared parking. Member Walker moved to approve Foothills Parkway with the following additions: a) that Condition 2 of the staff recommendation be met; b) that the condition that the City Attorney proposed be met; c) that the connection from Foothills Parkway to the existing access road be routed to the north of the property and make the connection to the access road with a right -out; d) that the right -in access off of College Avenue be at that location to connect in an intersection type format; e) that this roadway have a similar design concept as the existing roadway in terms of how It would appear or feel to a driver without causing an abrupt change In design concept. Member Burns seconded the motion. Mr. Shepard asked if the northerly curbcut would be entirely on the subject prop- erty or would it be shared with the property to the north. Member Walker suggested that it would be entirely on the subject property. Mr. Shepard stated that there might be a problem with that condition. Mr. Zdenek stated that the burden of putting that access on the subject property was not at the request of the city and would not service the proposed property. He stated that they would work with the adjacent property owners to share that access. If it was entirely on the subject property, it would not allow for the development of that road. Member Walker suggested that the city vacate the existing access road and trade it off with the proposed development. Mr. Zdenek stated that the dilemma would come from two fixed entities and there would be no dimension to put that road in. There would be dimension in the 15 foot easement to share the road. Member Strom commented that this was a struggle to redesign the site which sug- gested to him that the site current design was not acceptable. He added that he had no problem with the uses but has a difficult time in approving this as a preliminary and totally redesigning the site before final. Member Walker stated that he concurred with Member Strom. He liked the site and the idea of changing the access but it was a major undertaking in redesigning it. Member Carroll concurred with Member Strom. He stated that he was not comfort- able with the configuration and with dictating on where the right -in and right -out should go. He added the access of the frontage road on the southeastern part of this property should not be closed until such time as an adequate right -in right -out be established between Foothills Parkway and Swallow Road. He did feel comfortable -8- with the right -in and would not support the removal of the median where it cur- rently exists. He added that if he were voting on this issue, he would support the city not vacating the southern portion of the frontage road until an alternate access was established between Foothills Parkway and Swallow Road. Member Burns stated that he was not comfortable with the right -in where it was shown and felt it should be moved north. If the condition was not attached and the project was in its present form, he could not support the project. Member Strom commented that the difficulty with leaving the access open to Foot- hills Parkway was that it would create a more congested problem than what cur- rently exists at that intersection. Chairman Kern commented that the Board was dealing with questions of external traffic access and internal circulation. He felt that the Board was attempting to reconfigure the design in order to make it work for a project that was appropriate for the site. He felt that by making these changes, an unfair burden was being placed on the applicant by having him reconfigure things for his benefit and the benefit of those around him. He stated that he would vote against this project just to see it start again from ground zero so that something to the benefit for all can be realized. Member O'Dell commented that she was hopeful that this would start some discus- sion with some of the property owners to the north and to realize that this was not to the advantage of most drivers to have the median in Foothills Parkway and may be to the advantage of the property owners to do what was in the South College Access Plan to have the right -in right -out further north on College Avenue. She stated that she would not support this motion because she felt the Board was ! redesigning something fairly grand. She cited Criteria 026 and #35 as not being met by this proposal. Member Walker stated he shared concerns with other Board members and withdrew his motion of approval. Member Burns stated that he supported the original motion of approval. Member Shepard commented that she concurred with Chairman Kern. She felt that the applicant was being penalized in the Board objecting to the access and requiring the applicant to work out something with the property owners to the north. Boyd Hobeck, Round the Corner Restaurant, stated that they worked out a possible solution with the adjacent property owners that would not require them to start from the beginning. He proposed to make the frontage road a right -in only so the city would not have a problem with vehicles exiting south onto Foothills Parkway and make a u-turn. Chairman Kern stated that the Board was voting on what was currently on the table to which agreements have been reached. He stated that what the applicant has negotiated in the future will bear on future development, not what was currently proposed. The motion to approve Foothills Parkway PUD Preliminary was denied 2-5, with Members Strom, O'Dell, Klataske, Kern and Shepard In the negative. 0 With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.