Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/16/2007Planning and Zoning Board August 16, 2007 Brown Staff Liaison: Chairperson: Dave Lingle Phone: (W) 223-1820 Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (W) 491-2579 Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, Wetzler Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Shepard, Maizland, Joy, and Sanchez -Sprague Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Citizen participation: None Chair Lingle asked members of the audience or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. • Member Schmidt asked that Redtail Ponds Office Campus, Major Amendment, #26-01 B be removed from consent. ■ Chair Lingle asked that minutes from the July 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing be removed from consent. Consent Agenda: 3. Rein Annexation & Zoning, # 21-07 Discussion Items: 1. Minutes from the July 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Redtail Ponds Office Campus, Major Amendment, #26-01 B 4. Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, #14-07 Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Rein Annexation & Zoning, # 21-07. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Chair Lingle made recommendations for the following changes to the July 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning Board minutes: Under Consent Agenda: Chair Lingle ask members of the audience or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. • A member of the audience asked that the 412 E. Pitkin Street -Minor Amendment be pulled from Consent. AND Planning & Zoning Board August 16, 2007 Page 2 Page 3, last paragraph under Citizen Participation should read: "Chair Lingle also noted that at the time of original PDP request, the structure was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission and deemed not eligible for historic designation due to alterations to the original structure. Member Schmidt moved for the approval of Minutes from the July 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing as amended by Chair Lingle. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Project: Redtail Ponds Office Campus, Major Amendment - File #26-01 B Project Description: The Redtail Ponds Office Campus, Major Amendment to the approved Redtail PDP requests the elimination of 92 dwelling units (88 multi -family, 4 two-family) in 12 buildings and replacement of them with 4 office buildings and associated parking (within the buildings and surface). Building 4 may contain a restaurant use. There would be 181 parking spaces on -site. The buildings will be up to 61' in height, with the majority of a building being 52' high, and contain between 15,664 and 18,269 square feet each on 4 floors. This proposed development is located north of the City's Redtail Grove Natural Area, west of the intersection of South College Avenue and Cameron Drive, south of Fairway Lane, and east of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The site is in the C - Commercial zone district. Recommendation: Approval Member Schmidt asked that rather than a brief presentation that Planner Olt answer questions that arose in his absence at the Board's August 10 work session. Staffmember Olt read from a list of questions relayed to him by Director Gloss: • Was a neighborhood meeting conducted? Olt responded no. With the plan change'of a portion of the site to office use the decision was made that a neighborhood meeting would not be required nor was one conducted. (The site is bordered on the west by the railroad tracks, on the east by Cameron Business Park, and on the south by Redtail Natural Area. The site is in the C — Commercial zone district.) Member Schmidt asked if a neighborhood meeting had been conducted for the original plan approval? Olt responded he was not the planner for the original plan and could not confirm a neighborhood meeting had taken place. • Was a traffic study completed for the project? Olt responded yes. A copy had not been included with the staff report but a copy was made available for the Board at the work session. • Had the staff conducted a visual analysis from College Avenue? Olt responded no. • Please provide a comparison of the changes to parking that includes the change to surface and garage space. Member Schmidt noted that question arose in the context of how much of the residential component would remain. How would that look? Olt replied the residential portion of the project would remain the same. It is located on the north portion of the site and was not a part of the deliberation. On the west side of the project (closest to the railroad tracks,) 4 office buildings and associated parking (within the buildings and surface) would replace 12 buildings (92 dwelling units--88 multi -family, 4 two-family) Planning & Zoning Board August 16, 2007 Page 3 Chair Lingle —referring to the bottom of page 2 of the staff report: "The applicant requested that the PDP have the flexibility to substitute the use of the proposed buildings within this hilltop area be approved as either the 92 dwelling units or as up to 109,234 square feet of office. In either scenario, the proposed site layout and building configurations would be virtually the same. At time of the PDP decision by the Planning and Zoning Board the applicant agreed to the residential option for this area." asked for background. Did the record reflect the Board's intent at the time the PDP had been approved? Olt noted that not being the original planner for the PDP, he had relied on Board minutes. He noted the Board spoke only to the project as previously approved. Jon Prouty, Laguinitas Company, noted at the time the Planned Development Proposal was first reviewed by the Board that staff was uncomfortable with an either/or proposal. They asked him to choose one development plan or the other. He chose residential but he'd like to move forward now with phase 1 and the proposed Redtail Ponds Office Campus. The office campus will have an open space setting thanks to the Redtail Grove Natural Area on the south and to the southeast. Prouty also noted there are no neighbors to the west to speak of with a farming zone in Larimer County, the BNSF Railroad tracks, and existing rural residential properties. (For those reasons, he believes neighborhood meetings have not taken place.) The building elevations will be interesting with Frank Lloyd Wright like functional horizontal elements. Member Schmidt asked how much higher will the buildings be then those previously approved. Prouty replied 15 or 16 feet higher. Public Input A member of the audience asked where the projected is located. Staffmember Olt explained the project is west of College in the area of Fossil Creek Parkway. The site is west of the Cameron Park office development, north of the Redtail Grove Natural Area, and east of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railroad tracks. End of Public Input Member Schmidt made a motion to approve Redtail Ponds Office Campus, Major Amendment - File #26-01 B based on the Findings of Fact found on page 9 of the staff report. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Member Schmidt noted at initial review, she had concerns about the project changes —mostly in the placement and height of the office campus buildings. Also, with major amendments it is normally the practice that a neighborhood meeting takes place. She understands that with this project not many residential properties are affected. She does, however, find it concerning that the decision not to conduct a meeting can arbitrarily be made. Motion was approved 7-0. Project: Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, #14-07 Project Description: This is a request for a new parking structure and new medical office building. The new parking structure would be located at the northwest comer of Lemay Planning & Zoning Board August 16, 2007 Page 4 Avenue and Garfield Street and be reserved for staff use only. The new medical office building would be located at the southwest comer of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street. The parking structure would be four stories (42 feet) in height and contain 737 parking spaces. Access would be from both Lemay Avenue and Robertson Street. A pedestrian bridge, at the third floor, would span Garfield Street to provide safe access to both the proposed medical office building and the hospital. The office building would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, at four stories in height (56 feet). A second pedestrian bridge, also at the third floor, would span Lemay Avenue to provide safe access to the hospital. Both properties are zoned E, Employment. Recommendation: Approval with one condition Chair Lingle noted a large number emails and letters had been received prior to the meeting and at some point during the proceedings there would be a 15 minute break to give the Board a chance to review. Also, for the benefit of the large number of people in the audience, Chair Lingle reviewed the public hearing process: • Staff presentation with Board questions • Applicant presentation with Board questions • Public input • Opportunity for staff and applicant to respond to questions or rebut public testimony • Board deliberation and decision Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this project is a request for a new parking structure and a new medical office building. The parking structure (reserved for staff only) would be located at the northwest comer of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street, would be four stories (42 feet) high and would contain 737 parking spaces. Access to the parking structure would be both from Lemay Avenue and from Robertson Street. A pedestrian bridge on the third floor would span Garfield Street to provide safe access to both the proposed medical office building and the hospital. The four story medical office building would be located at the southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street would be built to a height of 56 feet, would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, and would have a second pedestrian bridge on the third floor that would span Lemay Avenue to provide access to the third floor of the hospital. Both properties are zoned E, Employment. Shepard reported the applicant had asked for a one month continuance which he believed would result in more concise testimony, more refined legal opinions, and a rewritten staff report that would include new information that had surfaced in the last couple of weeks. Lucia Liley, 300 S. Howes, a representative of the Poudre Valley Health Systems requested a one - month continuance. The applicant had been hopeful up to the last couple of days that outstanding issues would be resolved. However, after getting a copy of the staff report they had concerns about the proposed condition, which was changing even as late as today. They had concerns about issues related to Land Use Code interpretations. And after discussions with Ted Shepard and Paul Eckman, they all came to the consensus that a delay would be beneficial and fair to everyone. The additional time would eliminate confusion and allow the competing interests to come back with a clearer Planning & Zoning Board August 16, 2007 Page 5 understanding of the issues --understanding differences and the legitimacy of those differences. She hoped the Board would concur. Chair Lingle asked Deputy Attorney Paul Eckman if it would be inappropriate to take public testimony tonight. Eckman responded that given the concerns raised by the applicant with regard to factual differences, he believed it would be better to get all of it taken care of in one hearing —the evidence would be presented to the Board and be fresh in the minds of those that want to comment. Member Schmidt asked if Director Gloss would see any problem with regard to the September agenda. Gloss replied it appears there will be a full agenda but it is yet to be determined if all items will be ready for consideration in September. Chair Lingle commented that a continued item may bump another topic should the agenda be too full for all. Gloss concurred. Member Stockover asked when interested parties would have access to the new facts. Staff member Shepard replied the staff report could be made available to the public on Monday, September 10. Individuals who would like a copy of that report can either leave their name and email with the clerk or send a request to the planner at tsheoard aafcoov.com Member Smith made a motion to continue discussion of Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, #14-07 to the September 20, 2007 meeting. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. A member of the audience asked if there will be a second mailing with regard to the continued meeting. Director Gloss responded that while it is not normal practice to send notification letters to affected neighbors on continued topics, in this case a second mailing would be done. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. eron Gloss, Dir� for David Lingle, it ,