Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/26/1989PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES . JUNE 26, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:38 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Jim Klataske, Jan Shepard, Rex Burns and Alternate Joseph Carroll. Board members absent included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, and Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Mike Herzig, Rick Richter, Rick Ensdorff, Paul Eckman, Linda Ripley, and Kayla Ballard. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 22, 1989 meeting; Item 2 - Soundtrack at Arbor Plaza PUD - Preliminary and Final - #137-80F; Item 3 - Pineview PUD Tract C - Two Year Extension - #76-81D; Item 4 -I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning - 024-89,A; Item 5 - Highway 14 East Third Annexation and Zoning - 025-89,A; Item 6 - Harmony Annexation Seventh Annexation and Zoning - 027-89,A; Item 7 - Amendment to the Land Development Guidance System - Submittal Date Requirement. Acting Chairman Klataske asked if there were other items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Lou Trionfera, 2620 SE Frontage Road, stated that he did not receive notification of the I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning. IsZoning Chairman Klataske stated that Item 4, I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning would be pulled from the Consent Agenda and would be heard first on the Discussion Agenda. Member Carroll moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. I-25 SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 024-89,A Linda Ripley stated that the applicant supplied staff with the area of notification property owners list which included property owners within 500 feet. She stated she would check the list with Mr. Trionfera. If his name did not appear on the list, she would include his name on the list. She added that the annexation was a minor housekeeping matter and that no developable land was included in the annexation. Member Shepard moved to approve the I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 4-0. RESOLUTION PZ89-4 - ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - #11-88A Joe Frank gave a description of the proposed Plan, the history of the plan, the • process and people involved with the proposed Plan. Major points included: pros and cons of findings; Vision of Downtown 2010; organization of Downtown Plan; land use; image and character; pedestrian and vehicle environment; on -street parking; promotion and marketing; economic development of the downtown; maintenance and security. He presented slides of the existing gateways in Fort Collins and drawings of those gateways as proposed in the future. These gateways included: North College; Lincoln; Lincoln and Riverside; Riverside; Mulberry and Riverside; College and LaPorte. He continued with the slides of alleyways and their proposed improvements, Canyon and Meldrum pedestrianways and parking, Fort Collins Downtown Sign System, and stated the time frame would be approximately 20 years for completion. Mr. Frank thanked the efforts of staff, the Steering Committee and the public who were involved. Chip Steiner, Downtown Development Authority, thanked Joe Frank for his work on this project. He added that the DDA strongly endorsed this project. Member Shepard asked if the Planning and Zoning Board was adopting or approving this item. Paul Eckman replied that the Board would be approving this item as a final act under the State enabling legislation. The Plan will also go to the City Council for their approval and adoption as it was part of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that if this was unclear to the Board, the word "adopted" could be removed and suggested "approval" to incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan. Member Shepard clarified that, in the resolution, it should read "Poudre River Trust....." not "Poudre River....." Member Shepard commented that the Plan presented tremendous vision for downtown and was a good reflection of potential of what can happen downtown. She felt that it was particularly strong in physical design and visual enhancement element that will provide a unique identity and image for the downtown. Also, there were good improvements since the draft, particularly in approving the addition of a one year time frame for actions rather than, in general, in the next five years. Member Shepard continued by stating that more could have been done in providing specific guidance and directions on how to get at what was being proposed. She felt it was vague in terms of specific city commitments and investments that will be made in the downtown in terms of dollars and efforts. This included other city departments that have to be involved in the crucial areas such as street and alley improvements, parks, and open space. She felt it did not pinpoint who will do it and if money has been allocated. Member Shepard also had comments on the following policies and actions: Policy 1 - Action 3 - Strongly in favor of addition since the draft but would like to have it updated on an annual basis. Add action stating "develop departmental annual work plans and budgets covering downtown project elements and prioritize them." Policy 3 - Action 6 - Addition of "....and provide financial incentives." Mr. Frank stated that incentives have been addressed in Action 3.6 of Chapter 5. -2- PPglicy 6 Action 1 - Government - Concerned about older adult center in downtown. She felt that it was a weaker position to establish a commitment to retain the older adult center in downtown area as an immediate action to be adopted with the Plan. She preferred a stronger statement such as "Acquire or designate a site for senior citizen center in the next year." Policy 7 - Action 2 - Action Item 7.2 of Chapter 5 - Action to upgrade landscaping on College Avenue between LaPorte Avenue and the river - This only referred to the intersection of College and LaPorte Avenue. She felt it would be a positive action to construct something physical north of LaPorte Avenue which would deter the cruising situation. Policy 8 - Action 19 - Has been changed from "immediate adoption" to "within one year." She felt it would be appropriate to adopt this with the Plan and, if an update is needed, do so within one year. Mr. Steiner stated that the DDA asked for the update before the adoption. Mr. Frank stated that feedback that was received for that action was that this needed to be reviewed and updated before adoption of the Plan. Member Shepard continued with the following suggested changes: Policy 9 - Action 1 - Action Item 9.1 in Chapter 5 - There were 5 phases that were identified for the trolley: Phase 1 is currently underway; Phase 3 and 3B should be corrected to read "Mason Street to the west side of College Avenue." She felt there was a lot of uncertainty about the advisability of taking the • trolley across College Avenue and the parking problems created by taking the trolley from Mason Street to College on the west side. She suggested specific time frames be placed on Phases I and 2 rather than the trolley issues being indicated as "next year through the next 20 years." Policy 11 - Action 11 - Mulberry/Magnolia couplet was identified as an action to study that over the next year. She asked what was intended to be the result of a study of that issue in the next year. Mr. Frank stated that the intent was to be part of the multi -modal transportation planning process that was currently underway. The result would be to try to establish the need and to establish the timing of that improvement. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the multi -modal plan time frame was for completion in 1990. An extensive element was to deal with the transportation policies and values of the community over the next nine months, then develop strategic plans on where this community needs to go after developing those policies. The Mulberry/Magnolia couplet will be a part of the Plan. Member Shepard continued with the following suggested changes: Policy I - Action 16 - She felt it was important enough and easy enough to be done in one year. She suggested the truck route come in on Mulberry, then west on Lemay Avenue to Conifer and then west to College Avenue to bypass downtown. -3- Mr. Ensdorff stated that Mulberry was a state highway and with that goes certain design perimeters and restrictions on what the city can use for a bypass. This would entail not just putting up signs, but rebuilding the roadways, changing the turning radius to meet the state highway standards to allow that to be designated as a state highway. The street system could handle this however, the state highway department would not allow this to be designated as a truck route because of the width of the street and other restrictions. He added that the city was working with the highway department to have a bypass. One main function was to relocated Colorado 14 to where it would not have such an impact on our downtown area. Mr. Frank stated that for all those reasons that Mr. Ensdorff stated, this had been a very complex issue and was a five year plan instead of a one year plan. Mr. Ensdorff stated that City Council had determined that the city realign Lemay Avenue. Member Shepard concluded her suggested changes as follows: Policy 12 - Parking - She asked if the city was providing fee incentives for multi -employee passes. Rita Davis, Parking/Bikeways Manager, stated that this had not been implemented as the city's goal to be able to implement for this year however, it is a part of the regulations to be part of this Plan. Member Shepard asked if an action could be added regarding the development of a specific parking program for the downtown residents. Ms. Davis stated that this has been addressed in Action 5. Mr. Peterson stated that staff will have no problems in making those editorial changes. He stated that Member Shepard was correct in stating who would be responsible in making sure that these matters get accomplished. He added that Member Shepard was also correct in stating why a comprehensive plan should be done for downtown. In regard to Member Shepard's comments on the senior citizen center, this issue will be continuing for a long period of time in terms of making a decision about the type of structure and location. He suggested that if the Board were to go along with Member Shepard's recommendation, then this could be done by doing an amendment. Mr. Frank stated that a good point was brought up by Member Shepard regarding the vagueness of the implementation. This plan was a guide for the future. The challenge will be to implement this plan and get commitments by private property owners as well as public government. The senior citizen center was a controversial issue and would suggest specific direction from the Board on the wording of that issue. Member Shepard asked if there was a question as to City commitment for the senior citizen center to be located downtown. -4- Mr. Peterson replied that City Council had not made a decision on that matter. Because of that and because the voters have recently approved funding for it, • staff would prefer City Council view it as something to make a decision on as a policy. Staff felt the wording was strong enough however, if the Board wished stronger language, it would be their option to vote on that. Member Burns commented that, overall, staff had done an incredibly good job on the Plan and he was impressed with the graphics on the Plan. He added that this was a complete job with citizen participation and notification of various concerned parties. Mr. Frank suggested that the incorporation of the changes be voted on tonight and show the editorial changes to the draft as part of the minutes that will be before the Board for approval at the July meeting. Member Shepard moved to recommend adoption of the Downtown Plan and its inclusion as an element of the Comprehensive Plan with the changes and suggestions that she made and staff agreed to and with specific reference to Policy 6 Action 1, that the wording be left as it was but that the Board make a specific recommendation to City Council that the Senior Citizen Center be located downtown. Member Burns asked if the Board was adopting Resolution 89-4. Mr. Eckman replied that this was what he understood but the Board was wanting to amend the Plan. He asked if the Board was desiring to amend the Plan or the resolution to make the remark about the Senior Citizen Center. • Member Shepard stated that she desired to include it as a statement in the resolution. She stated that she was proposing to leave the language as it was in the Plan but to indicate that the Board desired to have the Senior Citizen Center located downtown in the resolution. Mr. Eckman stated that staff would draft the resolution accordingly. Member Carroll seconded the motion. He commented that he served on the Choices 95 committee. He stated that the senior citizen center was the most discussed item of the entire 130 projects, as was the location of the center. The subcommittee, as well as the executive committee, strongly supported the location of the senior citizen center in downtown Fort Collins for the benefit of the senior citizens and the downtown. He strongly supported the motion. Acting Chairman Klataske commented that this was one of the most comprehensive plans he has seen in Fort Collins. The scope and scale of neighborhood plans pale in comparison to this Plan. He stated that staff did a superb job on this Plan. Motion to recommend adoption passed 4-0. THE MARKET PLACE PUD - Preliminary - #21-89 THE MARKET PLACE PUD, Phase 1 - Final - #21-89B Is footage Frank gave descriptions of the proposed projects. He stated that the square footage should be 105,856 square feet. -5- Gene Yergenson, Yergenson, Obering and Whitaker, briefly discussed alignment of curbcuts, inclusion of the outparcel, and building materials. He presented slides of various views of the proposed site and the surrounding areas. He stated that revisions were made to the plan which included: inclusion of a 15 foot landscape easement on the adjacent property to the north, irrigated with trees and shrubs; additional parking lot islands; additional trees in front, the moving back of the sidewalk on College Avenue into the property and provision of a 3 foot berm in front, elevation reductions; Pad B elevations; and the redesign of buildings D and E to provide pedestrian access from the center to the outparcel. Mr. Frank stated that these two items had conditions that have been met. Mr. Peterson suggested that a brief condition be inserted into the final regarding the dedication of Troutman Parkway. Mr. Eckman stated that the dedication of easement requires that all encumbrance holders, which includes all owners and/or proprietors, must execute the plat. With this project there are several encumbrance holders, of which one has not executed the plat. He stated that he has written the following condition that should be inserted into the final plan: "The plat is approved upon condition that, prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction of improvements upon the platted property, the developer shall provide to the City satisfactory evidence that any lien or encumbrance holders with any beneficial interest in any portion of the platted property and who have not signed the plat or otherwise duly and lawfully consented to the development of the property in accordance with the plat and other development documents, have first released and surrendered any such beneficial interest or interests." Acting Chairman Klataske asked what was to keep that party from extorting a fee for that release. Mr. Eckman stated that prior arrangements had been made and that the holder will be paid off when the closing occurs. Jay Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum -Dean and applicant for the proposed project, stated that this problem had been worked out and that the property had been purchased by his company. Member Burns asked what would happen if the encumbrance holder refused to sign. Mr. Eckman replied that the City had a deed with Mr. Strickfaden but had been waiting a subordination from all the lien holders applicable to that deed. Authorization had been approved to record this plat. He asked if Mr. Strickfaden was withdrawing that authorization at this time. William Strickfaden, a managing general partner of Fort Collins Assemblage Ltd., stated that when the plat was executed by the seller of the property and all the mortgage holders, he understood that it would be recorded upon '.Cm approval of this transaction of final and preliminary approval this evening. • Nothing was mentioned of a condition of recording on the plat that the Peterson encumbrance would affect his part of the property should the transaction not result in a completed sale. He asked if the condition would affect the encumbrance of his property. Mr. Eckman replied that it would prohibit the issuance of a building permit on his property under this plat until the plat was completely executed, which was a requirement of the city and the state statutes. He stated that Mr. Strickfaden could not proceed with development of his property without the plat being recorded. Mr. Strickfaden stated that he did not have control of all of the property. He added that he had no solution and was not sure he had a problem with this matter. He felt the condition placed on the approval would be a limiting factor in the event that this transaction did not complete. Mr. Eckman stated that there was a possibility of that and there would be no solution other than requiring that this project be postponed until the completed plat was submitted. Mr. Strickfaden stated that the encumbrance holder that had not executed the plat was a mortgage holder having a note and Deed of Trust on property other than Fort Collins Assemblage. At this time, a recess was held so the developer and owner could discuss the situation and arrive at an agreement. . After 10 minutes, the meeting reconvened. Mr. Eckman stated that it was agreed by the developer and the owner that the condition prepared would be acceptable. George Holier, property owner to the north of the proposed project, commented that the design showing the location of the buildings and some of the land not included in this preliminary and final was for conceptual only. He stated that he understood there was to be some language placed on the Plan. He stated that he would not be in agreement showing the buildings as they are located on the master plan. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Holter was referring to the Amended Superblock Master Plan No. 3 for South College Properties concept plan. He stated that, for the record, those buildings shown in the area called "Phase Two" were conceptual only. Member Shepard asked if they reflected officially amended master plan. Mr. Peterson stated that they do not reflect an amended master plan. Member Carroll moved to approve The Market Place PUD Preliminary. Member Burns seconded the motion. . Member Shepard asked if Outparcel H was included in the traffic impact study. -7- Mr. Yergenson stated that it was included in the study. Member Shepard asked if Outparcel H had agreed to follow the proposed general design of the Phar-Mor building. Mr. Yergenson replied that Outparcel H was in agreement to that stipulation of the general design and the landscaping. Member Shepard asked about signage for Pad H. Mr. Yergenson replied that this will be presented in final. Member Shepard stated that signage was a condition of preliminary approval and asked if the Board was to expect a monument sign on Pad H. Mr. Yergenson stated that this was not addressed because they do not have control of that pad. Member Shepard stated that there was no information on signage, maximum building height or intended uses for the preliminary plan. Mr. Yergenson stated that the design and the intent of the preliminary was that it would be retail on the lower level and para-retail offices on the upper level. The signage issue was not brought up by staff or discussed with Mr. Johnson. The main concept was to have the utilities and circulation controlled as part of this preliminary. Mr. Frank stated that staff felt there was sufficient information to give it preliminary approval. The goals had been established and staff felt comfortable with the information that was provided. Member Shepard asked if the exterior wall signs would be along JFK Parkway. Mr. Yergenson replied that the exterior wall signs would be strictly on Troutman Parkway. Member Shepard asked if, on the final, all the landscaping on the street frontages would be included except the street frontages along Parcel H. Mr. Yergenson responded that this was correct. They do not control that ground. Acting Chairman Klataske asked what kind of landscaping would be on Parcel H until it was developed and what kind of maintenance would be provided. Mr. Yergenson stated that this was under separate ownership and would be the responsibility of the owner of the property. Acting Chairman Klataske asked what was to prevent the site from being the refuse area from the development of the rest of the site. Mr. Eckman replied that city code provisions prohibit littering and tracking of construction debris. He stated that the owner might also be watchful of the site. -8- Mr. Frank stated that this would be part of the inspection process either by Public Works, who inspects the site and public improvements, or by staff. • Mr. Rosenbaum stated that Mr. Johnson will be very watchful of the site since that it was his insistence that his parcel be placed in the preliminary approval. He added that it was included in the development agreement that littering and such be prohibited. Member Burns commented that he was not comfortable with the location of the of the entrance of the Phar-MOT site. He suggested that the access on the west would align with the access on the east. Mr. Yergenson stated that this could be an option in the future, depending on how the adjoining property was developed. Member Burns felt that the plan has certain inefficiencies built into it as far as the traffic circulation routing through the site. Motion to approve passed 4-0. Member Burns moved to approve The Market Place PUD, Phase 1, Final with the condition that Mr. Eckman stated. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. • The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. in