Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/01/1988• PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF CONTINUED ITEMS December 1, 1988 The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of December I, 1988 was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present at the meeting were Laurie O'Dcll, Dave Edwards, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, and Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Linda Riplcy, Sherry Albertson Clark, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Kayla Ballard, and Paul Eckman. Chairperson O'Dcll stated this was a meeting to hear the remaining items fjom the November 21 meeting. FOX MEADOWS MASTER PLAN Ted Shepard, project planner, gave a brief description of the project Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects, stated this project was part of the planning of • this neighborhood but was left in the T transition zone quite some time ago. He said at that time, Bighorn Drive was to be accessed to the subdivision to the cast through this property. He said at times, this property had come through for specific requests which have not come to fruition. Ile believed the land uses arc appropriate, pointing out that 20 units per acre was pcnnittable for the multi -family area. Mr. Shepard stated staff recommends approval as the land uses were appropri- ate. Mr. Johnson, property owner, stated at the neighborhood meeting of September 27, that 14-16 units were presented and at this meeting, 20 were proposed. He had concerns regarding convenience store and possible gas leaks. He stated he had petitions against the need for Bighorn Drive as direct access in and out of the subdivision. He did not feel there was a need for a daycare or convc- nicnee store as there were both less than a mile away. He had concerns about how the applicant proposed to put everything proposed on this lot width which was only 400' wide. He also asked about landscaping, parking accommodations, building height, lighting on the convenience store, hours of operation and blowing trash. Chairperson O'Dcll told Mr. Johnson to ask the more specific questions when they heard the preliminary part of these two projects and staff could answer them at that time. She asked Mr. Shepard to explain how the proposal changed since it was seen at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Shepard stated the neighborhood meeting was held prior to submittal. He 0 said this plan evolved into a de -intensifying use, as the office changed to P & Z Meeting - December I, 1988 Page 2 residential. He said the density proposed on a master plan was no guarantee and the plan must come back through the PUD process and must meet the point chart. He noted the daycare was moved away from the arterial. Mr. Eckman stated that there were 15 petitions submitted to the Board which are against Bighorn Drive. He asked to whom the petitions were given. Mr. Johnson stated that 50 petitions were circulated among neighbors with one in favor of Bighorn and 15 against. Member Shepard asked if there was a density noted on the master plan, can the developer go any higher or must he stay at that level or below. Mr. Shepard stated the density must remain the same or below. Member Walker asked why the difference in density from the neighborhood meeting to the current master plan. Mr. Zdenek stated they showed the plan with 20 units at the neighborhood meeting, but had stated that developments approved recently in the City were in the 12-16 range. tic thought that number would occur on this plan but noted that the RMP zoning allows 20 units per acre. He believes the major land uses change was the daycare and the &-intensification of changing the office uses to residential. Member Walker asked about the landscaping buffer on the castside and if this would mitigate the multi -family from the single family densities. Mr. Zdenek answered yes, and that there would also be a bike trail and they would anticipate it to be a substantial buffer. Member Edwards asked about Bighorn Drive. Mr. Zdenek stated that Bighorn had always been planned and the utilities have been put in. He believed the neighborhood would be well served to access this road rather than going on an arterial street and for that purpose it was well suited. He thought that by reducing the width to 28' would limit the traffic. Member Edwards asked if it was 28' at the intersection on Timberline Road. Mr. Zdenek stated the road was wider in the commercial area and then necks down in the residential to discourage travel. Mr. Shepard stated Bighorn was a local street to serve the neighborhood. tic said when the property was platted, Bighorn was to extend west to the prop- erty line. Staff feels it would be an access to the master plan, otherwise, traffic would need to get onto Timberline or Horsetooth. tic believed traffic would be lessened by the use of Bighorn. Member Edwards asked about the access. P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Shepard stated the existing access was Arctic Fox, off Ilorsctoolh and Caribou had access off Timberline. Member Walker asked about the proximity of the convenience stores. Mr. Shepard stated the existing store was 3/4 miles away and meets the point chart. Member Edwards stated that the property north of Fox Meadows zoned BP and RP. He asked how they can assure the neighborhood that those future resi- dents would not access the convenience store via Bighorn, driving through their subdivision. Mr. Peterson pointed out that it was inconvenient to use local streets and his traffic planning experience had shown that people would use the quickest and most convenient route, which would be the arterials. Sheryl Healy, 2201 Bighorn, asked why the area was being developed as both business and residential. Mr. Zdenek stated 15 acres was not a small parcel and to make it all a shop- ping center would not be appropriate. He believes the daycare to be an important aspect of the project. • Member Edwards had concerns about future development of the area north of Fox Meadows and the possible use of Arctic Fox and Bighorn Drive to access the convenience store. Mr. Peterson stated there are ways to design the road since it would be carrying a larger volume of traffic. He stated there may be a possibility of a median. Member Edwards thought that in the future the traffic load at this location would equal the traffic load at Lemay and Horsetooth. He would not like to see the area to the north of Fox Meadows trying to access the convenience store through residential streets. He would like to see the traffic redirected so as not to go through the subdivision. Mr. Shepard stated the access road from the northern property would be a private parking lot type road that would be the access for phase 2 off of Horsetooth and won't be designed as a public street. Member Edwards stated that it was noted on the master plan as right in/right out, and left in with full turning movement with no left out. Mr. Tiley, general partner of Fox Meadows, stated that when this was dcvcl- oped by Mcdema, they had a several cut -de -sacs and Bighorn. The City asked the developers to bring in a water main which they did at that time. He said they also paid a water and sewer fee for tapping into these lines. He said there would be egress and ingress into the property so traffic can move in and • out here off of Horsetooth with a median at the turn. P & Z Meeting - December I, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Peterson stated the access would be determined by the traffic review. Fie said this concern could be covered by a note on the master plan. Member Edwards realized that the problems in the future were not the prob- Icros of the current applicant, but when a master plan comes in for the ground to the north, that a street might be placed between the BP and RP zones. lie would like to avoid future problems at the intersection of Arctic Fox and the northern access street. Member Shepard asked if anything would be accomplished by making it two way from Timberline to the residential development but only one way out, enabling the residents from Fox Meadows a way out but no one could go in. Chairperson O'Dell stated that this design would defeat the purpose, as people using the convenience center would want to go back home and would have to go around to get back home. Mr. Shepard believed that would be difficult to enforce and would imagine that it would be abused. Mr. Tilcy stated it could be designed but it must be done in an area where no one was around at night to abuse it. He believed the narrow design would make Bighorn less attractive to a motorist. Member Walker stated he would like to see the master plan more specific. Ile did not believe this higher density adjacent to the lower density area is appropriate and thought the use was too intense. Chair. O'Dell agreed and stated she would like to sec more realistic rather than an inflated number. Member Walker moved to approve the master plan with the density at 16 units per acre. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Member Edwards asked if someone could factor the numbers out to determine the difference in units per acres. Member Walker stated at 16 units per acre it would equal 160 units versus the proposed 200. Member Edwards asked if the motion included the note on the master plan regarding access, since this was not contiguous to Arctic Fox Drive and the land to the north was vacant. He asked if the note would even be relevant. Mr. Peterson suggested a graphic be put on the master plan, as the plan is often reviewed for compatibility. He said that under the graphic, a note stating that this particular entranceway, if conditions warrant, should be designed to be compatible to the development to the north. Member Walker stated he would like to include this wording in the motion. 0 • • P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 5 Mr. Peterson said staff would work up wording and graphic with applicant if the Board voted favorably before the plat was signed, so it's in the record. Member Edwards said he was usually inclined to agree with what was proposed on the master plan, as he knows they must go through the preliminary and final stage and the Board would have some degree of control. Although he was uncomfortable with changing the number on the master plan, but it still ]caves the door open to justify the higher density and he would support the motion on that basis. Chair. O'Dell asked the developer was acceptable, so they might proceed. Mr. Zdenek stated he accepted the change. Motion to approve passed 4-0. FOX MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK, PHASE I - PRELIMINARY Ted Shepard, project planner, gave a project description. John Barnett, ZVFK Architects, stated this project was intended to be a convenience center. He said the access would be Bighorn Drive, with a private access behind the site which comes out to Horsetooth Rd. He noted that Bighorn Dr. was tapered from 36' to 28' in the residential area and widened to 40' at the intersection. He pointed out the street trees, pedestrian walkway and the 74 parking spaces. He said Bighorn would have sidewalks on eastsidc with a vertical curb. The buildings were proposed as brick and acid washed concrete, with the roofing constructed of standing scam metal. He stated a 30' tower would be available for signage. Member Walker stated the canopy would need to be set back off Timberline. He asked if the applicant was comfortable with this. Mr. Barnett stated yes, as it was a requirement of code. Mr. Shepard stated staff finds this plan meets the criteria of neighborhood convenience point chart. Included in the recommendation was five conditions which he outlined: 1) street tree plantings along Bighorn be satisfactory; 2) parking drive aisle in front of gas canopy shall be set back from Timberline ROW a minimum of 25'; 3) prior to final, the developer shall submit specific sign package; 4) prior to final, additional architectural features to mitigate commercial uses in residential area; and 5) prior to final, documents illustrating installation of a secondary containment and electronic leak detector for underground tanks shall be submitted to Poudre Fire Authority for review. Member Shepard stated the neighborhood convenience center guidelines require 25 - 35% landscaping. She asked if this project meets that criteria. Mr. Shepard answered yes. P & Z Meeting - December I, 1988 Page 6 Member Shepard stated the guidelines also suggest 4 uses and this plan only shows 3. Should another use be incorporated into the plan. Mr. Shepard stated there was a true mix of residential, retail and gas service and given the size and mix, the plan was acceptable. Member Walker had concerns regarding the right in/right out on Horsetooth and the potential risk for cars backing out into the roadway. Mr. Herzig said although there was criteria for how close the parking stalls can be to Timberline, the only regulating factor for staff was making sure move- ment in the lot does not affect the street. He could not say anything would happen if another phase was developed, but pointed out that each phase must be reviewed and any concerns addressed. Member Walker stated that by approving this plan, they were endorsing what happens there. He asked Ted what the parking allocation was. Mr. Shepard stated the parking was within the guidelines at the low end. Member Shepard asked what would happen if they lost the 10 spaces. Mr. Shepard said at the peak time, there would be a full parking lot, with spill out into the nearest available area, which could be the multi -family area or a vacant field. Member Walker had concerns regarding the right in/right out and the amount of internal traffic flow. Mr. Barnett stated that the project would generate less than 500 trips per day and that there were only 10 spaces located there and the rest was distributed throughout the site, making it a minor traffic movement. Chairperson O'Dell asked if it was appropriate to keep the private drive and that parking. Mr. Barnett said this was a condition which exists in most large parking lots in town, the difference being the road was identified as a private drive and not part of the parking lot. Member Walker asked about the proposed signage on 3 sides of the tower and it's function. Mr. Barnett stated they would be resolving the total signage at final review but for now, the tower would be available for signage on the north and south. The function was to provide focal point, as the surrounding area was low. Member Edwards asked if the Board would be faced with similar problems as with Chesterfield, Bottomsley and Potts and the shared parking lot. P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 7 • Mr. Barnett stated the custom was to create public access casements. tic said the private drives would be on the property as was the center itself. When the residential portion was done, the other drives would possibly be casements but will clearly owned by one or another of the owners. Member Edwards asked why it was not a dedicated street. Mr. Barnett stated the requirements for dedicated streets was 28' on a 46' ROW and the proposed widths for the drives were not acceptable to the City. Mr. Eckman asked if these roads would be owned and maintained privately but made available to the public. Mr. Barnett answered yes. Member Edwards stated if the adjacent landowners felt they were being nega- tively impacted by traffic and parking, the Board may hear those arguments in the future and may be authorized to erect a barrier which would prohibit thru access. Mr. Barnett stated the road needed to be open for reasons of fire safety. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Tilcy what assurances he could give the City regarding access when selling the property so the Board isn't faced with a developer who • might find the access situation unacceptable. Mr. Tiley stated he could not assure the future. He stated that Timberline is a major thoroughfare with a 120' ROW, 60' taken from both sides but due to the houses on Horsetooth, near Harmony, they had to take 70' from their property which pushed the project back. He believed the future access off Horsctooth would be adequate in eliminating any problems on Arctic Fox Dr. Lorie Thornton, a resident, asked if a grocery store was planned for the southwest side, and if so, why a store was needed at this site. Mr. Shepard answered yes, and that the LDGS is not a marketing mechanism and each developer has the right to do as he chosen. Ms. Thornton asked if the guidelines permitted a restaurant to be built in the same area as a convenience store. Chairwoman O'Dell stated a drive -up type would not be permitted, and this would be a sit down restaurant. Ms. Thornton expressed concerns regarding storm drainage, blowing trash, and the type of retail store planned. Mr. Tiley noted the permitted uses in that zone, but had no specific tenants at this time. He pointed out the detention areas, bike paths and said the tenants would be responsible for the trash collection. 0 P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 8 Chairwoman O'Dell asked the uses allowed under the convenience store guide- lines. Mr. Shepard read the various uses allowed. Member Walker asked about immediate drainage. Mr. Barnett stated the drainage would flow easterly, directed by means of the swale to the detention area and released into the channel. Chris Johnson, a resident, asked the need for the tower and size of green belt. Mr. Barnett stated at this time, there was no specific size for the green belt. He said the tower was the focal point of the development. Member Walker asked if the tower was any higher than the residential build- ings approved on the master plan. Mr. Barnett answered no. Mr. Eckman addressed the blowing trash concern by noting the public and private recourses available to the residents. Cheryl Healy, a resident, asked if there were regulations for the hours of operation at the convenience store. Mr. Shepard stated no and with no signed tenants, the discussions have not been brought up. Ms. Healy asked if the residents of Fox Meadows can give their input as to the hours. Mr. Shepard stated yes. Ms. Healy believed there were too many stores in the area and that the tower will block the view and should be lowered. Chairwoman O'Dell told the residents that the Board cannot dictate what is built, but that certain City politics must be met by the applicant. Mr. Shepard suggested that another neighborhood meeting with the tenants, prior to final approval, be held and this could be a condition on approval of this project.. Member Shepard asked if Mr. Tiley had any signed tenants as she believed that if he did not, this condition could hinder his proceeding with the development. Mr. Tilcy stated he had no signed tenant and that the condition would hinder him. P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1911 Page 9 Member Walker asked if he had any plans for the hours of operation for the convenience store. Mr. Tilcy stated the hours were related to the volume of traffic and need and at this time the hours may be limited. He pointed out that as Timberline expands and the volume increased, the hours of operation would probably expand. Member Edwards moved to approve the project with the five conditions. Chairwoman O'Dell asked if he wished to include the condition regarding the neighborhood meeting. Member Edwards declined as he believed the condition would hinder the pro- cess. He thought neighborhood input would be included at each stage and that the condition is excessive. Member Walker seconded the motion. He stated that the concerns and impacts have been mitigated and the issue of hours of operation could be addressed further in the process. Chairwoman O'Dell told the residents that they would be notified of any future meetings and their comments would be acceptable at that time. . Motion to approve passed 4-0. PROSPECT PLAZA PUD FINAL Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the project George Haas, representing the applicant, stated that at preliminary review, the Board had concerns regarding landscaping at the site. He said the proposed changes included additional landscaping at the cast end of the cast curb cut and southeast corner of the building. He stated there would be a canopy on the motel similar to the one over the entrance to the restaurant. At the southwest corner of the building, he said they removed the tree and arc proposing two along the Prospect Road frontage. He noted the decrease in parking spaces, now totally 15. Member Walker asked the variety of trees to be planted Mr. Haas stated it would be a Hawthorne and a plum. Ms. Clark indicated the height of the trees to be 15-20 feet and would provide additional screening of the facade from Prospect. She said the Board had suggested 45 degree parking which would decrease by 50%, the number of parking spaces, and the proposal which was being presented was an alternative. She stated that there was a canopy proposed where the motel and existing restaurant met which is similar to the canopy on the Green Pepper restaurant. The applicant has not indicated any signagc for the canopy at this time. Staff recommended approval based on the improvement and additional landscaping. P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 10 Member Klataske was concerned about the curb cut off Prospect and the potcn- tial stacking when a car was leaving the parking space. Mr. Haas replied the distance from the curb to the parking spaces meets the City's minimum design requirement of 22'. Member Klataske asked if the traffic study suggested a diesel lane. Ms. Clark stated that the City Traffic Engineer did not require a full traffic study, as there would be a slight reduction of traffic due to change in business uses. Mr. Herzig, City Development Coordinator, stated the existing curb cut would be closed and a narrower one placed to funnel traffic. Member Klataske asked if a left turn would be allowed and if the street trees along Prospect hinder motorists' vision. Mr. Herzig stated there would not be a left turn restriction and that the trees would not impair visibility. He said if there are problems in the future, a median would be constructed to correct the problems, if necessary. Member Walker believed staff was making a trade-off of one large tree for 2 smaller trees and would like to see an additional tree planted cast of the curb cut in addition to the proposed trees. Mr. Haas stated this was discussed at the last meeting. He believed the Board at that time, wanted more landscaping to soften the stark appearance of the building and to screen the frontage. He believed this final design was what he understood the Board wanted. Chairperson O'Dell stated the applicant did address the Board's concerns and she commended the applicant design. Member Shepard moved to approve the project. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER, THE PAVILION, PAD A, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Ted Shepard, project planner, gave a brief description Jim Johnson, the applicant, gave a brief history of the site. He stated Sound Warehouse was interested in this specific pad and they have spent time dcsig- ning this pad to balance architecturally with the rest of the center. He stated the building has the same materials and detail as existing buildings with an additional awnings. He said the project is a combined effort of staff, the applicant, and the tenant. He noted the allowable signagc for this building is 640 square feet and they have only used half of that allowance. Member Walker asked if the awnings are back lit P & Z Meeting - December 1, 191, Page II • Mr. Shepard answered yes. Member Walker asked if the awnings will be blue and yellow. Mr. Johnson stated they would not allow as much coloring as is indicated in the slide, as it would not be compatible with the rest of the center. Member Walker asked if the lettering for the standard Sound Warehouse sign, is also the signage which will be on the building. Mr. Johnson stated it will be different. Chairwoman O'Dell asked how it will different. Mr. Johnson stated that the colors will be blue with yellow lettering, but not the same as on the slide. He said the canopy is very important in their corporate logo and he believed the integrity of both the Sound Warehouse and the rest of the Pavilion have been satisfied. Mr. Eckman noted that there was a memo from Mr. Shepard outlining the City sign criteria and the Board must base their decision on those criteria. Mr. Shepard stated staff recommended approval conditioned upon the re- location of all signage presently located on the back lit awning to the building • facade, in particular, such signage will be located to an area framed by Sound Warehouse signage, the arched windows, back and lit awning. All other ele- ments meet the criteria of the LDGS. Chairperson O'Dell was unclear as to the relocation. Mr. Johnson outline the proposed relocation. Member Edwards asked if this change was approved by the applicant. Mr. Peterson stated yes. Member Walker asked if the sign allowance used for this building was only half of that allowance. Mr. Shepard answered yes. Member Shepard asked if there would be a free standing sign as well. Mr. Shepard replied no. Chairperson O'Dell asked if the words "Sound Warehouse" would be within the size of the peak on the building. Mr. Shepard replied that the peak is flush with the building, so there would not be protruding signage. P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 12 Member Shepard asked what is south of the site. Mr. Shepard said there was the parking lot, access drive and Black Eyed Pea restaurant. Member Shepard asked if the sidewalk on the south side of the building to College Ave. would line up to Troutman or would it encourage pedestrians to cross College. Mr. Shepard stated no, that is was designed to connect the sidewalk with the arterial and collector streets, which are controlled by signals and cross walks. Member Walker stated the awnings are architectural elements with signage, yet provides a significant sign -type image. Mr. Shepard stated that in discussing this with the Code Administrator for the City, they did not count the back lit awning and agreed it was an architectu- ral element. Member Walker asked if there are any other similar elements on the other buildings, such as parapets, compatible to this awning. Mr. Shepard noted that there were raised letters over the businesses on white stucco facade. He stated there were no other awnings, except for the canvas awnings on the Black Eyed Pea. Member Klataske are why the preliminary and final are being reviewed together. Mr. Shepard stated they are being reviewed in the same manner which Black Eyed Pea was reviewed. The entire site was reviewed, knowing that different tenants would occupy the buildings and all other elements of the center have been reviewed and approved. Member Klataske moved to approve the project with the condition regarding signage which is limited to over the door and no back lit lighting on (lie canopy. Mr. Eckman asked Member Klataske to include the criteria of the sign code to support the motion and why the proposal does not meet the criteria. Member Klataske read from the staff memo the criteria to support the motion, #2 - Development must be compatible to immediate area in site relative to design, scale, bulk, and building height. He believed this proposal does not fall into the criteria of visual integrity due to the canopy being part of the corporate identity and constitutes signage and is not compatible. #31 - Design of the buildings in open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality to the site configuration. Due to the mass of the building, he believed it did not add to it at all and fully utilized the entire area. E-5 - All signs must meet criteria of this Chapter. While Planning Director P & Z Meeting - December 1, 1988 Page 13 has the power to approve the signage, he may also submit the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Klataske stated that due to the signage size compared to surrounding area, the area being the rest of the Retail Center, it was not compatible. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Edwards stated the proposal warrants approval as proposed and he was opposed to the condition, as it goes beyond what he believed reasonable. Member Shepard agreed and stated the criteria is subjective and not clear enough for denial. Member Edwards noted the commercial signage along College and that the pro- posed signage was not objectionable. Chairperson O'Dell believed the criteria is trying to protect a neighborhood and that removing all the additional wording on the canopy was sufficient. Motion to approve Member Klataske's motion failed, with Members Edwards, Shepard, and O'Dell voting no. Chairperson O'Dell asked for another motion. . Member Edwards moved to approve the proposal as requested. Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion passed with Members Klataske and Walker voting no. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.