Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - 29-99 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (3)Troy_Jones -_Re Civic Center Pedestriar ne /, From: Susanne Durkin To: Bob Blanchard; Kathleen Reavis; Pete Wray Date: Wed, Mar 8, 2000 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Civic Center Pedestrian Spine 'Me I spoke to Jack this morning. I firmly believe approaching the BNSFRR about a mid -block crossing for pedestrians will fully jeopardize the Mason Street Transportation Corridor Project. The BNSFRR leadership in Denver made it perfectly clear to us that any at -grade crossings especially for pedestrians are out of the question. All railroads have experienced an increase in pedestrian fatalities and want to minimize their risk from pedestrian conflicts. In fact, the BNSFRR would like the City to remove some of the crossings we already have. Because BNSFRR views the City as one entity, it would be an affront for anyone from the City to ask permission to create the type of crossing which they made perfectly clear was totally unacceptable to them. Are we willing to jeopardize Mason Street Corridor? Does the Board understand the full impact of their request? I suggested that Jack work with our railroad consultant, Ron Rypinski of Korve Engineering, to get confirmation of what I have just told you. Ron can also be helpful if you need to approach the BNSFRR for further information and response if it gets to that point. Please include me in any further meetings to address this issue. Susanne >>> Bob Blanchard 03/07 4:01 PM >>> You are probably aware that the P&Z Board continued the City Office Building project last Thursday. One of the major issues is the modification request to delete the Mason Street mid -block crossing. In preparation for returning to the Board on April 6, Jack is going to be contacting the railroad for their input on any proposed crossing. He was hoping to determine some details of how the crossing would be designed and what some of the specifics might be. It's my understanding that you worked together on the mid -block crossing on Laporte. I was hoping you might provide some insights as to the details of a Mason Street crossing if it happens. When you respond, please respond to all. Thanks Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director City of Fort Collins, Colorado (970)221-6750, FAX: (970)416-2020 EMail: bblanchardnoci.fort-collins.co.us CC: Gary Diede; Jack Gianola Troy Jones_- Civic Center From: Eric Bracke To: Bob Blanchard, Troy Jones Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 4:21 PM Subject: Civic Center Bob and troy, Following the P&Z discussion regarding the Civic Center and the crosswalk issue across Mason, I wanted to take this opportunity to give you my perspective on the situation. A mid -block crossing of Mason is not a good idea for the following reasons: 1. It is highly unlikely that the BNRR would ever approve the crossing. 2. Because of the weaving issues with traffic, the pedestrian crossing is unsafe. 3. Because the crossing would enter the "kiss-n-ride" and transit center at a poor location, the crossing is unsafe. 4. Due to the proximity of crossings at Laporte and Maple, there is no need for the crossing. 5. Because the land use of the Civic Center Plan is different than the proposed transit center, the need for the crossing is questionable. I would also bring to your attention the Model Traffic Code, Section 23-9 (b) where the duties/responsibilities/liabilities of the Traffic Engineer are detailed. subparagraph (1) Install, maintain, and remove traffic control devices;( a crosswalk is a traffic control device) subparagraph (17)lnstall, maintain crosswalks at intersections or other places ..... Based on the above, I would somewhat resistant in approving and/or taking the responsibility for the crossing in question. Please keep me advised on your discussions concerning this project and I will provide any assistance I can. Thx Eric CC: Gary Diede, Jack Gianola, Kathleen Reavis, Susa... mid -block crossing. We feel that it is unsafe to introduce the pedestrian crossing into this area. 4. A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would: Add pedestrian traffic at mid - block which creates one more conflicting element to a very active street. The plan, as submitted, serves the `purpose" of the standard by: Incorporating civic uses within the Downtown District to complement adjacent uses such as hotels, entertainment, retail and housing. The building architecture respects and reflects the local heritage and character by incorporating brick and indigenous sandstone. The building forms are reminiscent of other buildings within the immediate area and within the Downtown District. The building incorporates architectural elements (mass breaks, plane changes, columns, and awnings) which gives a human scale while preserving the institutional character of the Civic Center. Refer to the building elevations included with the project development plan. 4. Generous sidewalk widths are provided which support the pedestrian oriented character of the civic center. Ornamental street lights and high mass street lights are provided to support the night-time use of this area. Street trees and tree lawns create a comfortable and protected pedestrian zone. The plan, as submitted, will protect the public interests and purposes equally well or better than a plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard. The plan serves the intent of the Civic Spine standard for the following reasons: Well defined cross -walks are provided at the LaPorte/Mason and Maple/Mason intersections. The LaPorte Street/Maple Street intersection is signalized. We feel that the cross -walks at the intersections provide safer pedestrian crossing points by reducing the number of conflicts between cars, buses, trains and pedestrians. These connections are not as direct as a plan that would comply with the standard, but they are far safer due to the conditions described in earlier paragraphs. 2. The cross -walks will serve to connect various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas. Thank you for your consideration of this modification request. Roger Sherman BHA Design Modification Request - Civic Spine (Mason Street Mid -Block Crossing) Civic Center Office Building Land Use Code Section 4.12(A) - Downtown District (D) "Purpose. The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted in Figure 19. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian -oriented character." Land Use Code Section 4.12 (E)(5)(a) - Special Provisions - Civic Center Subdistrict "Civic Spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north -south and east -west pedestrian connections. The civic spine will serve to connect various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas. Modification Request The east -west civic spine, as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, is a well conceived notion from a general perspective. However upon a closer examination of the site specific physical relationships (i.e. adjacent uses, traffic, safety, etc.) our recommendation to the City is to modify the east -west spine so that it does not cross Mason Street at the mid -block location. For reasons described below, we feel that the Mason Street mid -block crossing would be detrimental to the public good if installed per the original concept. Alternatively, the two proposed Mason Street cross -walks at the north and south ends of this block provide a safer pedestrian connection to buildings, parks and plazas on the east of Mason Street. Therefore we request a modification of civic spine standard. Supplemental Findings A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard will not protect public interest for the following reasons: A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would: Extend the east -west civic -spine across Mason Street and bisect the existing bus/car loading area at the Transit Center site. This configuration would create a situation where pedestrians cross in front of buses and cars that are attempting to merge from the bus/car loading area into the Mason Street travel lanes. This is an unsafe condition for pedestrians. 2. A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would. Encourage pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks at an un-signalized location. This crossing represents and additional liability to the railroad company, therefore we anticipate resistance of this idea from the railroad company. 3. A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would: Locate the mid -block crossing just south of the median in Mason Street. This creates a situation where many drivers are looking for opportunities to change lanes, or are changing lanes, in and around the area of the `�■mmmw Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 7 6. The strict application of section 4.12(E)(5)(a) would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties because the railroad track goes down the center of Mason Street and because the Mason Street Corridor (not designed by the applicant) has a two-way designated bicycle corridor along the west side of Mason Street that is separated from the adjacent automobile and train traffic by a low wall. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval of the,request to modify section 4.12(E)(5)(a) of the LUC. 2. Staff recommends approval of the Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan, #29-99. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 6 The Justice Center is located directly to the south of this site. Both the north -south pedestrian spine that crosses Laporte Avenue and the crosswalks at the intersection of Laporte Avenue and Mason Street will provide pedestrian access between the Justice Center and this proposed building. City Hall is located a block to the west of the site. A major east - west pedestrian spine is planned for the mid -block connection of this building to City Hall. The on -site portion of this pedestrian spine is provided. Bicycle parking is provided in bike racks on -site and will be provided in bike lockers at the Transit Center. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Civic Center Office Building Project Development Plan, #29- 99, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (D) Downtown zone district. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.12 of the Land Use Code, (D) Downtown zone district except 4.12(E)(5)(a) for which a modification is being requested.. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use. 4. The granting of the modification to section 4.12(E)(5)(a) would not be detrimental to the public good because the Transportation Planning staff and Engineering staff have explained that it would be safer for pedestrians to not have the mid -block crossing of Mason Street. 5. The proposed modification request does not impair the primary applicable stated purpose of section 4.12(E)(5)(a), which is to provide for quality development that maintains pedestrian -oriented character, by providing well defined crosswalks at the Laporte/Mason & Maple/Mason intersections. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 5 3. ' Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards A. Street Trees [3.2.1(D)(2)] The street tree standard requires the applicant to provide street trees at least every 40 feet in the parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. The applicant had requested an alternative compliance to this standard when the project came to the P&Z Board on March 2, 2000, but has since decided to meet the standard instead of seeking this alternative compliance. The proposed design does now in fact meet this street tree spacing requirement. B. Direct Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations [3.2.2(C)(6)] The proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation system meets the standards set forth in this section of the Land Use Code for direct access to on -site and on adjacent off -site pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The on -site parking lot for customers and city fleet vehicles will be located north of the building. The customers will access the building by'walking from the parking lot to the Mason Street sidewalk, then south down the sidewalk to the main building entrance on the east fagade of the building. The employees who drive to work will park in the Civic Center Parking garage. which is located diagonally across the intersection of Laporte Avenue and Mason Street. Employees and customers arriving to the building using transit will utilize the Transit Center located directly across Mason Street to the east of this site. Enhanced pedestrian crosswalks are provided across the intersections of both Mason Street and Laporte Avenue to get pedestrians from the Transit Center and the Civic Center Parking Garage to the Mason Street sidewalk, then pedestrians will walk north along the Mason Street sidewalk from the corner to the main building entrance. The primary building entrance is located roughly in the middle of the east fagade of the building, which is halfway between the Mason Street & Laporte Avenue intersection and the guest/fleet parking lot on the north side of the building. The employees using the fleet vehicles will use either the east, north, or west entrances of the building to access the on -site parking area. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 4 (1) The first reason why this crossing is not possible is because there is a railroad track that goes down the center of Mason Street. The Public Utilities Commission (a state organization) is typically the agency with the authority to allow or disallow crossings of the railroad tracks, but in this case, because Mason Street was in this location before the track, Paul Eckman (after talking with Jack Baier of the Public Utilities Commission) is not convinced they have authority in this case. Representatives of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad have indicated that feel they have the authority together with the Public Utilities Commission to approve or deny the crossing. Paul Eckman indicates that we may in fact have the authority to put a crossing in, but if the railroad company objects, they may be able to take the issue to the UPC for a decision on who really does have the authority, which may in fact disallow the crossing. A letter from the railroad company has been provided that makes it very clear they do not want pedestrians to cross the tracks in this location or in any location other than at the existing designated crosswalks at street intersections. Suzanne Durkin from the Transportation Services Department has established a good cooperative working relationship with the railroad during the Mason Street Corridor Project, and she feels that pushing the issue of this crossing may jeopardize this cooperative working relationship with the railroad for the remainder of the Mason Street Corridor Project. (2) The second reason is that the design for the Mason Street Corridor (not designed by the applicant) is proposing a contraflow bicycle corridor along the west side of Mason Street that is separated from the adjacent automobile traffic lane by a low wall. The transportation services department has made it clear that a mid -block crossing in this location would not work well with the bike lane and low wall design. (3) The third reason why the crossing is not possible is that Eric Bracke, the city's traffic engineer, feels that because of the kiss - and -ride turn -out traffic, because of the weaving issues with traffic, and because of the location of the track switch a short distance north of where the crossing would be, it would be too dangerous to introduce pedestrian traffic in this block at a mid - block location. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 3 Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code states that the Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification request if they find that the granting of the modification would: (a) not be detrimental to the public good, and (b) not impair the intent and purposes of the LUC, and (c) by reasons of extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, provided that such difficulties are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The applicant argues and staff concurs that eliminating the east -west civic spine mid -block pedestrian crossing across Mason Street would not be detrimental to the public good. Transportation Planning staff and Engineering staff have explained that it would be safer for pedestrians to not have the mid -block crossing in this location, therefore the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The applicant argues and staff concurs that the granting of the modification would not impair the intent and purposes of the LUC. The "purpose" of the section for which the modification is requested, states in section 4.12(A) of the LUC, "The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing.... The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human -scale and pedestrian -oriented character." The intent to provide a pedestrian - oriented character is not impaired by the granting of the modification request because the alternative plan provides well defined cross -walks at the Laporte Avenue/Mason Street and Maple Street/Mason Street intersections. The provided crosswalk locations are not as direct as the mid -block crossing would be, however the pedestrian -oriented character of the project is not impaired with the alternative design. The east -west "Civic Spine" is shown in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan to cross Mason Street at a mid -block location half way between Laporte Avenue and Maple Street. The applicant argues, and staff concurs that there are three reasons why this pedestrian crossing is not possible. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 April 6, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The modification request to Section 4.12(E)(5)(a) satisfies the requirements and criterion established in 2.8.2(H) for the granting of modifications. The applicant is no longer seeking alternative compliance to Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the LUC. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system satisfies the requirements of Section 3.2.2(C)(6) of the LUC. COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Maple Street, Vacant city owned property, S: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); La Porte Avenue, Larimer County Justice Center, City and County office buildings, SE: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Intersection of La Porte Avenue & Mason Street, Civic Center Parking Structure, D (Old City Center Subdistrict); Retail, offices, municipal court, E: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Mason Street, existing rail road tracks & railroad switch, historic freight depot, restaurant, retail, car wash, city offices, W: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); existing retail, city offices, Washington Park, City Hall, The property is located in block 32 of the original City of Fort Collins which was platted in January, 1873. 2. Division 4.12 of the Land Use Code. (D) - Downtown Zone District A. Civic Spine [4.12(E)(5)(a)] The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 4.12(E)(5)(a) of the Land Use Code where it states, 'All development shall incorporate the concept of the `civic spine' as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north -south and east -west pedestrian connections." RECOMMENDATION: Approval ITEM NO. 3 /077'6A� MEETING DATE 4/6/00 LI'M STAFF Troy Jones li&i Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan, #29-99 •Sw�{irr�oh �PPt,� r -u Roger Sherman ferry C�reld;� - u,�rt;G� BHA Design ' AeFW' "' _ 2-J 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 .ferry C�avtic�,h - w,o}jp� City of Fort Collins IY Me7c, Project Manager - Jack Gianola 117 Mason Street L� , _5 \ Fort Collins, CO 80524 0 Savth eNyofee C6r to �!.;�cl �a q,,,rf enn� , be Avnet.,Jt1 b-/ PEA 2) TI-e eciS+-wvA 5p-,,te - wi be (00-cet} w;cle This is a proposal to build a 71,515 square foot office building at the northwest corner of Mason Street and La Porte Avenue. The site is in the Civic Center Sub- district of the (D) - Downtown Zoning District. This project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on March 2, 2000. The project was continued by a 6 to 1 vote. The motion to continue the project was specific to revisiting the following 3 issues at the April 6, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board meeting: (1) The Modification Request to Section 4.12(E)(5)(a) of the LUC which requested that the east -west civic spine be allowed not to cross Mason Street, (2) The alternative compliance request to Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the LUC which requested that two of the required street trees in front of the main entrance be allowed to be located elsewhere on the site so that the view to the main entrance from Mason Street is unobstructed by trees, and (3) How the plan satisfies Section 3.2.2(C)(6) of the LUC which requires that the on -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must allow for direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations located either within the development or adjacent to the development. zAfI a+mel,,t;e5 MSqq JhOApj MJ r1Jgres�'e�•'k� Pt K,e i,bo- d�+ :rTY1 �:NJ p,,e ie•i r`f' (! i'iRC'� r4,01xlkan opt at fi^P gPPI:(,ct ; /j�Yt255ion. -")-T�R W*VJeA SP;nE t"\V'A ,t1c)vji, a sjoson+:pl COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT