Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAFFERTY'S PUD - FINAL - 17-95A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 17. Mr. Olt stated that there are two different palates in the Harmony Design Standards and Guidelines and Staff would like to be able to work with both of them. Ms. Liley stated that the applicant feels comfortable with this. The neighborhood requested that some landscaping be placed on the berm. She does not believe that this is an issue. She added that they can send a plan to the neighbors and receive comments and send these comments to Staff for their review. Member Mickelsen amended the motion by adding that the developer will create a landscaping plan for the berm and provide that to the neighborhood and return results of that to City Staff for final decision. Member Strom seconded the amendment. The motion passed 7-0. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND SECTION 29-526 OF THE CITY CODE - #33-95 Director Blanchard presented the Staff Report recommending approval. He added that the major item was that this would clarify and sometimes limit what could be appealed after preliminary approval as well as after final approval. Any appeal of preliminary approval would be limited to land use, layout and density and any conditions that were applied by the Board. The appeals after final approval would be limited to whatever was heard at final approval not to include land use, layout and density unless the Board change the layout and density. He reviewed the recommendations from the Board's study session. Under 29-526 F (5) © Final Plan, the last line should read "...not part of the record at the time of the preliminary plan." The other change by the Board under Appendix "C", Appeal Process, second line from the end of the paragraph, should read "...the layout or density of the final plan only when such layout or density received initial approval or has been modified by the Board at the time of its review and approval of the final plan." Member Strom asked for an explanation as to why the City Attorney's office is more comfortable with "not presented to the Board" than with "not part of the record". Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained that City Attorney Steve Roy drafted this language. He stated that in a previous draft, it read as "....was not available to the Board upon its review...". He believed that there is a difference in what was available and presented and that presented is more precise. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 16 Chairperson Carnes commented that Phase 2 is still up in the air and doesn't see how these issues can be specific for Phase 2. Mr. Schlueter stated that Phase 1 could be accomplished fairly easy. Mr. Olt stated that the parking along the driveway by Phase 2 is not being approved with this Phase 1 request. Member Walker asked that if a berm would be carried through the length of the property, would the access drive to Whalers Way need to be relocated based on storm drainage considerations. Mr. Schlueter replied that parking lot detention could be placed at the north side of driveway. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked the applicant if they were willing to relocate Whalers Way in connection with Phase 2 if necessary to satisfy the drainage demands of the overall project. Mr. Maxwell replied that they would not want to move the access driveway because of the alignment with the development across the street. However, with the existing area that is still in between the road and the existing neighborhood and whatever is done with the development of Phase 2, there are opportunities of introducing some additional underground detention in pipes that would connect the office development with the proposed detention area. Mr. Schlueter concurred with Mr. Maxwell. Member Mickelsen moved to approve Rafferty's PUD Final with the added information concerning the berm to the extent of Phase 1 and landscaping similar to the berm on Harmony Road and the three additional landscape islands in the main parking lot. Member Strom seconded the motion. Director Blanchard had a concern that approval of this motion leaves any approval of any landscaping plan to Staff using the palate from the Harmony Corridor Plan. This places the Staff in a position of being open for criticism based on what Staff approves. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 15 install several landscaped islands to break up the mass of asphalt. With these offerings, they request a decision from the Board. Mr. Maxwell pointed out where they would have three landscaped islands in the parking lot. Mr. Campbell agreed with the proposed changes in the berming. Mr. Fiscuss commented that a precedence was still being set by putting a restaurant adjacent to single family homes. Member Walker asked if the access on Whalers Way would remain in the same place and would it allow for the potential of this berm being continued in the future. Mr. Maxwell replied that the access drive aligns with the drive across from it and would allow for the increase of the berming. Member Walker asked if this solution suggests removal of parking spaces or is there another solution for the drainage problem. Mr. Maxwell replied that under the berm itself, there would be underground storage which is acceptable by Stormwater Utility. Member Mickelsen rescinded her prior motion. Member Walker concurred with Member Mickelsen's rescinded motion. Mr. Maxwell clarified that the landscaping would be similar to what is currently on Harmony Road. The detention structure being placed underground would create some conflict between pipe and root structures of trees so they would have to careful in what they plant. Mr. Schlueter stated that what the applicant is proposing is acceptable. However, the Board might consider that there are final drainage plans and this is a change from those plans. It could be done but it would be challenge. This area of the detention is the least volume so it would be more feasible to put the drainage in a pipe, especially if it is combined with parking lot detention. However, in the future, it would be more of a challenge. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 14 parties. He didn't believe that this would be of much relief in the case of a restaurant with car doors. The safest course would be to require berming or whatever it is necessary to protect the neighborhood at this time. He stated that under the LDGS, noise is covered under Criterion 2.16, lighting under Criterion 2.15, parking and landscaping under Criterions 2.4 and 2.13. Member Mickelsen commented that she would request data from the developer to substantiate the need or lack of the need for berming and odor abatement from the existing Rafferty's. In terms of street lighting, she supports the 14 foot lights for safety reasons. She added that mixed use reduces vehicle trips. She commented that bicyclists should pay more attention. Member Mickelsen moved to continue Rafferty's PUD Final to the first regular meeting of the Board when a study is prepared by the developer with data regarding the noise and odor abatement at existing Rafferty's. Member Walker seconded the motion. Ms. Liley commented that they could offer additional information for the Board addressing those issues. Postponing this project for another month could have severe consequences with the ability to close on the contract. Chairperson Carnes granted the applicant five minutes to confer with their attorney to offer information to the Board's conditional issues. Mr. Campbell commented that berming other than a permanent barrier may not solve the problem. In the future, should Rafferty's go out of business, another business might come in and create a real noise problem. He asked for a permanent type of barrier that will insure the integrity of the neighborhood in a more permanent fashion than trees that need water and maintenance or a fence that may run down. A physical barrier gives the neighborhood some protection of property value. This represents a real emotional separation of that business from the neighborhood. This is a long term commitment to this use. Ms. Liley clarified that shutdown hours of Rafferty's will be Sunday through Thursday at 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm on Saturday and Sunday. She proposed that the applicant would build the six foot earthen berm as requested along the eastern boundary of Phase 1 and then would be continued with the development of Phase 2. The applicant would not go with the tall evergreens but would look at using shrub -like landscaping and some deciduous trees for the aesthetic effect. The applicant is also prepared to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 13 Member Strom commented that if a noise barrier is constructed properly, it would be effective. There has been no evidence that there will be a noise problem. Member Davidson commented that he had concerns about the odor, noise and the lighting. He would like to see the addition of islands in the parking lot to break up the massive asphalt appearance. He asked if anyone had considered prevailing winds and which way they would carry any odors. Mr. Olt stated that the size of the parking lot and lack of landscaping can be discussed with the applicant. He did not believe that the prevailing winds was an issue. Member Walker commented that the evergreen plantings on the east side of the property will create a shield for lighting effects. Member Bell asked if the 14 foot lighting could be intermixed with the 4 foot high bollards. Mr. Olt replied that the Post Office has used the bollards and 24 foot high standard lights. These do not give the dispersion and security lighting that is needed. For this project, there are a total of six light poles, 4 single head poles and 2 double head poles, at 14 feet in height each. Member Bell commented that she would like to accommodate the neighborhood and meet some of their needs and concerns. Member Colton commented that there should be some solution to mitigate the potential noise problem. He did not see any concern with the odor issue. Chairperson Carnes asked Deputy City Attorney Eckman what action could be taken should this project have a noise or odor problem. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that the safest course would be to plan for that and then deal with it in the context of this application now and not to rely upon a solution after the project is approved and built. Beyond that, Ms. Liley has stated the situation with regard to the odor and how the health department can take steps to enforce their regulations because there are no local ones to enforce. As far as noise is concerned, there are a couple of code provisions, one with decibels of noise which has never been enforced because we do not have the equipment necessary to measure the noise. Another provision was enacted which dealt with unreasonable noise which is a more subjective standard but yet has been used by the Police to regulate loud Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 12 Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility, stated that the detention will decrease the amount of water that is getting out on Whalers Way. Currently, the present site dumps onto Whalers Way. As far as putting an earthen berm on this property, it is difficult to put a berm where a channel is supposed to be. There would be impacts on the site, parking . would have to be pushed back. There is no storm sewer in this area. Mr. Maxwell clarified that the actual detention encompasses what they were proposing as parking for the future Phase 2. Chairperson Carnes asked how effective would the fencing and landscaping be in terms noise abatement. Mr. Olt replied that there was no noise level study performed to make a comparison of fencing versus berm. Mr. Maxwell stated that the odors are controlled and they meet local and state standards. Lucia Liley, legal representative for Rafferty's, stated that they gave the Larimer County Health Department Air Quality Specialist a detailed, technical study on all aspects of the wood burning stove, specifications of the stove, the exhaust system, the auxiliary heat systems, the fire box construction, heating process hours of operation, type and quantity of wood, number of startups annually, etc., to give them an indication of whether this would be a negligible air pollutant source in which case all the requirements would be satisfied. Based on all of this data, this source would not require a permitting process and would have a negligible impact with regard to opacity, smoke, particulates and carbon monoxide. If this receives approval, they have to continue to meet all state regulations on oppacity and particulates in carbon monoxide. She added that the health department cannot review the odor on the front end. They will enforce it once the operation is up and running. State Regulation No. 2 states that the land use is reviewed and a certain level of odor can be reached at the boundary line. If it exceeds that level, it would be a violation. She believed that this is based on a complaint basis. The use could be ordered to be discontinued until they came in compliance with the standards. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that in the LDGS, there is an air quality chart that asks the question whether the project will conform to applicable local, state and federal air quality standards. Member Walker had concerns about issues of noise mitigation. Planning and Zoning.Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 11 Jim Cazier, 4549 Seaboard, stated that the neighborhood should be aware of future proposals so they can make sure that it fits into the neighborhood. CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED Mr. Olt stated that in the overall development plan, the office building was conceptual only. Other proposed uses would require an amendment to the overall development plan. Tony Fernandez, Memphis, Tennessee, stated that deliveries would be about two trucks twice a week, either on Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday because everything is piggybacked on one truck so multiple trucks aren't coming in through the course of the morning. Produce and fresh fish deliveries will be about five to seven days a week respectively. The hours of deliveries would be accepted from 7 am to 10:30 am then from 2 pm to 4:30 pm. Tom Vosburg, Representative of City Transportation Department, stated that the traffic on Whalers Way is an awkward situation. There are guidelines that are established for collector streets.in terms of overall volume. The volumes on Whalers Way are within those guidelines. The Level of Service for this intersection do not violate those standards. In terms of improving the situation, eventually with a full build out and additional traffic growth, the intersection of Lemay and Whalers Way will warrant having a traffic signal. The suggestion of providing a three way stop sign would not be an appropriate traffic control device. Boardwalk and Whalers Way may eventually warrant a traffic signal but the signal spacing of Whalers Way and Harmony Road would not make it a good place to put a signal. The City does not have a program or budget to make the "neck down" improvement on Whalers Way. There are four residential collectors. that are being targeted for a traffic calming program that the city will evaluate, those being Whalers Way, Landings, West Lake and West Stuart. However, there is no guarantee that a solution will be developed. Although the speeding of traffic on Whalers Way clearly creates concerns about safety, there have been no recorded accidents at either the Whalers/Boardwalk intersection nor the Whalers/Lemay intersection in 1993 or 1994. Chairperson Carnes asked if there was a bike path that is used heavily by children. Mr. Vosburg stated that there are the on -street bike lanes for people who know how to ride bikes on the street. Young children need to be educated in good traffic safety awareness. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Maxwell responded that the actual roof lights are on either side of the building. They shine up the valleys of the roof which is just to give aesthetic appeal to the building. Within 20 feet of the building the lights would have no more effect at all than the average foot candles around the building. Member Davidson had concerns with the lack of landscaping in the parking area. Mr. Maxwell stated that this is something that could be reviewed. Chairperson Carnes asked about the brightness and color of the signs would be. Mr. Maxwell stated that they are reverse can with neon inside and red with the lighting level relatively low. CITIZEN INPUT Colin Campbell, 4543 Seaboard Lane, reported to the Board the historical background of this project. He stated that four basic concerns the neighborhood has are: 1) increase in the traffic problem; 2) the noise; 3) lighting, and; 4) odor control. Douglas Meyer, 3739 Platte Drive, discussed the traffic issue. The neighborhood would like to have a three way stop sign at corner of Whalers Way and Boardwalk Avenue. Also, a 6 foot earthen berm would be critical running along the east side of property to provide a noise abatement. Jim Neubecker, 849 Sandy Cove Lane, had concerns with the increase of traffic and the delivery trucks that will be visiting this facility. He has talked with city traffic agencies and the only thing they can do is set up police scanning to check the speed and volume of the traffic. He believed this issue needed to be resolved before Rafferty's is built. Randy Fiscuss, 843 Sandy Cove Lane, stated that he has had no input to date on this plan. He believed that having a restaurant of this volume directly adjacent to single family homes would set a precedent in Fort Collins. He had concerns with the drainage of this site, the possible aroma problem and the opening of a pad for another building. Debra Cogan, 830 Sandy Cove Lane, requested that approval of this project would be contingent upon a particular design for traffic flow. She proposed a traffic plan six years and received approval but nothing was ever done. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Olt replied that'national standards were used as guidelines for patron parking. Member Davidson asked if the parking along the drive that would not be built initially would be include in the 1745 parking spaces allotted for this project. Mr. Olt replied that it is not included. Mr. Olt presented slides of the proposed site. Steve Maxwell, Rafferty's Restaurants, presented a model of Rafferty's Restaurant and gave a brief history of Rafferty's. He stated that they have attempted to address all of Staffs issues and the neighborhood's issues. Some of these included the elimination of the two story office building, added landscaping along the residential edge of the property, lowered the light standards from 16 feet to 14 feet, agreed to use a simulated concrete shake shingle roofing material and eliminated 20 parking spaces on the drive that goes to Whalers Way until Phase 2 of the project. Two concerns that have been brought to them are the aroma emitted from the restaurant and the noise factor. He believes that they have addressed the aroma issue in that they operate 10 restaurants and have never received a complaint and have met all local and state requirements. In terms of the noise, the building has been located as far away from the neighbors as possible which was discussed with the neighbors in their initial meeting. They have added extensive landscape along the neighborhood. That with,the fencing should provide an adequate noise abatement. He added that they are committing to having the last row of parking for employees only. Member Strom asked what kind of mechanical equipment will be on the roof. Mr. Maxwell replied that the platform on the roof is so the three exhaust fans are easily accessible for cleaning and maintenance. The size of the fans are approximately 2'/ feet in diameter. The wooden platform is over only one hood. Member Strom asked why four foot bollards would not work for the lighting. Mr. Maxwell responded that several photo -metric studies were performed on analyzing the site. There are safety standards that need to be met. Member Davidson asked what was the purpose of roof up lights, what elevations would they be, what type of illumination are they projecting and where are they located. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 21, 1990�5 Page 8 Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Strom moved to approve Poudre Valley Plaza PUD Preliminary with the following conditions: 1) That at the time of final, the Board would like to see, if at all possible in working with utilities, additional landscaping worked into the west and north frontages; 2) That at the time of final, the Board would like to see a thorough examination of pedestrian access to the site, and; 3) That the architectural concept in intended for all of the pad sites of the property. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that he would support the motion because in the final analysis, the extension of Arbor Avenue will be a benefit to the neighborhood. There are methods to preventing cut through traffic with stop signs and other traffic calming measures. Member Strom commented that he concurred with Member Walker in terms of the extension of Arbor Avenue. He commented that this site has, architecturally, the potential of being a landmark in south Fort Collins. However, he had concerns about corporate architecture coming in on some pad sites particularly restaurants. He believed it would be a serious mistake to let go of the concept that has been presented on sites for the sake of a fast food restaurant. In terms of pedestrian access, it is the Board's business to make sure that the applicant is handling it well. He did not believe that the site is very friendly from the four corners entrance and would like to see this improved upon at final. The motion to approve carried 7-0. RAFFER'I Y'S PUD - FINAL - #17-96A Steve Olt, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report recommending approval with the condition that the development agreement, final utility plans, and final PUD plans for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City Staff and executed by the developer prior to the second monthly meeting (October 23, 1995) of the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Strom asked how much of this parking is necessary for the restaurant. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Interim Chairperson: Gary Carnes Phone: 223-0404 (w) 223-8589 (h) Interim Vice -Chairperson: Lloyd Walker Phone: 491-6172 (w) 221-0489 (h; The meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. Roll Call: Bell, Walker, Davidson, Colton, Strom, Mickelsen, Carnes. Staff Present: Blanchard, Olt, Eckman, Herzig, Vosburg, Schlueter, Deines. Agenda Review: Current Planning Director Blanchard reviewed the consent and discussion agendas. The consent agenda items are as follows: 1. #29-95 Freight Depot PUD - Preliminary 2. #30-95 First Amendment to Four Seasons Overall Development Plan, Parcel H-1 3. #30-95A Poudre Valley Plaza PUD - Preliminary 4. #15-95A Harmony Market PUD, 11th Filing - Final 5. Resolution PZ95-19 Easement Vacation 6. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval Discussion Agenda: 7. #17-95A Rafferty's PUD - Final 8. #33-95 Recommendation to City Council Regarding Amendments to the Land Development Guidance System and Section 29-526 of the City Code 9. #2-95A Recommendation to City Council Regarding the North College Rezonings (Continued) Member Strom pulled Items 2 and 3 from the Consent Agenda for discussion.