Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOSTON CHICKEN PUD MAJOR AMENDMENT - 79 93B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES1'- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 9 public interest and purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better that a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the requested modification to Section 4.22(E)(a-b) of the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Gavaldon moved for approval for the Boston Chicken P.U.D., Major Amendment, #79-93B with the attached condition for the landscape inspection as stated in the staff report. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Davidson voting in the negative. Project: 200 - 220 West Prospect Road, Project Development Plan, #30-97 Project Description: Request for a PDP for two existing buildings on two lots under single ownership located at 200 and 220 West Prospect Road. The primary purpose of the PDP is to establish a change of use for 200 West Prospect Road from office/retail to office/retail/fast food. There is no change of use for 220 West Prospect but is included for internal circulation and public improvement purposes. 200 West Prospect is 2,400 s.f. and 220 is 3,310 s.f. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Hall added that removing the spaces would be acceptable. She stated that the other suggestion was parallel parking for employees only minimizing the pedestrian conflict. Member Chapman moved to approve the Boston Chicken Major Amendment, #79- 93B with the condition that the parking lot on the north be allocated for employee only parking or green space. In addition, approval of the modifications 4.22(E) (a- b), 3.22 (K)(2)(a) and the condition for landscape inspection in the staff report. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. Member Craig would not support the motion. In determining the modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a), non-residential parking requirements, the plan as submitted does not advance or protect the public interest and purpose of the standards equally well or better than a plan that complied with the standard. Member Craig felt there was more than adequate parking spaces without the modification. Member Gavaldon also would not support the motion based on traffic and circulation concerns. Member Davidson also would not support the motion based on circulation and parking concerns. Member Chapman withdrew his motion. Member Chapman moved to approved the modification for Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) which deals with non-residential parking requirements. The existing parking exceeds the maximum number of parking spaces that are allowed in the Code for this type of business. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3, with Members Gavaldon, Craig and Davidson voting in the negative. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) including the removal of the 7 parking spaces to the north side of the building, 2 spaces to the west, just south of the pedestrian walkway and 2 spaces to the east to the north of the existing walkway. This modification would include the finding that the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. The plan the applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted will advance or protect the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 7 Public Input None. Member Craig asked if this project and it's neighbor Schlotzsky's Deli came in under City Plan, how would the circulation and access problem be solved. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department replied that it would have been required that the buildings be placed up at the right-of-way instead of having something that goes behind the building, but would still serve the purpose of directing traffic. Member Craig stated that the issue tonight was that if the front road is taken away, and the Board would ask that they add the addition to the west versus the east, would move them closer to what City Plan would like to see. The applicant is saying that that would mess up traffic so bad, that there would not be circulation within. Ms. Wamhoff agreed with the statement that currently, closing the road would mess up the traffic. If this would have come in before, the buildings would have been placed closer, therefore making allowances for the drive isle to be placed behind the buildings and provide a direct access. Now, even if you move access behind Boston Chicken, you would still be trying to direct traffic around the Schlotzsky's due to the location of their drive-thru. Member Craig asked about parking spaces, and that with the shared parking with Schlotzsky's next door, she was confused with the requested modification of 20 more parking spaces. Planner Harter replied that not only did Schlotzsky's share parking with Boston Chicken, but Godfather's also shares parking with Schlotzsky's. Member Weitkunat suggested that since the number of spaces exceed's the code requirement that some of the spaces that are being asked for are unnecessary. She addressed the seven parking spaces on the north side of the building and felt that there would be direct vehicle conflict with those entering the site and also those leaving the drive thru tellers. Member Weitkunat suggested that those seven spaces be deleted from the plan. Mr. Berth replied that when the building is expanded, that would be logically close parking for future expansion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 6 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Gavaldon stated he pulled this item because of concerns with traffic. Other Members had concerns with access. Member Gavaldon asked Matt Delich, who prepared the traffic impact study, questions on the study he prepared. Mr. Delich replied that he analyzed 3 intersections of the city in the report, Riverside and Lemay, Panache and Lemay, and Elizabeth and Lemay. To go beyond that was not a requirement of the traffic study, so he did not do that. Member Gavaldon asked about the intersections of Mulberry and Lemay and Prospect and Lemay. Mr. Delich replied there would be some impacts, but not enough to change the level of service that exists there now. Mr. Delich stated that he looked at all modes of transportation in the study, but as far as levels of service at intersections, he only looked at vehicles. Fred Jones, Transportation Department stated that overall, the Credit Union would have a trip reduction of what the Boston Market was originally generating. Staff saw that as a net improvement to the system. Denise Hall, Executive Vice President of the Safeway Rocky Mountain Credit Union was there to represent the applicant. Member Gavaldon asked about the justification for four drive-thru bays, and the fact that 45% of the traffic would be from out of town. Ms. Hall replied that their intent was not to start with 4 bays, their intent was an expansion at a later date. She stated that members outside the Fort Collins areas would be coming to the site for purposes of closing loans. They have other delivery systems available for those people for handling daily transactions. Dan Berth, Veldman Morgan Real Estate, added that one of the reasons for the additional drive-thrus (4), was to mitigate any impacts of stacking during the busiest hours. r Planning and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 1997 Page 5 Otherwise there would be no other way they could develop their property. They would agree to apply for 10.5 or more in good faith to comply with the condition. Director Blanchard stated that the condition should be stated or interpreted to mean that, with the abandonment of Parcel A, that the remaining portions of Huntington Hills will remain at 3 units per acre or more. It would give the Huntington Hills owners the opportunity to apply for 10 units per acre, over 10 would not be in compliance with the ODP, that would put the density at 3.2 units per acre. Member Chapman stated that the condition should read that with the abandonment of parcel A, that the remaining portions of Huntington Hills Overall Development Plan will remain at 3 units per acre or more. Member Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Project: Boston Chicken PUD Major Amendment, #79-93B Project Description: Request for a Major Amendment to allow for a change of use of the existing Boston Chicken restaurant (vacant) on South Lemay Avenue to a Safeway Credit Union. The existing building is 3,000 square feet, and the proposal includes a 2,240 s.f. addition (to be constructed at a future date). In addition, the applicant proposes the placement of four(4) drive-thru lanes (one being a drive -up ATM) to be located to the rear of the building. Staff Recommendation: Approval and Approval of Modifications to Section 4.22 (E)(a-b) and Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code and the condition: By June 1, 1998, a landscape inspection will be completed by the Zoning Department of the City of Fort Collins to determine what, if any, vegetation/trees are not living and those determined to be dead or at least 70% dead must be replaced in accordance with the approved landscape plan approved as part of the proposal for the Major Amendment.