Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBMC WEST PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... CONTINUED P & Z BOARD HEARING - 1-96 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning 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. Member Colton stated that was acceptable. Member Bell accepted the changes. The motion was approved 6-0. UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD, PRELIMINARY - #2-96 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 Hearing Page 8 Member Davidson felt if any portion of the property falls within the 500 feet, then the whole property should be evaluated according to the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Member Bell asked City Attorney Duvall how the Board should be looking at this. City Attorney Duvall reviewed the appropriate sections of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program with the Board and what criteria would apply. He believed the Board could only apply the Business Park style criterion standards to development improvements within the developed urban district. He also reminded the Board there was still other criteria in the LDGS, and gave an example of A2.7, that are also used in evaluation of this project. The Board needed to make an interpretation of whether this project falls within the study area. Member Bell asked about Criterion A2.7, and if the Board were to use it as an interpretation of an extension of an interpretation, neighborhood compatibility would be the other business parks in the area. Member Bell asked to see slides of other businesses in the area to get a feel for character. Director Blanchard stated the slides would be of the Seven Lakes area adjacent to this project. Planner Ludwig reviewed the slides. Member Davidson asked Planner Ludwig if he agreed that the other side of Prospect where Advanced Energy is -- the architecture style is very comparable to Seven Lakes. Planner Ludwig replied that would be subjective, it is comparable. Member Davidson asked if he thought it complements. Planner Ludwig replied yes. The motion was denied 3-3, with Members Colton, Bell and Davidson voting in the negative. Member Colton suggested separating the preliminary from the final and approve the land use and basic layout, but look at beefing up the landscaping and taking a look at the architecture to see if the entire building could be made more of one type of material. Member Colton moved for approval of the Preliminary PUD for BMC West for the layout and land use. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 7 parking space to bring that into compliance. Planner Ludwig noted that that 50 foot set- back is even greater than what is required along Prospect Road, which is 35 feet. In balancing that, staff felt the set -back was appropriate. Member Davidson asked how wide the sidewalk was. Planner Ludwig replied that at this time there is not a sidewalk requested in front of the property, at the Engineering Departments request, due to the exact alignment of the Timberline extension. The applicant is responsible and will enter into agreement that says that at the time Timberline Road is built, they would be responsible for putting in a sidewalk along their frontage. Member Mickelsen moved for the approval of the BMC West, Preliminary and Final with the condition stated by staff, and in recognizing other Board members concerns, she was interested and welcomed other comments. Member Davidson seconded the motion for discussion purposes only. Member Davidson again read from Appendix A, A-1, second paragraph, regarding the streetscape along Prospect Road. He still did not think that staff was interpreting it correctly and felt that they still should have to do improvements to the streetscape on Prospect Road. Member Bell felt this project did fall within the study area and felt the Board should do the best they could in terms of getting a project that looks good and sends a strong message for what we want to see happen along this whole area. Director Blanchard clarified how setbacks are measured, and in this analysis, the distance was measured from the axis of the two roads that make up the intersection, which is the reason staff felt this project does not fit within the 500 foot area. Member Mickelsen asked how staff chose the axis on this project. Director Blanchard replied the center line of the two roads and the axis is where the two roads intersect. Member Davidson stated he still has an argument about the building style because it does fall within -- the property itself that is under proposal for development does fall within the 500 feet of the centerline of Prospect, therefore, all of that property is within 500 feet from a legal standpoint as far as he is concerned. The architectural style should conform to the rest of the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 6 Member Colton replied that lead him to believe that the 500 foot landscaping requirements would be applicable. Planner Ludwig replied that was correct, but this project is north of the 500 foot line, and 500 feet would be to their southern boundary, right at their drive. Whether we can apply that outside the 500 feet -- it was staffs interpretation that we could not. Member Davidson asked if it had to touch the building to include the 500 feet. Planner Ludwig replied no, he was saying anything within 500 feet of the intersection of Timberline and Prospect Road would be included in the Streetscape Program. Member Mickelsen asked Planner Ludwig to point on the map where the 500 foot line came to. Planner Ludwig complied. Member Mickelsen stated that the southern 10 feet would fall within the Prospect Streetscape Program. Member Mickelsen stated that she felt staff had applied the criteria correctly in a sense that if this building did front on Prospect, we would not be looking at it as it is. There would be a lot more requested and required of it. She also believed it was dangerous to hold a project to a standard of building materials based on what that business will sell. Member Mickelsen thought the applicant had complied with the streetscape as far as the landscaping. She could not vote against this based on a judgement call, her judgement was that this project was being evaluated correctly. Member Davidson reread the criteria for the streetscape. Member Davidson asked what the future edge of right-of-way was for this project when Timberline extends, and what would the setbacks be for this building be. Planner Ludwig reviewed the site plan and pointed out the future right-of-way line and additional right-of-way that was being dedicated to the City. Planner Ludwig also reviewed the set -backs. Member Davidson was concerned with the set -backs meeting the guidelines for a major arterial. Planner Ludwig replied that the only portion that did not meet that was the southern 10 feet within the 500 feet of the intersection. There could be the elimination of one Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 5 Member Bell asked for the applicant to explain why they thought that they could not do any upgrades to the sides of the building in question. Ms. Ripley presented a slide of the building and explained that as development occurs to the north, landscaping would be installed and the back of the building would be softened. Even if the materials were to change, she did not feel it would make that much of a difference. Ms. Ripley reviewed the views of the building and offered to plant additional trees. Ms. Ripley stated that at this time they are not willing to change the building materials. Ms. Ripley felt they have done a good job with this industrial facility. She did not feel it was fair to compare it to Seven Lakes Business Park. Member Davidson replied that as far as the buildings go, he did not agree with that. Member Davidson felt that with BMC getting materials at wholesale, it would not be as great of an expense for them as someone else that would buy materials from them. He would like to see them do a stucco/stone like other buildings in the area. Ms. Ripley had a concern that Member Davidson was saying that this was an inappropriate land use. Member Davidson replied that he felt that this was an inappropriate design as far as style in relation to the rest of the office/industrial park area. That was the criteria that he was going by, and he did not think this complemented what already exists. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Davidson stated that his intent was not to deny this development, but to enhance the corridor as much as possible. Member Colton was unclear whether this meets the requirements for being in the Prospect Streetscape Plan. He heard 500 feet went to the southern boundary. Planner Ludwig stated that the Prospect Streetscape Program applied to properties that front along Prospect Road. The criteria applicable to this project was architectural design. Member Colton asked about streetscape improvements and what did that entail. Planner Ludwig replied landscaping between the street and the project and the visible building. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 4 parking lot, with lumber piled up in the car parking lot. Member Davidson was concerned this would extend onward to the next site unless the visual impacts and the architectural style are in a more serious manner now. He would like to see something more that would lend itself to pride and respect for the community. Member Mickelsen asked-- wouldn't the piece of property that fronts on Prospect Road be under more scrutiny, as far as the design standards for Prospect Road; whereas, this piece was not setting an example for other pieces of property that are in the Prospect Corridor area. Planner Ludwig replied that more regulations would apply to the property to the south, however, that is already an approved PUD, from 1979, and prior to the LDGS. Member Gaveldon asked about criteria for bringing up the west side to look like something of a showcase along the proposed Timberline. Ms. Ripley reviewed the landscape plan and elevations of the project, including the entry feature and building materials. She felt the building would be very attractive from Timberline Road. Further east, it becomes a very utilitarian building and is appropriately designed as so. Member Gaveldon compared Pace Warehouse to this and that the developer went to great lengths to blend it into the neighborhood. Member Gaveldon asked if there was any opportunity there. Member Mickelsen commented that Pace was trying to blend into a residential "neighborhood". This proposal is trying to blend into a more office/industrial area, and that is what it should be held up against. Ms. Ripley added that because of the way the building functions on the north and east sides, there is not much you can change to how it looks, because it is functional. The elevation on the north is just a plain elevation, and even if the material is upgraded, it would not change the visual impact that much. Member Bell suggested that the issue was the visual impact on the proposed Timberline frontage and what they have there is not very attractive. Member Davidson felt that all the development park east of Timberline, even the buildings set back, have dealt with complementing themselves with all the other buildings. Member Davidson stated that as we look to the future and what we want Prospect Road to look like is a big concern. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 3 Member Davidson's understanding was that the elevations did not meet the criteria because all the emphasis is being put on the front of the building. Planner Ludwig replied that the enhancements did go for a small portion wrapped around the building on the north and south sides toward the front. In staffs evaluation of the project, we looked at the architectural elevations and from staffs perspective, the major concern area was the frontage onto Timberline Road. Staff felt the landscaping that was being provided, and the setbacks, provided enough buffer for this proposed use. Member Davidson stated that this was one of the major gateway's into Fort Collins that we would want to improve upon with redevelopment. He did not see this as an improvement in the full sense of the word. He sees a partial improvement on the front side, but the fact that they are not following through with this all the way around the building will inhibit in the future the other buildings being brought up to a standard sometime in the future. He did not feel this building was compatible with any buildings in its vicinity. Ms. Ripley responded that the front of the building that fronts onto Timberline does look very different than the back of the building. Ms. Ripley explained that it did not have anything to do with saving money and downgrading the back of the building. She explained this project was an office/manufacturing facility, and is not simply an office building. Member Davidson referred to Advanced Energy as also being an industrial building and that their buildings were nice on all four sides. He asked why they could not conform to what they conform to. Ms. Ripley replied that Advanced Energy is a different type of facility. Ms. Ripley presented slides and reviewed the site plan and the building architecture. Ms. Ripley offered to provide additional landscaping for additional screening from Prospect. Ms. Ripley stated her clients also committed to finish the landscaping from the original PUD that either did not get installed or died. That would also provide additional screening from Prospect Road. Member Davidson felt that BMC is a building supply company and is responsible for many of the building materials that go into the architecture of this town. He would like them to set an example as a concerned entity in the Fort Collins community, and make some improvements that would dress -up Prospect as we envision it in the future. Member Davidson was concerned with the unsightly visual aspects of the existing business. He also mentioned it spilling onto the front parking lot of the Prospect Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 2 Planner Ludwig responded by referring to Page 5 of the Prospect Corridor Plan, and the statement regarding the 1/3 mile north and south of Prospect Road being the study area. Mr. Ludwig stated that this site was located within one of the four defined areas of the Prospect Corridor Plan. This site was located within the developed urban district. Mr. Ludwig stated that this project was located within the business park style of streetscape, and on Page II-8, it states that developments located along the Prospect Road frontage between Riverside and the Cache La Poudre River -- it is staffs interpretation that this property is not directly adjacent to Prospect Road. Planner Ludwig went on to explain the landscape requirements; continuing the landscaping adjacent to the intersections with Prospect Road a distance of 500 feet back from the intersection and this property -- only the southern boundary is within the 500 feet, approximately where the entrance is. Member Davidson stated that meant the property is within 500 feet and were we getting into different interpretations of what staff is looking at for the 500 feet in terms of the building versus the piece of land that is being developed? Planner Ludwig replied that the entire property is not within the 500 feet and staff evaluated it based on what was within 500 feet. Member Davidson stated he drove it today and marked if off with his odometer and it was over 1/10 of a mile from the street corner, and that is more than 530 feet. He estimates it at 570 feet. Planner Ludwig stated that our figure was based on measuring it from the center line of the intersections of Prospect and Timberline Road back to the property. Member Davidson asked if we had a drawing that actually shows that footage. Planner Ludwig replied the site plan that was included in the Board's packet is what they scaled off of. Planner Ludwig stated that staff agreed that it is within the study area of the plan, however, staff feels as though they have applied the applicable sections of the Corridor Plan. Planner Ludwig went on to say that the architectural design criteria, which specifically talks about -- for example on Page II-14, and that the building shall be designed to ensure that all elevations include architectural detail and enhancement rather than placing heavy emphasis solely on the front elevation and ignoring the need to apply aesthetic enhancements. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 8, 1996 CONTINUATION MEETING FOR MARCH 25, 1996 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I 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 BMC WEST PUD. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL #1-96. 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 II-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.