Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMODIFICATION OF STANDARD (943 E. PROSPECT RD. - RITE AID) - 6-99 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 9 Director Blanchard stated that at the time of PDP, the Board could condition the project according to Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 as to the operating hours. Member Gavaldon commented that he did not agree with the applicant's justifications, he believed that there are uses in the LMN for this property, and this modification is an encroachment into the LMN zoning. Member Gavaldon moved for denial of the modification request for Rite Aid, #6-99. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Meyer commented that she felt this property is doomed because of the future right-of-way that will be required. Member Craig asked if the applicant can bring the project forward in the NC and request a modification at that time, which would make it a Type II, so there will be more information on the dedication and other issues. Director Blanchard replied they could. Member Carpenter agreed that the property will have problems because of right-of-way, but the standard the Board has to go by when talking about a zoning district that is dominated by residential uses. This request has parking so close to the residential uses that she feels that is the problem with this piece of property. She feels that this use is inappropriate for this residential area. Chairperson Colton commented that he also would like to have more information on this specific modification. He felt it was unclear. The motion for denial was approved 5-0. Other Business Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning gave the Board an update on the Community Separators Project. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 8 Member Craig asked for further clarification. Her question is if an NC project comes in and has enough traffic, they would have to buy the right-of-way all along the south side of Prospect Road to put in the appropriate lane. Director Blanchard replied staff does not know that. It has not been analyzed yet. It would have to be determined at the time a project came in limited to the NC zone property and whether or not we would somehow acquire additional right-of-way for a right turn lane. Chairperson Colton asked about the distance between the parking lot and the condominiums. Ms. Ripley replied that there is 11.5 feet. There would be 6 feet to the privacy fence and then 5 feet of landscaping and then the parking lot. Chairperson Colton asked who owns the current existing fence. Ms. Ripley replied she did not know at this time. She stated that the fence is in poor shape and if this project went forward, there would be a better fence built to improve the condition. Chairperson Colton asked if the applicant would build the fence. Ms. Ripley stated she could make that commitment for the applicant tonight. Member Carpenter asked about the lighting. Ms. Ripley replied that they were flexible. They are required to have so much light by city code, but they can position the light where it least impacts the neighborhood residents. Member Carpenter asked what kind of lighting. Ms. Ripley replied that unless it was negotiated differently, it would be a typical 24 foot standard light that would match the other lighting in the area. Member Carpenter asked about operating hours. Ms. Ripley responded they did not know at this time. Member Carpenter had concerns with headlights going into the condominiums. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 7 Laverne Olson, 943 E. Prospect, owner of the property for the proposed parking lot. Mr. Olson stated that he believes this project should go forward because it is a dangerous place to live and felt that the project should be accepted. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked about right -of way dedication. Planner Fuchs replied that right-of-way dedication would be required for East Prospect Road at the time of Project Development Plan. The city already owns a portion of right- of-way that was acquired years ago when a right turn lane was going to be installed but never was. Additional right-of-way will be required. Member Gavaldon asked Ms. Ripley to explain their justification of "equal to or better than" for the parking lot versus the single family home. Also compare the proposed parking lot use with the allowable uses currently allowed on the property. Ms. Ripley replied that the parking lot would serve as a valuable addition to the neighborhood, which would be the Rite Aid, it is a better use than leaving the single family house there that is creating traffic problems because of the curb cut being an individual drive way to an individual house on a very busy arterial street. Putting the parking lot there would eliminate the curb cut and the traffic and safety hazard. The proposal is better than leaving the single family house there. Ms. Ripley went on to say that if our thinking is expanded to think that the parking lot is better than some other use that would be acceptable in the LMN district, that is where they get stuck because they cannot find another use in the LMN zone that could fit onto a 6,000 s.f. lot other than another single family home. Member Craig asked if a project came in the size of Rite Aid and we were not doing this modification, would the right-of-way needed along the south side of Prospect take the lot with the single family home anyway. Planner Fuchs replied that if the LMN was not included as part of this site, it would be hard to say where the access point would be in order to get enough stacking onto Lemay and onto the respective site. Director Blanchard added that if you don't get the required amount of dedication from the single family home, you end up with a shorter turn lane temporarily until the property redevelops. Tthe question for traffic operations is whether or not you allow an access point to come out of the NC zoned property into the turn lane onto Prospect. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 6 corner of the intersection of Prospect Road and Lemay Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification request. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ron Fuchs, City Planner gave the staff presentation including a slide presentation of the area. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the modification request. Linda Ripley, VF Ripley and Associates represented the applicant and gave a brief presentation. She spoke on the background of the proposal, the neighbor next to the proposal willing to sell his home, the allowable uses in the LMN zone that may develop on the property, the lot being to small for an independent use, and alternatives of combing uses on the property. She stated that this lot was eventually going to be combined with what happens on the corner, and that was essentially what they were proposing tonight. She stated that approving a Rite Aid on the corner tonight is not the issue tonight, it is really whether or not the parking lot to serve that use is appropriate. Ms. Ripley stated this was an opportunity to extend the neighborhood center that currently exists at that intersection. She stated by approving this parking lot addition, the Board could allow them to go forward and see if the Board agrees that that use makes sense on this site. Another thing that would be accomplished is by eliminating the single family home, there would be one curb cut eliminated on the busy arterial street and in its place a landscape buffer would go in along the parking lot. They also accomplish a land use transition that is more appropriate. Public Input Jerry Atkinson, 931 B East Prospect lives in the condominiums next to the proposed site. He stated that he has three issues and those are shared by a majority of the neighbors. His issues are lights, fence and the future use of this parcel. Once it is rezoned and Rite Aid does not come in, he was concerned that the property has been rezoned. His concern was the fence, lights and noise and he questioned who would maintain the fence, the noise from the parking lot and the lights from the parking lot. He wanted to make sure that there would be an acceptable buffer. Director Blanchard reported that his was not a rezoning, but a modification request that would only be valid for 12 months. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 5 Planner Wray replied that this was an opportunity along with the other changes talked about to update the Master Street Plan and provide the connections for the long term that staff feels is appropriate. Some of the changes were missed on previous updates of the Master Street Plan and as a result of those changes, we need to update the Fossil Creek Plan for those segments that are within the study area. Member Craig asked if the development was large, was there a way that would force this to be opened up. Planner Wray replied he did not think so. He stated that they have identified in the Fossil Creek Plan the area to the west of these parcels as low density mixed use neighborhood. There are several projects coming in in the Fossil Creek area and the one to the west may combine with some other parcels, but he did feel there would be a need for that connection. Member Craig wanted to make sure that when a traffic study comes in, that the traffic study would not say that we would need that access. Planner Wray replied that staff was trying to coordinate connections to County Road 36 going to the north of that area and to the west eventually to County Road 9. In working with the interior street network within the future project we would make sure that there was a potential stub out for a future connection there. The details of that could be a cul-de-sac or retention pond, some kind of separation or barricade. Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council and the Larimer County Planning Commission to adopt an amendment to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan relating to street classifications and alignment changes within the southeast area of Fort Collins. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Modification of a Standard (943 East Prospect Road - Rite Aid) (p _ r1R Project Description: Request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements to allow a commercial parking lot in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. The property is at 943 East Prospect Road located on the south side of Prospect Road near the southwest