Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOSTON CHICKEN PUD PRELIMINARY - 79 93 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESMr. Zdenek said he did understand but did ask for help in the areas of clarification of connection into the adjacent parking lot, should they be secondary to an internal situation? Is that correct for the entire Board? Member Strom commented it makes sense to make future access connections if that works out, the priority is to make this site work well and to the degree that it is possible to provide future access rationally connect and facilitate future access. It is admirable and desirable. Mr. Zdenek asked if he is correct in understanding "less asphalt and more landscaping" for some of the goals? Member Strom said yes and the way circulation works too. Member Fontane said she didn't see as much of an issue with the circulation and other alterations. Chair Clements said she appreciated Member Strom's comments and asked the applicant to take them into consideration. Member Cotticr said she agreed and has questions about the wisdom of the access opportunities to other areas with the uses already developed. Member Fontane said she could see some benefits to the accesses. Member Strom addressed the pedestrian situation and there is much more likeliness to generate from the existing uses. Mr. Zdenek said they were willing to pay for pedestrian access to adjacent properties, and will continue to pursue that. Motion carried 5-0. Item 24 - Annexation and Development Review Scheduling, Chair Clements commented that this item has been before the Board one other time and there had been amendments. Mr. Ron Phillips read the staff report with recommendations. There has been a suggestion by members of Council to modify the ordinance, which, if adopted, would allow projects to proceed with the accelerated procedure that was in place before December 22, 1993, if those projects are located within the boundaries of a neighborhood or corridor planning area where an adopted plan has been completed and approved by the Council. The proposed ordinance has been redrafted to include that provision and is what is under review this evening. CITIZEN INPUT, Calla Pott - She asked if this Review Scheduling concerns properties that are coming before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council for annexation, and are there proposals for property going through a review process concurrently? Mr. Phillips responded yes. Ms. Pott's concern was the REA annexation this evening and also referred to the Spradicy-Barr proposal, for property not yet annexed into the city. She believed if proposals were allowed Mr. Zdenck addressed the issue of the northern access as being the most important access where the others could be negotiated. He addressed other areas of concern to the Board for resolution but wouldn't want to jump to conclusions immediately what all the solutions would be. Chair Clements pointed to the conditions in the staff report and new ones given tonight in replacement of the previous ones. Member Foatane made a motion to approved the Boston Chicken PUD Preliminary with the two revised conditions stated in the staff report. Chair Clements asked if there needed to be a condition regarding revisiting the parking circulation issues that were discussed this evening. Member Fontane said she didn't see that as necessarily an issue to be placed in the condition. It seemed the intent was to look at those issues and address them without a condition. Member Strom said he disagreed and said the Board has some serious concerns about the site and his preference would be to delay 30-days and return with a revised preliminary. He would accept preliminary approval with a stiff enough condition that the Board is not binding to the existing site plan. Mr. Zdenek agreed to this statement. Ms. Whetstone pointed out that Condition 2 states that *therefore this preliminary approval is conditioned upon the reservation and right by the Board to change the layout at the time of consideration of the final phase." It gives the Board the ability to change the layout at the final. Chair Clements stated that a condition needed to be made regarding circulation and parking to be revisited, or is parking or circulation considered a layout? Mr. Eckman said the condition refers to parking spaces and drive isles may need to be altered accordingly. The Board needs to decide if this refers to what the discussion was concerning. Parking does have to do with layout. Member Cottler said she would second the motion with an amendment that circulation, parking and additional greeaspace be reviewed at final. Member Strom asked about looking at lighting during preliminary? Ms. Whetstone said that is done at the final for final compatibility to address criterion A2.7 of the All Development Chart. Member Strom asked about signage and if it is in the residential sign district? Ms. Whetstone said it is not in the district. At the time of final, if the new sign code is approved, signage will be reviewed by that code. Mr. Eckman asked the developer about the layout issue. Density and layout are not established on the final, but the Board is proposing that in this motion that the Board will have another opportunity to look at the layout and perhaps even change the layout of the site plan. He wanted to make sure it is okay by the applicant. Concern was expressed by several members of the Board for the stop sign area and parking. The new light should take pressure off of the site and other acesses will disburse traffic. The developer remained flexible to changes if acceptable to the Transportation Department. Mr. Matt Delich commented on access points between the parking lots. Further planning and sicussion is needed to look at the cross access issues. Member Strom voiced concern about the amount of asphalt and the need for more landscaping, the amount of accesses, and concern for pedestrians. The developer remained flexible to negotiating these concerns. Mr. Ensdorff addressed single loading parking and stated the purpose of the site design to accomplish a circulation system for all the surrounding developments. The developer was asked to not use double -loading parking, to create a circulation system and access points which, in the future, could be taken advantage of. There are ways to move the parking closer to the building. Member Fontane expressed concern about closing circulation off, what is the negative effect? Mr. Zdenek spoke of several probable ways to come in and out of the parking area and remained flexible to some change and would be happy to take out a few more spaces and add more green. Mr. Phillips said if the overall access plan was viewed, there are three businesses and two access points off of Lemay. He explained the traffic flow from neighboring businesses to Boston Chicken. Member Strom had more discussion with the developer regarding traffic flows, required setbacks, and set accesses. He made some observations: (1) The existing neighbors do not want to open access to Boston Chicken at this time. (2) Redevelopment is fairly speculative. (3) When facilitating future access points, there should be consideration of aligning existing travel lanes. (4) There is desire for double loaded parking driveways (presently single loading). Mr. Ensdorff stated that the surrounding businesses were not interested in making efforts to comply to these ideas, the dialysis center has elderly people accessing their business and are concerned about pedestrian safety issues. It is speculative to keep access open. The plan is to keep the options open for these access consideration otherwise everyone will have individual curbcuts. The site plan does not give the optimum solutions. Frontages, access points, amd driveway alignments were further discussed. The Vineyard, in the very near future will likely need to access this project property. From the Planning Department's perspective, it is important to consider this in detail. Member Strom stated that there needs to be a rational basis for connection points and further reasonable detailed be planned. He needed to be convinced, also landscaping needs to be developed. The access points needs to be worked out with the neighbors. Further discussion occurred for alternative parking with direct connections. The discussion among Board members, staff and the developer concluded that all aspects of the traffic flows, access points and parking needed to be studied carefully and impacts weighed. The future access points would be barricaded until they would be opened for use. Pedestrian issues need to be addressed in careful planning. Chair Clements reminded the Board that it has a condition regarding the operation of the car wash aad a variance to Point Chart J and the findings would need to be stated that the car wash of similar or like use. Member Klataske made a motion as stated by Chair Clements. Member Foutane seconded the motion. Member Cottier asked if we could clarify that the car was is not a self -serve one. Mr. Shepard said this was an important issue and for clarification purposes should be made part of the preliminary PUD, requiring the active participation of the store clerk and not a 24 hour self -serve. Mr. Eckman asked for clarification if the motion contained a finding that the one -day automatic car wash was like or similar character, includes the variance and condition in the staff report. Member Klataske said that is correct. Member Strom agreed. Motion passed 5-0. Member Cottier moved for approval of Sliver Oaks Paired Housing Preliminary. Member Foutane seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Item 21 - Boston Chicken PUD - Preliminary. 079-93, Ms. Whetstone read the staff report. She presented to the Board several letters that had arrived today concerning the access issue, and revised conditions of the staff report. Mr. Ed Zdenek - ZTI Group - Made comments regarding the positive aspects that it is an inf ill development. He went to great length in describing the layout and design with corresponding drawings, siting sidewalk and open green space, buffering parking with berming, and ingress and egress accesses to the property. There was lengthy discussion among Board members, staff, Rick Ensdorff of Transportation and the developer concerning specifically the ingress and egress points accessing the development. There are potential accesses to neighboring properties (medical office park and a church site) and future planning for these accesses seemed appropriate. Also there was the issue of a stop on the southern border, more planning for parking layout and additional landscaping. Traffic flows from one business to the next were examined as were placement of access traffic and flow design circulation. There are 49 spaces, above City standards, for parking. There will be areas for seating inside the restaurant as well as a drive -through. 4 PLANNING is ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 29,1994 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Ron Phillips, Staff Support Liaison The February 28, 1994, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Clements, Jan Cottier, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, and Sharon Winfree. Members Fontane and Walker were absent. Staf f members present included Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Mike Herzig, Ted Shepard, Kirsten Whetstone, Rick Ensdorff, and Carolyn Wordcn. AGENDA REVIEW Interim Planning Director Ron Phillips read the consent and discussion agenda. The minutes of January 24 and 31 were tabled for approval since they were not included in the Board packets. Items 22, 23 and 26 were continued to the March 7, 1994 P & Z Board meeting. Chair Clements requested if there were items to be pulled from the staff and from the audience; Items 2, 3 12, 13, 14 and 15 were pulled for the discussion agenda. Member Strom moved to approve consent agenda Items 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10, 16 and 25 from the Discussion Agenda. Member Cottier seconded the motion, with the condition with the developer and/or property owner of South Gieā–  PUD 4th Filing be responsible for the construction and on going maintenance of Tract A, being the detention area of the development. This commitment must be noted on the overall site plan for South Glen PUD 4th Filing prior to the recording of PUD documents. With a second condition that the developer and/or property owner of the Southglean PUD 4th Filing, submit a landscape plan, Tract A to the Planning Department for an administrative review and approval prior to the PUD documents. Motions passed 5-0. Spring Creek Manor PUD Mr. Charles Gish - 1800 Pawnee - The planned expansion does not include additional parking and he perceives it as a problem. The lot is not adequate with 45-50 existing parking stalls. He pointed out that the staff doesn't utilize the lot on a regular basis and instead uses street parking. He has witnessed parking in the red zones and also in his driveway. He would like to see additional parking added. Currently the overflow is heavy on Stuart and on Pawnee where he lives. Ms. Whetstone, project planner, indicated the proposed expansions do not significantly increase the volume of traffic at this site. The expansion is to take care of existing clients with a dining room addition, office spaces and a therapy room to provide a service to existing clients, as an added service. She believed there are two additional parking spaces on the north side by the therapy room.