Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/08/1996r1L • 0 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Chairperson: Lloyd Walker There was no Vice Chair elect at this Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: 491-6172 (W) 221-0489(H) The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bell, Davidson, Gaveldon, Mickelsen, Walker. Member Strom arrived at 10:36 p.m. Staff Present: Ludwig, Ashbeck, Olt, Shepard, Wamhoff, Duvall, Blanchard, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director Blanchard reviewed the continued Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. #1-96 BMC West PUD - Preliminary and Final 2. #2-96 University Centre PUD (University Mall) - Preliminary 3. #21-95A Prospect Park PUD - Final 4. #50-95 Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary 5. BMC #7-95 WEST PUD. Country Club Farms Rezoning PRELIMINARY AND FINAL #1-96. Mike Ludwig gave a staff presentation on the project, recommending approval with the standard development agreement and final utility plan condition. Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates, representing BMC West gave a brief history of the project and believed they had satisfied all 32 development criteria. Ms. Ripley stated the issues to her are vague and asked for questions to be asked so she could address them. Member Davidson asked about the Prospect Streetscape Program, and he felt this property fell within that area, Roman Numeral 11-1; and, that the business park style should apply to all development improvements within the developed urban district from Riverside Avenue to the Cache La Poudre River. He also referenced Appendix A.1 and the statement regarding streetscapes. Member Davidson stated that he did not feel the mandatory standards were being applied to this site. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 2 Planner Ludwig responded by referring to Page 5 of the Prospect Corridor Plan, and the statement regarding the 1/3 mile north and south of Prospect Road being the study area. Mr. Ludwig stated that this site was located within one of the four defined areas of the Prospect Corridor Plan. This site was located within the developed urban district. Mr. Ludwig stated that this project was located within the business park style of streetscape, and on Page II-8, it states that developments located along the Prospect Road frontage between Riverside and the Cache La Poudre River — it is staffs interpretation that this property is not directly adjacent to Prospect Road. Planner Ludwig went on to explain the landscape requirements; continuing the landscaping adjacent to the intersections with Prospect Road a distance of 500 feet back from the intersection and this property — only the southern boundary is within the 500 feet, approximately where the entrance is. Member Davidson stated that meant the property is within 500 feet and were we getting into different interpretations of what staff is looking at for the 500 feet in terms of the building versus the piece of land that is being developed? Planner Ludwig replied that the entire property is not within the 500 feet and staff evaluated it based on what was within 500 feet. Member Davidson stated he drove it today and marked if off with his odometer and it was over 1/10 of a mile from the street comer, and that is more than 530 feet. He estimates it at 570 feet. Planner Ludwig stated that our figure was based on measuring it from the center line of the intersections of Prospect and Timberline Road back to the property. Member Davidson asked if we had a drawing that actually shows that footage. Planner Ludwig replied the site plan that was included in the Board's packet is what they scaled off of. Planner Ludwig stated that staff agreed that it is within the study area of the plan, however, staff feels as though they have applied the applicable sections of the Corridor Plan. Planner Ludwig went on to say that the architectural design criteria, which specifically talks about — for example on Page II-14, and that the building shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include architectural detail and enhancement rather than placing heavy emphasis solely on the front elevation and ignoring the need to apply aesthetic enhancements. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 3 Member Davidson's understanding was that the elevations did not meet the criteria because all the emphasis is being put on the front of the building. Planner Ludwig replied that the enhancements did go for a small portion wrapped around the building on the north and south sides toward the front. In staffs evaluation of the project, we looked at the architectural elevations and from staffs perspective, the major concern area was the frontage onto Timberline Road. Staff felt the landscaping that was being provided, and the setbacks, provided enough buffer for this proposed use. Member Davidson stated that this was one of the major gateway's into Fort Collins that we would want to improve upon with redevelopment. He did not see this as an improvement in the full sense of the word. He sees a partial improvement on the front side, but the fact that they are not following through with this all the way around the building will inhibit in the future the other buildings being brought up to a standard sometime in the future. He did not feel this building was compatible with any buildings in its vicinity. An Ms. Ripley responded that the front of the building that fronts onto Timberline does look very different than the back of the building. Ms. Ripley explained that it did not have anything to do with saving money and downgrading the back of the building. She explained this project was an office/manufacturing facility, and is not simply an office building. Member Davidson referred to Advanced Energy as also being an industrial building and that their buildings were nice on all four sides. He asked why they could not conform to what they conform to. Ms. Ripley replied that Advanced Energy is a different type of facility. Ms. Ripley presented slides and reviewed the site plan and the building architecture. Ms. Ripley offered to provide additional landscaping for additional screening from Prospect. Ms. Ripley stated her clients also committed to finish the landscaping from the original PUD that either did not get installed or died. That would also provide additional screening from Prospect Road. Member Davidson felt that BMC is a building supply company and is responsible for many of the building materials that go into the architecture of this town. He would like them to set an example as a concerned entity in the Fort Collins community, and make some improvements that would dress -up Prospect as we envision it in the future. • Member Davidson was concerned with the unsightly visual aspects of the existing business. He also mentioned it spilling onto the front parking lot of the Prospect Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 4 parking lot, with lumber piled up in the car parking lot. Member Davidson was concerned this would extend onward to the next site unless the visual impacts and the architectural style are in a more serious manner now. He would like to see something more that would lend itself to pride and respect for the community. Member Mickelsen asked— wouldn't the piece of property that fronts on Prospect Road be under more scrutiny, as far as the design standards for Prospect Road; whereas, this piece was not setting an example for other pieces of property that are in the Prospect Corridor area. Planner Ludwig replied that more regulations would apply to the property to the south, however, that is already an approved PLID, from 1979, and prior to the LDGS. Member Gaveldon asked about criteria for bringing up the west side to look like something of a showcase along the proposed Timberline. Ms. Ripley reviewed the landscape plan and elevations of the project, including the entry feature and building materials. She felt the building would be very attractive from Timberline Road. Further east, it becomes a very utilitarian building and is appropriately designed as so. Member Gaveldon compared Pace Warehouse to this and that the developer went to great lengths to blend it into the neighborhood. Member Gaveldon asked if there was any opportunity there. Member Mickelsen commented that Pace was trying to blend into a residential "neighborhood". This proposal is trying to blend into a more office/industrial area, and that is what it should be held up against. Ms. Ripley added that because of the way the building functions on the north and east sides, there is not much you can change to how it looks, because it is functional. The elevation on the north is just a plain elevation, and even if the material is upgraded, it would not change the visual impact that much. Member Bell suggested that the issue was the visual impact on the proposed Timberline frontage and what they have there is not very attractive. Member Davidson felt that all the development park east of Timberline, even the buildings set back, have dealt with complementing themselves with all the other buildings. Member Davidson stated that as we look to the future and what we want Prospect Road to look like is a big concern. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 5 Member Bell asked for the applicant to explain why they thought that they could not do any upgrades to the sides of the building in question. Ms. Ripley presented a slide of the building and explained that as development occurs to the north, landscaping would be installed and the back of the building would be softened. Even if the materials were to change, she did not feel it would make that much of a difference. Ms. Ripley reviewed the views of the building and offered to plant additional trees. Ms. Ripley stated that at this time they are not willing to change the building materials. Ms. Ripley felt they have done a good job with this industrial facility. She did not feel it was fair to compare it to Seven Lakes Business Park. Member Davidson replied that as far as the buildings go, he did not agree with that. Member Davidson felt that with BMC getting materials at wholesale, it would not be as great of an expense for them as someone else that would buy materials from them. He would like to see them do a stucco/stone like other buildings in the area. Ms. Ripley had a concern that Member Davidson was saying that this was an inappropriate land use. • Member Davidson replied that he felt that this was an inappropriate design as far as style in relation to the rest of the office/industrial park area. That was the criteria that he was going by, and he did not think this complemented what already exists. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Davidson stated that his intent was not to deny this development, but to enhance the corridor as much as possible. Member Colton was unclear whether this meets the requirements for being in the Prospect Streetscape Plan. He heard 500 feet went to the southern boundary. Planner Ludwig stated that the Prospect Streetscape Program applied to properties that front along Prospect Road. The criteria applicable to this project was architectural design. Member Colton asked about streetscape improvements and what did that entail. Planner Ludwig replied landscaping between the street and the project and the visible is building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 6 Member Colton replied that lead him to believe that the 500 foot landscaping requirements would be applicable. Planner Ludwig replied that was correct, but this project is north of the 500 foot line, and 500 feet would be to their southern boundary, right at their drive. Whether we can apply that outside the 500 feet — it was staffs interpretation that we could not. Member Davidson asked if it had to touch the building to include the 500 feet. Planner Ludwig replied no, he was saying anything within 500 feet of the intersection of Timberline and Prospect Road would be included in the Streetscape Program. Member Mickelsen asked Planner Ludwig to point on the map where the 500 foot line came to. Planner Ludwig complied. Member Mickelsen stated that the southern 10 feet would fall within the Prospect Streetscape Program. Member Mickelsen stated that she felt staff had applied the criteria correctly in a sense that if this building did front on Prospect, we would not be looking at it as it is. There would be a lot more requested and required of A. She also believed it was dangerous to hold a project to a standard of building materials based on what that business will sell. Member Mickelsen thought the applicant had complied with the streetscape as far as the landscaping. She could not vote against this based on a judgement call, her judgement was that this project was being evaluated correctly. Member Davidson reread the criteria for the streetscape. Member Davidson asked what the future edge of right-of-way was for this project when Timberline extends, and what would the setbacks be for this building be. Planner Ludwig reviewed the site plan and pointed out the future right-of-way line and additional right-of-way that was being dedicated to the City. Planner Ludwig also reviewed the set -backs. Member Davidson was concerned with the set -backs meeting the guidelines for a major arterial. Planner Ludwig replied that the only portion that did not meet that was the southern 10 feet within the 500 feet of the intersection. There could be the elimination of one • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 7 parking space to bring that into compliance. Planner Ludwig noted that that 50 foot set- back is even greater than what is required along Prospect Road, which is 35 feet. In balancing that, staff felt the set -back was appropriate. Member Davidson asked how wide the sidewalk was. Planner Ludwig replied that at this time there is not a sidewalk requested in front of the property, at the Engineering Departments request, due to the exact alignment of the Timberline extension. The applicant is responsible and will enter into agreement that says that at the time Timberline Road is built, they would be responsible for putting in a sidewalk along their frontage. Member Mickelsen moved for the approval of the BMC West, Preliminary and Final with the condition stated by staff, and in recognizing other Board members concerns, she was interested and welcomed other comments. Member Davidson seconded the motion for discussion purposes only. • Member Davidson again read from Appendix A, A-1, second paragraph, regarding the streetscape along Prospect Road. He still did not think that staff was interpreting it correctly and felt that they still should have to do improvements to the streetscape on Prospect Road. Member Bell felt this project did fall within the study area and felt the Board should do the best they could in terms of getting a project that looks good and sends a strong message for what we want to see happen along this whole area. Director Blanchard clarified how setbacks are measured, and in this analysis, the distance was measured from the axis of the two roads that make up the intersection, which is the reason staff felt this project does not fit within the 500 foot area. Member Mickelsen asked how staff chose the axis on this project. Director Blanchard replied the center line of the two roads and the axis is where the two roads intersect. Member Davidson stated he still has an argument about the building style because it does fall within — the property itself that is under proposal for development does fall within the 500 feet of the centerline of Prospect, therefore, all of that property is within 500 feet from a legal standpoint as far as he is concerned. The architectural style • should conform to the rest of the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 8 Member Davidson felt if any portion of the property falls within the 500 feet, then the whole property should be, evaluated according to the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Member Bell asked City Attorney Duvall how the Board should be looking at this. City Attorney Duvall reviewed the appropriate sections of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program with the Board and what criteria would apply. He believed the Board could only apply the Business Park style criterion standards to development improvements within the developed urban district. He also reminded the Board there was still other criteria in the LDGS, and gave an example of A2.7, that are also used in evaluation of this project. The Board needed to make an interpretation of whether this project falls within the study area. Member Bell asked about Criterion A2.7, and if the Board were to use it as an interpretation of an extension of an interpretation, neighborhood compatibility would be the other business parks in the area. Member Bell asked to see slides of other businesses in the area to get a feel for character. Director Blanchard stated the slides would be of the Seven Lakes area adjacent to this project. Planner Ludwig reviewed the slides. Member Davidson asked Planner Ludwig if he agreed that the other side of Prospect where Advanced Energy is — the architecture style is very comparable to Seven Lakes. Planner Ludwig replied that would be subjective, it is comparable. Member Davidson asked if he thought it complements. Planner Ludwig replied yes. The motion was denied 3-3, with Members Colton, Bell and Davidson voting in the negative. Member Colton suggested separating the preliminary from the final and approve the land use and basic layout, but look at beefing up the landscaping and taking a look at the architecture to see if the entire building could be made more of one type of material. Member Colton moved for approval of the Preliminary PUD.for BMC West for the layout and land use. 0 • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 9 Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Davidson stated his concerns that he would like to see addressed was both the material that is utilized, how much of the building has a complementary material utilized, and the three dimensional character of the building so the facade goes on all sides. The other concern was the set -back and felt that it was too shallow in relation to what Timberline would be in the future. Member Bell added the additional landscaping the applicant was willing to install, especially some evergreen material. Member Mickelsen felt the comments should be more defined. Chairman Walker restated the motion as approval for the preliminary with conditions regarding material use, looking at the facades, possibly the setback, landscaping and that the record of the proceedings to express the feeling of the Board on how to proceed with the project be included. Member Colton stated that was acceptable. Member Bell accepted the changes. The motion was approved 6-0. �at4;i01I7QJ#1111 Tl;il i'�'f�Zi Director Bob Blanchard gave the staff report for Steve Olt recommending approval, including a variance to Absolute Criterion 1 on the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart. Member Bell asked about parking, and was there enough? Director Blanchard replied it was addressed and there was a detailed analysis in the staff report. Mr. Blanchard gave the general guidelines for parking for a mixed use development. Staff felt that the parking needs were being met. Member Colton asked about the entrances. Director Blanchard replied that all four of the major tenants will have entrances from the • back. He felt the applicant should address visual appearance. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 10 Ed Zdenek, ZTI Group Architecture gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Zdenek gave a brief history of the University Mall. Mr. Zdenek spoke on parking, shared parking with King Soopers, transit routes, future light rail route, circulation of traffic, bicycle parking, landscaping, the landscaping screening wall along College Avenue, phasing, elevations, the storage buildings in the rear of the building, standards and guidelines being met for large retail buildings (even though not required to), and pedestrian plaza and movement. Member Colton asked about the screening wall and what would it look like. Mr. Zdenek described the walls elevations, location, sidewalk, and landscaping in front of the wall. Member Colton asked about material of the wall. Mr. Zdenek replied that their intent was to have it similar in materials as the mall itself. Member Gaveldon asked for the entrances and exits to the rear of the building be explained, and what plans were in place to improve safety. Mr. Zdenek reviewed the rear of the building, and the storage units along the railroad tracks. Member Davidson asked about the rooflines. Mr. Zdenek replied a slightly sloped roof, but they are still not into the final design stage. Member Davidson asked how many storage units there would be. Mr. Zdenek replied approximately 160 - 200 units. Member Davidson had questions on the time of operation of the storage units. Mr. Zdenek replied that some of the stores have shown interest in using the storage units, therefore requiring less access, and larger areas without doors. Mr. Zdenek also stated that he did not feel there would be a lot of night time activity. Mr. Zdenek stated that the units are locked, there is a manager on -site, and you do need to have a code to get inside. PUBLIC INPUT None. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 11 Member Mickelsen was impressed with the changes that have been made and moved for approval of the requested variance to Absolute Criterion 1 on the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart pertaining to the primary access being off South College. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the University Center P.U.D., Preliminary. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. -:• ._RWEI Y4 Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the standard final utility plan and development agreement condition and the following condition from the City Forester: Approval of Prospect Park Final P.U.D. is conditioned upon a further evaluation of street trees at the intersection of Prospect and Shields. Such evaluation shall take place no later than six weeks after issuance of a Temporary/Final Certificate of Occupancy. Such evaluation shall include the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, the City Forester, the City Planning Department, and the Developer. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the planting of street trees is desirable in relation to the view of the mountains and the project In the event that planting is agreed upon, the City would plant the trees during the next planting season. If necessary, such trees shall be of a height that may be less than that of a traditional deciduous street tree. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, representing the property owner and developer for Prospect Park spoke on various aspects of the project. Ms. Ripley spoke on previous proposed land uses on the property, working with the neighborhood on acceptable land uses, reduction of intensity on the site since preliminary, traffic, architectural character, • signage on buildings, elevations of the drug store, lighting on the site, landscape, architecture, the plaza space for the neighborhood, pedestrian access, hours of operation, water quality and the wetland. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 12 Ruth Clear, Traffic Engineer for the project gave an overview, reviewing the three access locations of the project. Ms. Clear stated that three intersections were looked at in the traffic study, Prospect and Shields, Prospect and Stonecreek, and Shields and Stuart. There was an A.M. and P.M. peak hour study done and existing traffic count data, which was collected when C.S.U. was in session, and a 1997 background traffic analysis was done. They also did a year 2010 traffic analysis with and without the extension of Centre Avenue. Ms. Clear stated that the intersection of Prospect and Shields is currently operating at level of service E during the P.M. peak hour. Ms. Clear reviewed her recommendations regarding the accesses, turn lanes and intersections. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association stated their neighborhood was lacking services like those being provided in this center. Ms. Smith stated the Prospect/Shields Association had worked diligently for several years and with several developers on ways to provide these needed services. Most recently, the Prospect Park proponents toward a solution which would meet both the developers expectations and the neighborhoods needs. They believe these efforts have been highly productive and consistent with current City policies, the City's future planning direction, and their neighborhood's best interest. The proposal the Board is considering tonight reflects cooperative efforts between the Prospect Park developers and their neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated that preliminary analysis in the West Central Neighborhood Planning Process shows that 21 % of the city's people five on 7% of the cty's land and within 1 mile of this site. Ms. Smith stated that their Association was not interested in roadside business, but only businesses that benefit their neighborhood by providing the necessities that the neighborhood lacks, promoting a sense of community within the neighborhood, and making the neighborhood more viable as a place to live and work in over the long-term. Ms. Smith stated that they believe the current Prospect Park proposal meets most of their goals. The developer, city staff, and their Association spent a great amount of time in resolution of problem issues related to the project. However, a few, which they have discussed at length with the developer had not been fully resolved. John Roehrig, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association reviewed the problem issues they felt were not resolved with the developer. Mr. Roehrig addressed the left -in turn from northbound Shields; and that the tractor-trailor rigs coming in to deliver goods and services into the development from northbound Shields would be blocking across southbound Shields as it is trying to get into that . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 13 access. They also still have concerns with the bus stop and it's location, and possibly moving the bus stop internal on the site. Mr. Roehrig stated they also had concerns with unknown land uses. Mr. Roehrig talked about vehicular safety and cited Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.1 for vehicular/pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Mr. Roehrig showed an overhead of the Prospect/Shields intersection and discussed his concerns with bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Roehrig also discussed the left -in only turn lane off of Shields Street and explained that they adimetly oppose it. Mr. Roehrig also discussed the safety of the pedestrian traffic of school children, Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.6. The concern they still have is with the bicycle and pedestrian access to this project, especially from the south. He asked that an access to the south be pursued. Mr. Roehrig spoke on architecture and landscaping, Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.7, and A2.13. He stated that the architecture has improved considerably, they would have like to see a little more imagination on how the building design was done, specifically, the south elevations. Mr. Roehrig also suggested making the • plantings oversized on the south to help break up the building and make it more visually pleasing. Mr. Roehrig encouraged the developer to work from their list of suggested users for this center. They spoke for the record that they were against 24-hour services, and gasoline and service stations. Mr. Roehrig stated, in summary, they have tried to summarize where they stand and give the Board some issues to think about. Betty Maloney, lives in neighborhood, stated that she has no objection to the drug store and thought it had been adequately addressed regarding the kinds of businesses they would like to see in the center. She felt the interior of the center would be pedestrian friendly. She did not feel that the left turn on north Shields would be a concern. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairman Walker asked that the transit issues be addressed. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services stated he was hesitant about allowing the left turn - in, and that the left -in would improve the level of service at the intersection. Mr. Bracke addressed pedestrian activity. There are approximately 60 - 70 children that walk this . route and back daily, but the peak times are different when the children are going to school. This is an area that is used to high pedestrian activity and with the school kids that cross the intersection now, the City is providing three crossing guards in the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 14 Mr. Bracke talked about the bus stop and the right -turn lane. He stated that there were better situations. Bus turnouts are becoming more common, and is one of the recommendations of the Transit Development Program. Bus turnouts are not the same as a right -turn lane. Mr. Bracke stated that we currently have bus stops in decel lanes, they work, the buses are there only a few minutes of every hour and is very typical in urban conditions. Staff has no reason to believe that it is unsafe. Member Bell asked why the bus could not go through the development. Gaylene Rossiter, Transfort Department replied that if the buses were to go through development after development, it could really strain the schedule. Transfort does go into some areas that are very heavily populated, such as Foothills Fashion Mall, and even then the buses stay to the outskirts. The route on Shields that would be going southbound and northbound would have difficulty with it's schedule. That route does go into the Senior Center, and going into this center also would create a non -direct route and a non -efficient route to ride. Member Gaveldon asked if it was possible to push the stop further south of the development. Ms. Rossiter replied that could be a possibility, and that possibility would be evaluated. Member Gaveldon asked about sporting events in the area and was there any consideration of minimizing that. Planner Shepard replied that we try not to plan land development for those infrequent events. Member Davidson asked if a tum-in could be added to not block the deceleration lane. Mr. Bracke replied that would make a very unsafe move for the bus driver. Member Davidson was concerned about people crossing over on Shields to get to this development. Mr. Bracke responded that all we can do is provide the facilities and the safe crossings. We do provide people with information about how to cross an arterial, but people will cross where they want to and we cannot make them cross at the crosswalk. Member Davidson asked about the two-year removal clause regarding the left tum-in off of Shields. He was concerned that once it was in there it would be very hard to change it if that is what needs to happen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 15 Mr. Bracke replied that it was always difficult to modify an individual's access. The City has the right to go in and modify access, they cannot deny it, but can modify it if there is a safety issue involved. Member Davidson asked about pedestrian/bike access within the service center. Mr. Davidson reviewed his concerns with the entrances to the development. Mr. Davidson asked it the concrete would be colored so it would stand out. Ms. Ripley stated they had not planned on colored concrete, but that decision has not been finalized. Ms. Ripley addressed the pedestrian/bike concerns. She reviewed the access locations and the materials that would be used in the crosswalks. Ms. Ripley also reviewed the pedestrian circulation. Member Davidson stated he still would like to see color in the crosswalks. Ms. Ripley stated they would rather spend the extra money in the plaza than putting into • color concrete. Member Davidson asked about maybe a brick or stone material. Ms. Ripley stated they would like to keep the scored concrete at this point. Member Davidson asked about the entrances on Prospect. Ms. Ripley replied they do not have a crosswalk scored at that point but if the Board felt if was a major pedestrian route they could accommodate it Member Davidson asked about crossing the island, and that there was no other way of crossing it besides going around it. Ms. Ripley responded that they could correct that and make the point of the island paving if the Board would prefer. Ward Stanford, Engineering Department added that they would be requesting pedestrian access across both of the entrances on Prospect. Member Davidson also mentioned access coming from the apartments at Stonecreek. . Ms. Ripley stated that was the end of their jurisdiction She stated that the neighborhood was adamant about wanting to get pedestrian connections to both Stonecreek as well as Northwood Apartments. Staff also put a lot of energy into trying to make that happen. Ms. Ripley stated her client was not opposed to that, however, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 16 the owners of both of the housing projects have not agreed to allow them to build a walk. Her client was willing to build a sidewalk connection, and so far they have declined the offer. Planner Shepard added that staff was working with the Northwood Property Management Company as well as the Stonecreek Management Company in hopes that Stonecreek will grant an easement, and Northwood will grant the developer to build an 8 foot sidewalk off of the semi -circular drive you see off of Stuart. Member Davidson asked about the sidewalk at Shields and Prospect. Was it a sidewalk that abuts the road, or is there a grass median between the sidewalk and the Road. Ms. Ripley reviewed the sidewalks using the site plan slide. Member Bell asked about the truck traffic. Ms. Ripley replied that they anticipate that trucks would enter the site coming from the north, the site is designed so that would be the easiest way for them to maneuver through the site. Ms. Ripley felt that the trucks would not use the left -in because they could not do it without running over the median. Member Bell asked about the median. Ms. Ripley replied that the median would extend from the intersection south then allowing the left -in but no left -out. Member Bell stated that her only concern is still pedestrians going north to the school. Ms. Ripley replied that crossing guards have been discussed, but the City did not want to get into recommending crossing guards at every street intersection. The City did not encourage that option. Member Davidson asked if there was any potential for 24-hour businesses or gas stations. Planner Shepard replied that those land uses are prohibited. Member Colton asked about the view from the south and asked if it would be possible to have the oversized plantings installed. Ms. Ripley responded that all the shrubbery was 5-gallon. She stated they could up size the trees to 7 and 8 from 6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 17 Member Bell asked about the south elevation and what could be done to accommodate it better. Ms. Ripley replied that the first time the neighborhood saw it, there was nothing back there but brick. Since they have added dormers to the building, columns have been added for articulation, and there maybe some signage back there to provide some visual interest. They are the back of retail buildings and not an appropriate place for windows or entrances. There will be doors back there, but they will be back doors. Ms. Ripley presented the building materials to the Board. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Prospect Park PUD - Final, with the standard condition from staff, including the updated condition of approval from the City Forester. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Davidson asked for an amendment to insure that all crosswalks are . scribbed concrete including the south side and all entrances. Members Mickelsen and Colton agreed to the amendment Member Colton also added a condition that the Austrian Pine trees be increased to 7 and 8's on the south side of the buildings. Member Mickelsen agreed to the condition. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Strom joined the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report and presented slides, recommending approval including a variance to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120 - 4br units and approval of the Preliminary P.U.D including the completion of Orchard Place through the site. Member Gaveldon asked what the vacancy rate was on the CSU campus. Planner Ludwig responded he did not know. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 18 Chairman Walker asked if Orchard place west of this site was built to collector standard. Planner Ludwig replied that Orchard Place was a local street. Chairman Walker asked if by connecting Orchard Place through, would it make it a collector street. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services replied it does function as a collector street currently. It is not built to a collector, but was designed to function as a collector. Chairman Walker asked if there were any other collector streets within this area between Mulberry and Elizabeth, Taft and Overland. Mr. Bracke replied that they were all built to local standards. Chairman Walker asked what the rationale was from the City's point of view to connect Orchard Place. Mr. Bracke replied that there is no east/west connections for this neighborhood. The connection has always been planned for Orchard and Plum Streets. Staff believes that through the analysis we could live with one of them, and Orchard is better because of the distance between the Elizabeth and Taft Hill intersection. Mr. Bracke stated that this project needs the access. Right now they have a north/south access and there are problems associated with those, and without the access points to the east and west, the problems exist for the neighborhood. This connection is not necessarily contingent upon this particular development or to mitigate the impacts of this development to help the neighborhood with access. Member Gaveldon asked about the Plum access, and if there is no Orchard access and Plum goes through, what would be the downside and upside. Mr. Bracke replied it would be more difficult to make a turn out of Plum Street because of the distance to the intersection. Member Gaveldon asked to see the slide of the backside of the project. Brad March, March and Myatt, representing JPI, Texas Development, gave the applicants presentation. Mr. March gave a brief introduction of JPI, and their operations with multi -family and student housing projects. Mr. March spoke on the process the project has been through with neighborhood and revisions that were made. Mr. March reviewed the existing bike path, Transfort routes, shopping in the area, points scored on the point chart, the need for student housing, affordable housing, traffic in the neighborhoods, number of units and bedrooms in the project, description of the site . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 19 plan and open space, staff on -site, amenities on -site, buffering, drainage improvements in the area, bike and pedestrian paths, requested variance, and letters of support from existing surrounding businesses. Mr. March stated that the developer was willing to put in Orchard Place if this Board determines Orchard Place should be put in. The developer is also willing to put in the bike trail in the area where it currently exists. This project, regardless, will have a connection to Orchard and to Plum if the Board directs. The developer is willing to either complete the bike trail or complete the street. If the bike trail is put in, there will still be a connection to Orchard. There is a letter from Matt Delich to the Board that indicates that Elizabeth Street, if the connection is made, will operate at the Elizabeth and Taft intersection at a level of service C, as opposed to a level D. Mr. March stated that at this time the path is an amenity for the neighborhood, in that the neighborhood uses the path to access the area services and also for students to access Moore Elementary School safely. There is a crossing light that currently allows students to cross Taft Hill who are getting to Moore, and there are two or three crossing guards there to assist the students. Mr. March stated that the City felt that the • construction and completion of Orchard is important, based upon the need to provide additional outlets for the neighborhood. Again, their project is not going to have any reason to go up into the neighborhood, therefore, the developer does not feel that the connection of Orchard is something that benefits them. The developer, according to the Board's direction will take either course of action. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Gail Yerbic, neighborhood representative, read a statement for Gail McKee, member of the West Central Neighborhood Coalilition: The impacts of building a connection on Orchard: 1. Traffic: The intensity of use that would come from this development and be directed within feet of an elementary school, college come and go more frequently than most families. 2. Splitting the neighborhood: This is a self-contained area with many single family homes and lots of kids. Making Orchard a thru street that would carry a lot of auto and bus traffic would put our children at risk. Do you want another situation like West Lake, will it take another child losing their life to listen to the neighborhood. 3. Elizabeth and Mulberry are already arterials, do we really need another arterial in this area. Safety of all neighborhood children to bike, walk, or skate to school is not • being considered. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 20 4. This is a neighborhood that the West Central Neighborhood would consider as an area to be conserved. It is a viable neighborhood, not just a street that can be turned into a highway. Ms. Yerbic also presented the statement from Moore School in regards to the safety of the children. The copy the Board received in their packets was not signed, and she presented a signed copy. Ms. Yerbic stated she was speaking for her family and many members of their neighborhood. Ms. Yerbic presented a petition from the neighborhood stating that they would like to keep the bike path. Ms. Yerbic stated that they are from the Orchard Place and Ponderosa area, west of the development site. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the bike path and that she appreciates it's function so much, that she overlooked it's beauty. It needs improvement and the neighborhood had just spent an afternoon cleaning it up. Ms. Yerbic showed slides of the activity on their bike path, and their efforts to clean up their path. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the users of the bike path being school children (134 children in their area that are not eligible for busing), crossing Taft Hill Road and the childrens safety. Ms. Yerbic addressed the staffs recommendations, she mentioned page 9, number A. She spoke on porosity and felt this development was not planned with those considerations in mind. She felt that putting one outlet through the neighborhood would not create porosity. There needs to be several outlets to achieve porosity. Ms. Yerbic stated that this connection was not on the Master Street Plan and is not an adopted policy and did not think there would be major hoops to jump through to abandon the issue. Ms. Yerbic discussed bicycle and pedestrian porosity in their neighborhood. Ms. Yerbic spoke on traffic level of services in the area, stop sign signalization in the area, turning their bike path into a sidewalk, on -street parking, and no separate bike path, and children maneuvering in traffic on their bikes. Ms. Yerbic spoke on Transfort and felt that opening Orchard Place so Transfort could make a loop did not make any sense to her. Ms. Yerbic spoke on the other developments in the area and along West Elizabeth Street to Overland Trail. She stated that most of the traffic will affect West Elizabeth and there are improvements to West Elizabeth being planned with those developments and that the Orchard Place connection is only for the neighborhood. She did not feel that the nearby arterials will be affected if the connection is not made. Ms. Yerbic presented a petition from the neighborhood asking that Orchard Place not be put through. Ms. Yerbic quoted some Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 21 new urbanism that she had read. Ms. Yerbic asked the Board to consider the abandonment of the Orchard Place extension in favor of bike path improvements. Betty Maloney, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force commented that more student housing has been needed for many years because of the University's policy of not providing housing for students above the freshman class. There are some 20,000 students competing on the open market every year for affordable housing. She felt the location of this student housing because it was just about a mile to the western edge of campus, could be easily walked or bicycled. The Task Force firmly believes that this project will meet a need in the housing continuum. The Task Force feels that the success of the project will depend on the degree of supervision that the renters will be subject to. On -site managers must be included in the project to assure the community that the development will be a good neighbor in the community. It is desirable that maintenance and upkeep be scrupulously attended to, that there be no trash and litter on the grounds and that there be standards for noise. With the right management this project will be turned into a desirable piece of our housing market and serve a niche where housing is needed. • Jonathan Howe, lives in the neighborhood and is opposed to the development. He felt that the proposed development is not isolated, and there is numerous developments proposed for the area. He felt the project should be scaled back and consider the other developments proposed for the area. He felt the impact on his neighborhood was significant for high density development. Mr. Howe spoke on traffic in the area, and the extension of Orchard Place. He also did not feel that CSU should dictate the quality and the type of neighborhood that they choose to live in. Just because CSU is growing, why should his life be impacted negatively. He respects the University, he is a student there, but this is a University problem. Mr. Howe spoke on the appearance of the project and how incompatible it is with the neighborhood. Mr. Howe felt this development and the fact that King Soopers is the only shopping available in the area would only encourage more people to get in their car and drive to an already congested shopping center. Mr. Howe also felt that Rogers Park, the only park in the area is massively overused. Mr. Howe felt the developers were only trying to fulfill a need that the University had and was not concerned with the people already living in the area. He asked the Board to take into consideration the people who already live there and to preserve their neighborhood. Josh Rested, lives on Myrtle Court reported that he has walked with his sisters to school ever since they moved here in third grade. He feels that this is a safe place to walk and he wanted to make sure since he is going to junior high that they still have a safe place to walk. He thought that if the bike trail becomes a street, it would be a lot harder to • ride his bike and with it just being a sidewalk kids would be getting in the way. He knows a lot of little kids who can't ride their bike very well and it would be hard for them to ride on the street. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 22 Erin Sprigs, lives in the Skyline Mobile Home Park stated his concerns about the project. He did not think Orchard Place should be opened to the west. He also was concerned with the bike path destruction. He also stated that the comments made about this project being within 1 mile of walking distance to CSU. He would give $100 if anyone sees a single student walk besides himself. Jason Rested, commented that in favor of the Orchard Place connection, there was some justification that was made based on community complaints requesting more east/west access. If the Board would notice there was not anyone there requesting east/west access. The Orchard Place connection would not meet the general criteria of adding porosity. There are no through or general destinations to the east of Taft Hill for the % mile between Elizabeth and Mulberry with the sole exception of Moore School. He stated it was quite clear that the Orchard Place connection should not be approved. Steve Slezak, resident of Fort Collins stated that this proposal was good for Fort Collins, and meets the goals and objectives of the City. He reported that the City has stated in it's Visions and Goals 2015 that the community will have compact land use patterns, that it shall promote maximum utilization of spaces and land within the City boundaries, that it shall promote alternative transportation and stabilize travel behavior, and will promote residential development next to employment, recreational and shopping centers. Mr. Slezak stated that this proposal focused on CSU student housing, and meets all these objectives, as has been pointed out earlier. Mr. Slezak reported statistics regarding the amount of money CSU contributes to the local economy and remains one of the City's largest employers. Mr. Slezak talked about CSU enrollment. Mr. Slezak spoke about affordable housing for students and that CSU will leave housing up to private development and that CSU will grow with or without the City's blessing. Mr. Slezak commented on the developer, JPI, and that they are a class act and they own, operate and take pride in their projects. He felt that we would do well as a City to welcome JPI as a land owner and operator in this community. He encouraged the Board to consider this proposal. Cindy Stansfield, representing her parents who live on Orchard Place east of Taft Hill Road. Ms. Stansfield stated her parents were concerned with the amount of traffic that will be increasing in this area. She stated she read in the paper that then: is projected to be an 8 to 10% vacancy rate and was unclear about other figures she was hearing tonight. She referenced the Villas at Orchard Place and that it is now in receivership and that the shells of buildings there have been abandoned. Ms Stansfield has a concern of overbuilding, and felt the Board should really look to see if this project is necessary. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Mickelsen asked if the Board would like to consider this project with an enhanced bicycle/pedestrian path or put Orchard Place through with a 7 foot sidewalk. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 23 She felt this was the issue on this project and put it on the table for discussion. Member Gaveldon felt that this was two separate issues, the bike trail and the preliminary PUD. Chairman Walker gave his observations, focusing on the issue of Orchard Place. He felt there was an issue of the appropriateness of this project for this site. Chairman Walker stated that what the LDGS suggests was that there are ways to mitigate between different land uses and there are a variety of techniques. Chairman Walker spoke on the mitigation of high density into an established neighborhood and buffering. He spoke on other high density projects. He questioned the validity of this site and felt a more transitional type of density should be put on this property. Chairman Walker thought that CSU has issues with dorms not suitable for student occupation and thought that this type of housing is a good solution and is what students want. His thought was that if this type of housing was close to campus, put it on campus and do it in a public/private way that it would work. He had problems with imposing this type of thing on this neighborhood. • Member Strom did not feel that this housing was a moderate density, not high density, and if effectively buffered and has adequate setbacks would fit into this neighborhood. Member Colton asked what the impact would be if Orchard Place was not put through. Member Colton agreed that this was a high -density development. Planner Ludwig clarified the density being 12 dwelling units an acre with 4-bedroom units. Member Colton was astounded that CSU and the students can say they don't like living in the dorms and that it is the private sectors problem to solve it. Member Strom stated that part of the problem was that we don't have any control over what CSU does. Whether or not CSU is in favor or opposed to this sort of development, they apparently are not going to do anything about it themselves, so the community is left dealing with the students and how to house them and do it in such a way that it doesn't adversely impact the other demands we have in the community for affordable housing. Eric Bracke, Transportation Planner addressed the issue of Orchard Place. He heard comments tonight about all the traffic that would be on Orchard, even though it • functions as a collector, it still will carry volumes that are well within residential standards. Mr. Bracke stated that the level of service at Taft and Elizabeth would improve with Orchard going through to relieve the impacts on the neighborhood. From a traffic engineering and transportation planning perspective, the connection makes sense. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 24 Member Mickelsen asked what the result would be if there was only a connection for this project on Orchard Place and only make it a pedestrian/bike path to the west. Mr. Bracke replied there might be some benefit to that. Member Mickelsen asked if it would be a major benefit. Mr. Bracke replied minor. Member Mickelsen addressed the 4 unrelated persons in one unit. She felt it was better to get these kids out of the neighborhoods and into a development with ample parking rather than having kids parking cars on lawns. She felt it was a big difference having 4 unrelated people living in a house in a neighborhood rather than a multi -family complex like this. Member Davidson spoke on density and in looking at the 692 bedrooms and in translating that to unrelated people, it is 43 units per acre. If he looks at it from a car perspective, it would be 22 units per acre. He sees it as a lot higher density than it appears to be based upon our definition of units. Member Davidson felt it was an extreme transition on the west side of this development to the single family homes adjacent to it. He thought if they could mitigate that in a better way, he might be able to live with it. Member Davidson also thought that it would be more logical to have Plum Street going into this development. Member Davidson also commented that he would like to see CSU to take some responsibility for it's impact on the community once in a while instead of shuffling it off to everyone else. Member Davidson also agreed with Chairman Walker with respect to rebuilding of dorms on campus to more of a student housing/apartment concept. Member Gaveldon asked if there was anything in Advance Planning in the future with CSU? Planner Ludwig replied that over the past year, working relations between the City and CSU have improved greatly. There was a representative from CSU at the second neighborhood meeting. As far as CSU's plans, they are looking at opportunities in the future to do similar projects that are CSU student housing projects. Currently, the area they have suggested looking at was by the Holiday Inn, which is CSU owned property. However, as far as the City's regulation of CSU and what they do, the City does not have any say. What we were faced with is a private development proposal, which is requesting a land use on this property, and evaluating that, and not CSU's policies. Member Bell asked about the park situation and was there other parks that can accommodate what is going to be a huge amount of development once the length of Elizabeth gets developed out. . Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 25 Planner Ludwig responded that there will be enough park space. The regional park in this area is City Park, and there are also several neighborhood parks in the area. The Parks Department does feel there is adequate parks in this square mile. Member Bell asked if the Natural Resources Department feels that the wetlands and drainage were O.K. in the area. Planner Ludwig replied they did and there would be wetland enhancements along the channel as well as stormwater improvements to the same channel to mitigate existing problems. Member Bell asked how much right-of-way on the proposed extension of Orchard Place were for sidewalk and bike lanes. Planner Ludwig responded that with the Final P.U.D. review, the opportunity will be discussed for the potential for a 28 foot wide street in this area. The existing bike path currently runs along the extreme northern property line. With a 28 foot wide street, there would either be parking on one side or no on -street parking. By narrowing down • the street width, it would allow for a detached bike/pedestrian lane on the north side of Orchard Place connected through. It would be about a 7 foot wide bike/pedestrian path. Essentially, with the exception of the additional traffic of it being a through street, the existing bike path would be moved 10 to 15 feet south of where it currently is. Planner Ludwig stated that the City has a policy that says we need porosity. We knew the neighborhood had concerns with Orchard Place connecting, staff tried to come up with an alternative that met both policy and the neighborhood's concern. From staffs perspective, the 28 foot street with a detached walk and separated green belt in between the curb and sidewalk was adequate. Member Strom asked to see the slide that shows the cross-section where the berm is located and how big it is. The applicants consultant addressed the cross-section and berm. He stated they would improve the fence line continuously on the west property line, and would place an 8 foot privacy fence. They would be approximately 5 foot from top of curb to top of berm. He discussed the landscaping of the berm and parking areas. Chairman Walker spoke on the porosity issue and that through the petitions, the overwhelming sentiment of the neighborhood is not to put Orchard through. Chairman Walker questioned whether this was a good idea to run Orchard Place through. He • thought that if we were considering mitigation on this, he thought there should be some consideration as to what should be done with Orchard Place. He thought that a "very" Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 26 detached bike/pedestrian path should be maintained through there. The character of that has already been established. He felt that maybe the neighborhood should maintain it's identity without the automobile porosity. He felt there was reasonable porosity getting to Elizabeth and Mulberry. Member Davidson asked about the bus route going up Ponderosa. Planner Ludwig replied that the Transfort Department has indicated that it is a possibility. Currently the bus route runs along West Elizabeth to Overland. They have indicated that a project geared toward student housing and with this many units, in the future, could possibly generate an additional route. Mr. Ludwig reported that Transfort is not interested in going through the parking lot, especially all the way to Orchard Place. Transfort is now re-evaluating coming in and making a U, and then making a left on Elizabeth. Transfort thought that that might be a satisfactory solution in the future. The bottom line is that the Transfort Department will determine their route. Member Davidson asked if Ponderosa is used where would the bus go after Ponderosa, through the extended Orchard? Gaylene Rossiter, Transfort Department replied that would be an option with Ponderosa to Orchard and back to Taft and then to CSU. Ms. Rossiter stated that ridership was being evaluated to determine if another route should be added. Ms. Rossiter stated some of Transfort's concerns regarding driving through the parking lot of this development. Ms. Rossiter felt a solution could be reached. Member Davidson thought the parking lot should be designed to accommodate the buses. Member Davidson asked about Plum Street and what the status of it was as far as dwellings, housing and density. Planner Ludwig replied that Plum Street to the east of the site is all Sunray Apartments. Member Davidson felt that would be more logical rather than impacting single family homes. Planner Ludwig replied that the key to the Transfort Route is that they hold their own neighborhood meetings regarding Transfort Routes being established. The decision is not being made tonight of where Transfort will go and will be done through future processes. Member Strom moved for approval of the variance for four persons per unit. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 27 Member Mickelsen stressed that she would rather have four unrelated people in an apartment that is designed for that purpose with the appropriate parking for it, rather than in any neighborhood. Member Strom stated that the student population has proven to be the most supportive of transit and this is another opportunity to provide enough density in one location that makes transit work and that is why he thinks the four persons per unit is appropriate for a project that is designed for it. The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Walker voting in the negative. Member Strom commented on the Orchard Place connection and did not have strong feelings one way or the other, he thought there was a fair amount of porosity existing and whether it goes in or not, he did not think there would be a lot of additional traffic on Orchard Place. Member Colton asked how wide the existing path was compared to what was being proposed. . Planner Ludwig replied it was comparable at 7 feet with grass on both sides of it and then the fences. It might be 10 feet total with grass. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Jefferson Commons PUD with the condition that Orchard Place is not cut through to the west and that the developer has the option of looking at their own transportation system to decide whether to cut Orchard through to the proposal or use Plum Street or neither one. Member Mickelsen recommended that the seven foot detached sidewalk must attach the two sides if Orchard Place is put through only for this development, that the existing bicycle/pedestrian porosity must be maintained to Taft Hill. Planner Ludwig asked for staff to reserve the right to have both Orchard and Plum connect into the site. Member Mickelsen agreed. Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. Member Strom stated he would support the motion, he thought that it was a good project. He did feel that by not putting Orchard Place through, the traffic burden would be concentrated and not spread out. • The motion was approved 6-1 with Chairman Walker voting in the negative. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 28 Member Gaveldon submitted a conflict of interest on this and left the hearing. Mike Ludwig gave the staff report recommending approval of the rezoning request with a P.U.D. condition. Lucia Liley representing the applicant stated that she really did not have any comments other than this was a request by the owner of the property. They have asked for a PU❑ condition and would comply with what ever the City's requirements are. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Strom moved for approval of Country Club Farms Rezoning as documented in the staff report. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 a.m.