Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 21-95 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 24 Member Mickelsen concurred with the amendment. Member Strom concurred with the amendment to the motion and suggested the condition that the applicant be encouraged to increase the pedestrian - friendliness of the architecture use on the drugstore building. Member Mickelsen agreed to Member Strom's amendment. Member Carnes asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman what is the basis in the code for the impacts on views. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that there could be a concern with connecting such a condition with any criteria of the LDGS. If there is no satisfaction of that condition at final, there would be difficulty in denying the project on the basis of the views. He suggested that the motion be for approval of four conditions and two requests. Member Mickelsen stated that she could accept that the motion be changed to four conditions and two requests. Mr. Shepard stated that the Board is not bound by the Design Guidelines and Standards for big box retail. He added that A-2.7 in the All Development Criteria provides that this be reviewed in more detail. Member Mickelsen amended the motion to be approval with the four Staff conditions and Condition #5, "Does the architecture contribute to the neighborhood appearance in a positive way", based on All Development Criterion A-2.7, and the Request that there be an investigation of views as seen from the intersection. Member Walker agreed to the amended motion as the second. Vice Chair Cottier commented that this project could be useful for the neighborhood. The motion to approve passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. 4 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 23 such compliance. He suggested that if the community is interested in this issue, they work with City departments so the resources and monies can be devoted for this. Member Strom commented that the drugstore appears to be fortress -like and asked if it could be designed to make it more pedestrian friendly in terms of the access and visual character. Dave Lingle, Aller-Lingle Architects, responded that the drugstore use has been guided by a more generic building plan which have one central entrance location. These large wall masses are broken up and articulated with changes in the parapet line, in ways other than a lot of glass. The entrance has been relocated to the corner to better address some of the pedestrian access issues. Member Strom encouraged the applicant to think of this building in terms of how it relates to pedestrians. Member Mickelsen moved to recommend Prospect Park PUD Preliminary with the following conditions: 1) Flush wall signs are not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary PUD. At the time of Final PUD, additional . information and detail shall be provided in order to evaluate flush wall signs by All Development Criterion A-2.14.; 2) Site lighting is not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary PUD. At the time of Final PUD, additional information and detail shall be provided, including but not limited to, type, number, and location of both pole and building -mounted outdoor light fixtures, type of light source, wattage, and pole height. Site lighting is to be reviewed by All Development Criterion A-2.15.; 3) Wetland protection measures, including but not limited to, stormwater filtration/pre-treatment methods and velocity dissipation facilities are not granted an expression of approval with this Preliminary PUD. At the time of Final PUD, additional information regarding wetland protection measures shall be provided. Such measures shall include aesthetic considerations and complement the natural character of the wetland area. Wetland protection measures to be reviewed by All Development Criterion A-1.9 and A-2.3. and; 4) The proposed left -in turn movement at the Shields Street curb cut is not granted an expression of approval with this. Preliminary PUD. A request for a left -in turn movement must be accompanied by further information and will be evaluated by All Development Criterion A-2.1 at the time of Final PUD. Member Walker seconded the motion and amended the motion by adding the condition that there be investigation of views as seen from the intersection. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 22 two box culverts that detain the completion of final answers for pedestrian and bike traffic access. Mr. Vosburg commented that what was proposed at the neighborhood meeting in terms of the median development of Prospect was a complete and full median on Prospect. He added that there should be continuity of infrastructure. This is a special intersection because of the school and there are crossing guards provided which would make it safe and convenient. Member Mickelsen asked what kind of draw a drive-thru facility has opposed to a pon- d rive-th ru. Mr. Vosburg replied that there isn't clear data to respond to this question. The trip generation that the traffic study was based on included banks with drive-thrus. The drive-thru on the pharmacy is an incidental convenience feature and would not create a big change in traffic. Member Mickelsen asked if approving this project would violate air quality goals. Mr. Vosburg responded that air quality goals are in contention with one another. On one hand, it is better for air quality if traffic is kept moving but on the other hand, having services that support the residential population helps promote air quality goals by not making extra trips. He added that the existing bus stop is awkward and the applicant is proposing to have the de -acceleration lane align with the access into their site and that the bus stop would be located north into the de -acceleration lane. Member Mickelsen asked about the flow from the parking lot and what impact it would have on the wetlands area. Basil Hampden, City Stormwater Utility, replied that generally it drains to the south with two grass lined swales that flow into the wetland area. The City does not have water quality criteria so the criteria from the Urban Drainage Manual used by Denver COG is used. He stated that they have asked the applicant to review this manual to address this issue. He added that the City's goal is to treat these issues before this project goes for final approval. Member Mickelsen asked how the street view would be dealt with. Mr. Shepard replied that first there should be some voluntary compliance from the development community. However, the City does not have anything to use to require Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 21 Emily Smith, President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that the association was in favor of this project but had concerns about: no access on Shields Street and opposed left in/left out on Shields; the right in/right out on Shields as unsafe; proximity of access to the intersection; the confusion of two left turn lanes from Prospect onto Shields, and; the Transfort stop for two buses in the westernmost lane of Shields. The association would like to see the elimination of access on Shields Street, development management provide a crossing guard for school children at the access on Shields, the developer install a median on Shields south of the intersection to eliminate left turn access to Shields, limited night time hours for these businesses, and a pathway that would connect the southwest corner of Prospect Park to the Northwood Apartments. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, suggested that the runoff areas have a high level of sensitivity and that there be adequate buffering of the wetlands area. He had concerns that the streetview is maintained and that the buildings would block the view of the foothills. He also had concerns about the visual construction materials. Lee Roberts, Prospect Street resident, believed that the process has been less involved with the citizenry. He had concerns about the increase in traffic and the lack of completion of the traffic planning. He believed that the focus on pedestrian and bike traffic is null and void and the focus is on the cars. Wayne Smith, 1142 W. Prospect, stated that in earlier years the neighborhood was promised by the Planning and Zoning Department that this entire area would be single family residences for a mile in all directions. This promise has not been upheld. He had concerns with the increase in traffic, with or without this development. He opposed a retail operation in this area. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Tom Vosburg, City Transportation Planner, stated that there are potential benefits to providing a left turn access in. However, the City does not believe this would work unless the double northbound left turn lanes were provided which means that the southbound right hand turn would need to be installed along with an additional right-of- way further north being acquired. The City does recommend that the project is equal to or better than what would have happened if the additional lanes were required to be installed. Mr. Shepard stated that the Northwood Apartments can gain access on the east from the sidewalk on Shields. He stated that there are drainage constraints, a bridge and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 20 Director Blanchard stated that the project, if the applicant chose to resubmit it, would need to be processed as a Planned Unit Development Amendment, subject to the full nine -week Planning and Zoning Board review process. Project Planner Ted Shepard gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the fourconditions as outlined on Page 9 of the Staff Report, Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates and representative of Ed Mullaney Sr. and Ed Mullaney Jr., gave a brief history of the property. She discussed the access to and from the project, pedestrian and bike circulation via sidewalks and bike trails, surrounding population, building orientations, landscaping and screening, the handling and integration of the wetland area, concerns of water quality, lighting which will be detailed at final, and the hours of operation of commercial properties. Ruth Clear, Transportation Consultant for this project, reviewed the traffic study that was performed for this project. Three intersections were studied on this project which included Prospect and Shields, Prospect at Stone Creek, and Shields at Stuart. They reviewed existing conditions, background conditions and total traffic conditions for 1997. She stated that they also performed a study of these conditions for the year 2010. Traffic counts showed that the existing intersections operated at Level of Service D with the exception of Prospect and Shields at the PM peak hour which operates at a Level of Service E. She added that they studied the direct impact of Spring Creek Village PUD, the Windtrail projects, the Preserve, the Fort Collins Senior Center and Prospect II. In the year 2010 during the PM peak hours, Prospect/Shields intersection drops to Level of Service F, Shields/Stuart drops to an E, and Prospect/Stone Creek remained at F. One concern with the Prospect/Shields during the PM peak hour is the northbound left turn. To improve on this, she considered changing the left turn exit to another location and, in the future, install a dual northbound left turn. This would entail moving the southbound lane over one lane and the bridge would have to be widened. She stated that the City Transportation Department would consider this for the long- term future. The developer will dedicate the right-of-way for this possible improvement. CITIZEN INPUT Mike Byrne, 1505 S. Shields Street, had concerns with Shields Street being at traffic capacity. He stated that everything is car -oriented and had a large concern for pedestrian safety. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 16. #28-81B Fairbrooke Heights PUD - Preliminary 17. #27-95 Woodlands PUD - Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change 18. #21-95 Prospect Park PUD - Preliminary 19. #44-94C Woodland Park PUD - Final (Continued) Vice Chair Cottier pulled Consent Item 4 for a separate vote due to a conflict of interest. Chairperson Clements abstained from voting on Consent Items 5 and 8 due to a conflict of interest. Member Strom moved to approve Consent Items 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Member Mickelson seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Mickelson moved to approve Consent Item 4. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Member Mickelson moved to approve Consent Items 5 and B. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Mike Ludwig, Project Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that the proposed development would cause a realignment of the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal. The realignment might cause the ditch access maintenance road to be relocated on the east side of the ditch. That, in turn, might cause a problem with certain encroachments into the ditch company's existing irrigation easements. He added that the applicant, the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company, and neighbors have yet to resolve the PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting - June 26, 1995 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairman: Rene Clements Phone: 221-0406 Vice Chairman: Jan Cottier Phone: 221-3953 The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Chairperson Clements. Roll Call: Carnes, Bell, Mickelson, Clements, Cottier, Strom and Walker. Staff Present: Byrne, Blanchard, Eckman, Ludwig, Olt, Shepard, Vosburg, Hampden & Wamhoff, Phelps. Chairperson Clements and Vice Chair Cottier were presented service awards for the many years of service on the Planning and Zoning Board. Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows: 1. Minutes of the November 14, December 19, 1994 and January 23 and May 22, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. #20-95 Sue's Hairtage PUD - Preliminary and Final 3. #90-85L Wild Wood Townhomes PUD - Preliminary 4. #1-88G Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 3rd Filing, Lots 1 & 2, M & O Tire Automotive - Preliminary and Final 5. #54-87AD Cottages at Miramont PUD - Final 6. #52-83E Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan (Continued) 7. #76-81D Pineview PUD, Tract "C", Preliminary - 2-Year Extension Request 8. 326-95 Loomis Building, Phase I - Building Height Over 40' Review 9. #18-92C Mountain Ridge Farm PUD, 1st Filing - Final 10. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval 11. Resolution PZ95-16 Easement Vacation 12. Resolution PZ95-17 Easement Vacation 13. Resolution PZ95-18 Easement Vacation 14. #25-95 Third Fisher-Lemay Avenue Annexation and Zoning 15. #22-95,A Snyder Annexation and Zoning