Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNIVERSITY CENTER PUD (UNIVERSITY MALL REDEVELOPMENT) - PRELIMINARY ..... CONTINUED P & Z BOARD HEARING - 2-96 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes v April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 11 Member Mickelsen was impressed with the changes that have been made and moved for approval of the requested variance to Absolute Criterion 1 on the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart pertaining to the primary access being off South College. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the University Center P.U.D., Preliminary. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the standard final utility plan and development agreement condition and the following condition from the City Forester: Approval of Prospect Park Final P.U.D. is conditioned upon a further evaluation of street trees at the intersection of Prospect and Shields. Such evaluation shall take place no later than six weeks after issuance of a Temporary/Final Certificate of Occupancy. Such evaluation shall include the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, the City Forester, the City Planning Department, and the Developer. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the planting of street trees is desirable in relation to the view of the mountains and the project In the event that planting is agreed upon, the City would plant the trees during the next planting season. If necessary, such trees shall be of a height that may be less than that of a traditional deciduous street tree. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, representing the property owner and developer for Prospect Park spoke on various aspects of the project. Ms. Ripley spoke on previous proposed land uses on the property, working with the neighborhood on acceptable land uses, reduction of intensity on the site since preliminary, traffic, architectural character, • signage on buildings, elevations of the drug store, lighting on the site, landscape, architecture, the plaza space for the neighborhood, pedestrian access, hours of operation, water quality and the wetland. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 10 Ed Zdenek, ZTI Group Architecture gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Zdenek gave a brief history of the University Mall. Mr. Zdenek spoke on parking, shared parking with King Soopers, transit routes, future light rail route, circulation of traffic, bicycle parking, landscaping, the landscaping screening wall along College Avenue, phasing, elevations, the storage buildings in the rear of the building, standards and guidelines being met for large retail buildings (even though not required to), and pedestrian plaza and movement. Member Colton asked about the screening wall and what would it look like. Mr. Zdenek described the walls elevations, location, sidewalk, and landscaping in front of the wail. Member Colton asked about material of the wall. Mr. Zdenek replied that their intent was to have it similar in materials as the mall itself. Member Gaveldon asked for the entrances and exits to the rear of the building be explained, and what plans were in place to improve safety. Mr. Zdenek reviewed the rear of the building, and the storage units along the railroad tracks. Member Davidson asked about the rooflines. Mr. Zdenek replied a slightly sloped roof, but they are still not into the final design stage. Member Davidson asked how many storage units there would be. Mr. Zdenek replied approximately 160 - 200 units. Member Davidson had questions on the time of operation of the storage units. Mr. Zdenek replied that some of the stores have shown interest in using the storage units, therefore requiring less access, and larger areas without doors. Mr. Zdenek also stated that he did not feel there would be a lot of night time activity. Mr. Zdenek stated that the units are locked, there is a manager on -site, and you do need to have a code to get inside. PUBLIC INPUT None. O Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 9 Member Bell seconded the motion. Member Davidson stated his concerns that he would like to see addressed was both the material that is utilized, how much of the building has a complementary material utilized, and the three dimensional character of the building so the facade goes on all sides. The other concern was the set -back and felt that it was too shallow in relation to what Timberline would be in the future. Member Bell added the additional landscaping the applicant was willing to install, especially some evergreen material. Member Mickelsen felt the comments should be more defined. Chairman Walker restated the motion as approval for the preliminary with conditions regarding material use, looking at the facades, possibly the setback, landscaping and that the record of the proceedings to express the feeling of the Board on how to proceed with the project be included. n Member Colton stated that was acceptable. Member Bell accepted the changes. The motion was approved 6-0. Director Bob Blanchard gave the staff report for Steve Olt recommending approval, including a variance to Absolute Criterion 1 on the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart. Member Bell asked about parking, and was there enough? Director Blanchard replied it was addressed and there was a detailed analysis in the staff report. Mr. Blanchard gave the general guidelines for parking for a mixed use development. Staff felt that the parking needs were being met. Member Colton asked about the entrances. Director Blanchard replied that all four of the major tenants will have entrances from the back. He felt the applicant should address visual appearance. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 8, 1996 CONTINUATIONMEETING FOR MARCH 26, 1996 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Lloyd Walker Phone: 491-6172 (W) 221-0489(H) There was no Vice Chair elect at this hearing. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bell, Davidson, Gaveldon, Mickelsen, Walker. Member Strom arrived at 10:36 p.m. Staff Present: Ludwig, Ashbeck, Olt, Shepard, Wamhoff, Duvall, Blanchard, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director Blanchard reviewed the continued Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. #1-96 BMC West PUD - Preliminary and Final 2. #2-96 University Centre PUD (University Mall) - Preliminary 3. #21-95A Prospect Park PUD - Final 4. #50-95 Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary 5. #7-95 Country Club Farms Rezoning lMall 6111=44 it I I ► U &► NJ[ 21101F.1 Mike Ludwig gave a staff presentation on the project, recommending approval with the standard development agreement and final utility plan condition. Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates, representing BMC West gave a brief history of the project and believed they had satisfied all 32 development criteria. Ms. Ripley stated the issues to her are vague and asked for questions to be asked so she could address them. Member Davidson asked about the Prospect Streetscape Program, and he felt this property fell within that area, Roman Numeral 11-1; and, that the business park style should apply to all development improvements within the developed urban district from Riverside Avenue to the Cache La Poudre River. He also referenced Appendix A.1 and the statement regarding streetscapes. Member Davidson stated that he did not feel the mandatory standards were being applied to this site.