Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY LEMAY CROSSING, PHASE 3 (KFC/TACO BELL) - PDP & FDP - 36-96F & G - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 7 Member Colton concurred with Member Torgerson. He stated that it was hard to fit in all the things here with the drive-thru. He hoped we could continue to minimize parking lots exposed to people driving by, which he does not think this does. He also did not think that the primary width of the building is facing either of the roads. To the west you have the parking lot there so there is a large setback and to Magnolia, just a narrow part of the building. Neither street is really getting the benefit of the pedestrian scale of the building being close to either one of those roads. Member Gavaldon would support the motion but he thought there was more opportunity to design things differently. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Recommendation to City Council for the South College Access Plan Update Project Description: The purpose of this project is to update the existing Access Plan for South College Avenue (US287) which was originally approved in 1989 by the City of Fort Collins and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Bernth declared a conflict of interest on this project. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner gave the staff presentation. Ms. Reavis stated that this project has been ongoing for about a year and a half. The City of Fort Collins and CDOT have been working on Access Plans for all the State Highway Systems within our community. There are approved Access Plans for North College, Jefferson and Riverside and Mulberry (State Highway 14). In addition there are Access Plans for Harmony Road and South College which have been in place since 1989. She stated that the components of the update Plan include extending the southern boundary of the Plan to include the portion from Trilby Road to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The goals behind the project and why staff believes it is important to update the Plan at this point are many. It is very important to have a long-range vision for this important corridor of the community that reflects the current conditions as Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 6 exceptions. This building is set further back than what the standard calls for, but the exception language allows that because of the pedestrian lawn amenity area. Member Colton asked if there was landscaping on the west boundary right at the edge of the parking lot. Planner Shepard replied that there is a solid shrub hedge along the entire parking lot frontage on the west. Member Colton asked how tall those shrubs would be. Planner Shepard replied 4 to 6 feet at maturity. Member Colton has some concerns with this project, but helping screen the parking lot was good. He feels like this is a step back from what we have seen on other projects like the Harmony Towne Center. May there is still a problem with our big box standards where we still have these huge big boxes set up there and these pads 300 and some feet away. It is not going to be pedestrian friendly no matter how you cut it. He had a problem of whether the whole project met the parking requirements and felt that too much was on the west side and this just proves that is true. Member Torgerson moved for approval of KFCffaco Bell PDP File #36-96F. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would be supporting the motion. She is willing to give staff a chance to see if this will work. It will only end up being two lots by the time they get done with this. She completely agrees with Member Colton and that was one of her concerns when this center came in as a preliminary and she would have liked to see the big boxes come even more to the south so we did have more of a "town center" look, instead of this big asphalt space between the buildings. She felt they tried real hard to make this pedestrian friendly. Member Carpenter would also be supporting the motion. Partly because we are at this point with the development in a position where she believes that the applicant actually has done that we as a city have asked for. She would like to request that this discussion that she thinks we need a worksession on because she feels that what was expected in City Plan is not being accomplished. Member Torgerson commented that for him it always boils down to the Code and this clearly complies. He also appreciated the through scrutiny that Ted and the applicant gave this project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 5 Member Carpenter asked if staff saw this as a precedent to the way we are going to interpret that statute in City Plan. Would we be orienting to the interior of the site. Planner Shepard replied that he did not think that staff interprets any particular PDP as a precedent. We look at every plan and proposal in it's context, location, parcel size, shape and access as unique sites. He did not think that we limit ourselves in that way. Member Carpenter felt it was troubling for her having sat on CPAC and that was a very important piece of what they were trying to do, which was create streetscapes so when you walked or drove past, you did not have parking lots. Planner Shepard replied that in this case you have to pick a street. Staff decided to pick Magnolia because it is a smaller street and will have less traffic and lower speeds. It will be a more pedestrian friendly street. It does face other buildings as opposed to Lemay, which is carrying more traffic, five lanes separated by a median. Staff does not feel that is as pedestrian oriented as Magnolia. Staff feels that Magnolia will be "the street" on which to orient this structure as opposed to Lemay. Staff has had these conversations with other shopping centers as well, Harmony Village, the Safeway Shopping Center. The concept is not new, but maybe for the board because it is the first time they have seen it implemented. Mr. Brown showed a sketch and explained all the options that they had looked at. They are a very small building on a 40 acre site with a lot of cars. They think they have done the best they can do with that shape site, drive-thru, parking and pedestrians coming in. He urged the Board to not continue the project and any redesign would come right back to where they are now. Member Gavaldon asked how necessary the drive-thru was Mr. Brown replied they do not have a project without a drive-thru. Member Torgerson asked about the build to standard and that 30% of the building perimeter needs to oriented to the build to line. In this case there seems to be about 270 perimeter feet, which would make the width of the building that needs to be oriented to the build to line over 80 feet. The facade that is oriented doesn't seem to meet that standard. Planner Shepard replied that the way we interpret that standard, on a corner lot, you pick the street that needs the orientation. In this case it is Magnolia. The build to line says that you can't be set too far back from Magnolia. There are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 4 can cut the parking grid on a diagonal or he can walk in a perpendicular fashion. Either way it will take you to a crosswalk, the crosswalk will take the sidewalk right to an entrance. Sidewalks and crosswalks get you to both entrances. Member Craig's other concern was where the transit stop would be. Kathleen Reavis from Transportation Planning replied that the transit stop would be north of Magnolia. Doug Brown, applicant, addressed the board and stated that they had worked very hard with staff to come up with the current design. Mr. Brown spoke about the location of the drive-thru. He thought that the site has been very successful for encouraging internal pedestrian travel to their facility. He felt that they have done everything they could to encourage people to walk and not drive between pads. Public Input None. Member Carpenter was concerned because this project was not in compliance with the goals of City Plan which were to bring the buildings closer to the street so there would be not parking lot to look at. Planner Shepard replied that if you looked at all the alternatives, there are negative attributes to all of them. This one seemed to work out the best given the constraints we are dealing with. Staff feels that we had a choice of orienting this building to either Lemay or Magnolia. Staff thinks that it is superior to orient towards Magnolia and that means there is a parking lot between Lemay and the building. Staff does not think that violates City Plan. Staff feels that the orientation that is proposed tonight promotes City Plan. This is the best pedestrian orientation that we could possibly. Member Carpenter asked if this was a departure from the way we have done things this far for City Plan. Planner Shepard replied he did not know the answer to that because we have not had many pure City Plan shopping centers. This shopping center is basically a "hybrid" because it was approved as a PUD. The pad sites are coming in under the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code standards a used to implement City Plan. Staff feels that the PDP meets the standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 3 as possible. Part of that means that instead of a typical shopping center layout, where you have the anchors pushed way to the back and the pad sites pushed way to the front, you get this perimeter placement of buildings that results in a very large interior field of parking. That is what we have in a lot of our Community Regional Shopping Centers that have been built in the last 10 to 15 years. That large field of parking sometimes results in people driving from anchor to pad and pad to anchor instead of walking. That creates a kind of pedestrian hostile environment. Since the Harmony Village Shopping Center staff has been discussing how to minimize that phenomenon. One of the ways to do that is to pull buildings together the best you can. In the Big Box Standards we can do that because of the distributed parking requirements. The anchor gets a little closer to the street. However, on the pad sites, we are still seeing the tendency to push the pad all the way out to the arterial. In this particular case, working very closely with the applicant, we were able to pull the pad building closer to the anchor and bring it up to the corner and the internal access drive. That particular corner is also a convergence of a lot of sidewalks. We get the front of the building facing north, which faces the Wal-Mart and the front of the Wal-Mart faces south. They are able to pull the pad closer to the future anchor of Lot 2 and we are able the minimize the parking that large single expanse parking lot and we are able to get more distributed parking in smaller clusters out on the perimeter. Staff thinks that with the drive -through pushed to the east, that we have minimized the conflicts between drive -through users and people who drive, park and walk in. We have minimized the conflicts for pedestrian walk-ups, we have created some streetscaping and we are trying to create setting up an ambiance in the center south of Magnolia where we don't have that large single field of parking. The build to standard does allow us to move the building further back. In this case we wanted to do that so the drive -through lane was not right on top of Magnolia Street. We wanted that to be moved as far south as possible, minimize the conflict there and still create a nice front lawn area with pedestrian amenities. It does exceed the build to standard, but staff thinks that with the lawn and the pedestrian amenities, that it satisfies the exception to the standard. Member Craig's concern was that the pedestrians that are coming from the big boxes are going to be on the other side of the shopping center, which would be to the east. If they decided to walk, then they will have to walk across the drive - through lane, and there is no door there, so we are making it a long way to get to a door. Planner Shepard replied that he understands what she is saying. The pedestrian desiring to dissect the parking lot from anchor to pad can take two directions. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 2 Director Gloss recommended that Item 9 be moved to the Consent Agenda. Member Craig pulled Item 1, Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three KFC/Taco Bell — Project Development Plan. Member Colton moved to add Item 9, Resolution PZ02-01, Easement Vacation to the Consent Agenda. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Carpenter moved for approval of Items 2 and 9 of the Consent Agenda. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three, KFC/Taco Bell — Project Development Plan, #36-96F Project Description: Request for a 3,661 s.f. drive -through restaurant on 1.08 acres on a portion of Mulberry Lemay Crossings Shopping Center, Filing Two. The parcel is located on the southeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Magnolia Street. The property is zoned C, Commercial. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence. Member Craig stated that the only issue she had is Section 3.5.3 (B)(2), which is the orientation to build to lines for street front buildings. She asked Planner Shepard to base his presentation on the build to line, walkways and the layout of the lot. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner replied that the orientation of the building is a combination of a lot of "givens". It is a rectangular site, building and it is a drive - through facility. It is a pad site in a shopping center and it is at the corner of a collector and arterial street. All of these factors came into play. Building orientation was looked at very closely with the applicant, even in pre application conferences, knowing that building orientation would be the key. What staff is trying to accomplish is streetscaping along Magnolia, pedestrian safety and trying to create as much of a pedestrian amenity within the shopping center as a whole Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mika[ Torqerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Colton, and Gavaldon. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Joy, Wamhoff, Reavis, Reiff, Jackson, Shepard, Barkeen, Olt, Stringer, Phillips, Stanford, Moore and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Chairperson. Member Craig nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. There we no other comments. The vote tied 3-3. Member Colton moved to postpone election of officers until the February 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Member Craig seconded the motion. The vote was approved 6-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. #36-96F Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three, K.F.C./Taco Bell — Project Development Plan. 2. #43-01 Webster Farm Annexation & Zoning. 3. #33-01 Fossil Lake Annexation No. 1 (Continued) 4. #33-01 A Fossil Lake Annexation No. 2 (Continued) 5. #33-01 B Fossil Lake Annexation No. 3 (Continued) Discussion Agenda: 6. Recommendation to City Council for the South College Access Plan Update. 7. #4-97B Mason Street North — Major Amendment 8. #37-98C Larimer County Courthouse Offices — Site Plan Advisory Review. Other Business: 9. Resolution PZ02-01 — Easement Vacation