Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - 29-99 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Member Craig asked if the amenities would stop the people from crossing and would they add design. Bruce Hendee stated that the fencing was not really useful in design, but the seat -wall was a pedestrian amenity. Member Torgerson added an amendment that the applicant could have flexibility to change the amenities if they chose to do so. Member Gavaldon accepted the amendment. Member Meyer also supported the amendment. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: Recommendation To City Council Regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Project Description: Recommendation to City Council regarding the options identified for the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Smith, Utilities Department, gave a presentation explaining the options for the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Public Comment: Ryan Staychock, 621 Remington, asked the Board, with the increase in development, to be sensitive to the wildlife along the corridor. His recommendation of the Options would be for Option C. Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, noted his participation with the City Stormwater & Utility Floodplain Task Force for a year and a half. He also served on the City's Storm Drainage Board for eight years. He currently was a practicing engineer with a background in civil and environmental engineering. Mr. Fisher reflected upon some previous recommendations from August of 1999. He strongly supported the original August recommendation. He asked to learn from the lessons of the 1997 Flood. He believed that the FEMA flood regulations were not sufficient and that the City should adopt the most stringent regulations possible for the safety of the citizens. Tom Post, 818 E. Elizabeth, agreed with the previous speaker. His neighborhood had concerns of the flood in 1997 and he had experience with the Big Thompson Flood back Eric Bracke sited studies of why the mid -block crossing would be unsafe. If the crosswalk were signalized, the City would have to coordinate with the Railroads and people would feel safe to cross there. The drivers may see an inconsistent use of the crosswalk and possibly disregard safety when driving through the crosswalk. At Oak Street, there were no weaving issues due to the median as there would be on Mason. He also mentioned the laws concerning parking around a crosswalk and how that would remove a considerable amount of parking along that block. Member Torgerson expressed his concern that there would be continued crossing at the mid -block. Eric Bracke stated that the pedestrians would be more careful at the mid -block if there were no crosswalk. They would be more careful because they would know that they should not be crossing at that site. Bob Blanchard reminded the Board that the applicant had some amenities that would need to be included in the motion. He asked the applicant to describe some of the changes and amenities. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, described the added amenities to the project, including an ornamental fence and seat -walls, 18-20 inches tall, to prevent illegal crossing of the street. There would be ornamental pedestrian streetlights with artwork attached to them and artwork medallions within the pavement. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the modification stating that the east/west spine would not cross Mason Street to the Transit Center. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Craig asked if the modification only included the crossing of the street, not the spine itself. Mr. Jones and Member Gavaldon agreed and ensured that the modification was for the crossing of the street only. The motion was approved 7-0. Member Gavaldon moved to approve the project with the conditions of adding a south employee door, requiring a 60-foot wide spine separation from the north wall of the building of substantial greenspace, and requiring the applicant to add the amenities as presented at the worksession and meeting (i.e. the fence & seat wall and other elements) with any amendments to this being reviewed only by the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Mr. Hendee felt that, in the spirit of the Civic Center Plan, the north/south spine had been lost due to the Larimer County Justice Center. That project did not follow the proposed north/south spine. Mr. Hendee pointed out that the Civic Center Office Building brought the spine back to the proposed alignment in the Master Plan. He felt the project included many pedestrian friendly amenities to honor the spirit of the Master Plan. He described some of the temporary amenities and the permanent features of the project. Frank Bruno addressed the challenges of site selection of the Library. The process could take a considerable and unnamed timeframe. Also, the timing of funding for the project depended upon the chosen site. He estimated between 4 and 7 years until construction would begin on the Library site. Member Carpenter asked why the east/west spine was lost instead of square footage of the building. Mr. Hendee did not feel that the east/west spine was lost. Frank Bruno added that the Master Plan did not make specific implication of dimensions for the east/west spine. On the Master Plan, the east/west spine was thinner. Member Carpenter asked if they could lose parking spaces to incorporate the green space. Mr. Hendee needed to discuss changing the parking lot with the applicant. Member Bernth asked the number of feet necessary for the green space. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, sensed a tendency to redesign the plan and eliminate the parking spaces. The Board could assess a condition upon approval to specify a distance. Member Craig asked if the access off of Mason would influence the future buildings. Mr. Hendee stated that the access could be moved to Maple Street in the future if it would cause problems on Mason. Member Torgerson asked what would be done to ensure the water quality when the current water quality feature would be replaced with the build out of the library site. Mr. Hendee responded that a different feature would be developed at that time. Member Torgerson asked for an explanation of why the mid -block intersection, like the one on Oak Street, is so unsafe. Member Craig asked Mr. Hendee why he allowed the ideas of the Master Plan in the initial meetings to continue when the safety issues were in existence then. Mr. Hendee responded that he was not involved with the initial meeting concerning the Master Plan. He had a conflicting meeting, so his name was connected, but he did not attend. Eric Bracke added that he was involved with those meetings and he was the staff member that brought up the concern with the mid -block crossing. Public Comment: None Discussion: Member Gavaldon asked for clarification about the south door. Mr. Hendee responded that the south door was for employees only. The parking for people with a handicap was located on the north side of the building and access would be available for them at that end of the building. The floor plan did not lend itself to a public entry. Member Carpenter expressed a concern that the east/west spine had lost the green space/park aspect on the north side of the building. There was a connection, but it had become too thin. Bruce Hendee mentioned that the area to the north had not been designed yet. The Planning and Zoning Board could make sure that future designs would integrate the green space. The building code required a minimum of 40-feet separation between buildings in the long term. On the proposed plan that incorporated the Library site included a 60-foot separation between buildings. Member Craig felt as if the open space was lost to the north of the building instead of what was on the new Master Plan for the east/west spine. Mr. Hendee described the distance of separation between the future buildings and the plan for keeping a desirable amount of green/open space available. Troy Jones added that in the City Plan, there was no specific wording about the east/west civic spine. City Plan only gave general direction for development. Member Gavaldon was concerned about negative changes that would allow the open space to be lost. He asked how temporary the parking lot was. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, Current Planning Department, gave a short presentation and review of the project. He addressed issues brought up at the previous hearing. Frank Bruno, Assistant City Manager and the applicant, responded to the issues raised during the previous hearing. He addressed the mid -block pedestrian crossing, the relationship of the office building to the Civic Center Master Plan and the building entrances. The applicant elected not to seek the modification of the street tree standard. Mr. Bruno stated that the Master Plan for the Civic Center was just a guide and not a requirement. There would be differences from the original plan, but the applicant felt the current plan was best. Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, discussed the modification request for the east/west civic spine. Mr. Hendee described the original Civic Center Master Plan and the ideas behind the east/west civic spine. He pointed out the differences from the revised Master Plan and the issue of the Transit Center on the east. The unique problem of the bus service on the west side of the Transit Center, in conflict with the safety of the pedestrian access from the east/west spine is the reasoning for the modification request. Mr. Hendee noted that there was no requirement for a corner entry. He did state that the applicant would accommodate a door at the south end of the building for employee access. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department, described the safety concerns of the mid -block crossing. There would be weaving vehicles during the mid -block and the kiss -and -ride feature of the Transit Center would also cause weaving of traffic throughout the mid - block. He felt there was an increased threat due to the railroad tracks and the high - profile vehicles on this block. The Traffic Engineering Department was against implementing the mid -block crosswalk. Member Torgerson asked why the kiss -and -ride was designed on Mason with the knowledge of the east/west spine ending at that site. Susanne Durkin, Transportation Department, responded that there were not any other locations available for a kiss -and -ride. There was also the Burlington -Northern Switch that limited the mid -block lane changes to get from one side to another. Frank Bruno added that realities and problems arise upon development that conflict with the Master Plan and previous thinking. Bruce Hendee reminded the Board of the difficulty of mid -block crossings as a whole, especially with the unique issues of the railroad tracks and the short blocks. Council Liaison: Scott Mason Chairperson: Glen Colton Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 225-2760 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Torgerson, Gavaldon, Meyer, Carpenter, Craig, Bernth, and Colton. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Fuchs, Schlueter, Smith, Bruno, McCallum, Byrne, Gianola, Jones, Wilder, McNair, Bracke, Durkin, and Kuch. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Bob Blanchard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 17 and March 2, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (Continued) 2. #8-00 Kendall -Harmony Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 3. #29-99 Civic Center Office Building - PDP 4. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations 5. Recommendation to City Council Regarding Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Staff continued item 1. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent item 2. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Project: #29-99, Civic Center Office Building - PDP Project Description: Request for a 71,515 square foot office building at the northwest corner of Mason Street and LaPorte Avenue. The site is in the Civic Center Sub -district of the Downtown (D) Zoning District.