Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBURGER KING AT RIVERSIDE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 37-89 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES October 23, 1989 e regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to rder at 6:30 p. . in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Ave e, Fort Collins, Color Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Keeplard, Vice-Chairman Jim Klat e, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, Jan Rex Burns, and Alterna Joseph Carroll. Staff members esent included: Planning Director Tom Pe rson, Deputy City Attor- ney Paul Eckman, Ted Shepard, Ken Waido, Mike Herz' , Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank and Kayla Ballard. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Peterson reviewed th Consent and Discuss n Agenda which consisted of. Item 1 - Minutes of the Sept ber 25, 1989 m ting; Item 2 - #46-88, Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning; Ite 3 - #47-88,A, rchard Second Annexation and Zoning; Item 4 - #89-12, Resolution Z89-12 - V cation of a Portion of a Utility Easement In the Replat of a Part of nderosa P PUD; Item 5 - #37-89, Burger King at Riverside PUD - Preliminary; d Item - #36-89, Foothills Parkway PUD - Preli- minary. Chairman Kern asked if anyone fry the Board, Staff or audience wished to have an item pulled from the Consent AAdeda. Member Burns stated that he ill no be voting on Item 2 due to a conflict of interest. Milton Workman, 3033 Mo re Lane, reques d that Item 2, Quail Hollow Annexation and Zoning be pulled fo discussion. He as d if the plot plans had been made as far as the roads, parks, nd water tables in th area were concerned. With no other reque s for pulled items, Member�Q'Dell moved to approve Items 1, 3 and 4. Member Str m seconded the motion. The m tion to approve carried 7-0. QUAIL HOL46W ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #46\88 Ken Waido gave a description of the proposed annexation nd zoning. He stated that the quest ns raised by Mr. Workman were typically addre se at the time of plat- ting of he property. A plan will be submitted on this p perty and the utilities issues ill be addressed by staff at that time. Meer Strom moved to approve Quail Hollow Annexation 2 Zoning. Member W ker seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. \ BURGER KING AT RIVERSIDE PUD - PRELIMINARY - #37-89 Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project. Ed Zdenek spoke representing Burger King. He introduced Norm Lucas and Joe Lucas, owners of the Fort Collins Burger King franchise. Mr. '.denek briefly dis- cussed signage, landscaping, land use of the property, in/out access of the proposed property and the adjacent property to the southeast, the drive-thru along the southeast property, traffic needs, and future road expansions. Ted Shepard gave the staff recommendation of approval with the following condi- tions: 1) The front setback of the building shall be shifted to the east to create a larger landscaped area behind the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue in front of the drive- thru lane; 2) The parking lot setback along Lemay Avenue shall be increased to protect pedestrians from vehicle overhang and to provide increased screening from the street; 3) The overall signage of the PUD shall be reduced. In particular, the wall sign on the east elevation should be deleted, the overall height of both pedestal signs should be decreased, and the height of the readerboard should be reduced; 4) The impact of a large menu board shall be minimized. This includes moving the menu board further south, and adding trees, shrubs, and berms to screen the menu board from Lemay Avenue; and 5) All transportation issues relating to the relocation of a traffic signal, streetlight, railroad crossing, and underground utilities shall be resolved at the time of Final PUD. Member Walker asked why this project should be presented when it did not achieve a minimum score on the point chart. Ted Shepard replied that staff felt it was a compatible land use and in character with the surrounding area, that it would enhance the area as a neighborhood shop- ping center, and that it was harmonious to the adjacent development. The access point issue would have to be resolved whether or not this proceeded as a PUD or a use -by -right. Member Walker asked if there would be shared parking. Ted Shepard stated that this proposal was above the required range so there was no need for shared parking. Minimum required parking was 27 spaces. Member O'Dell asked for clarification on conditions of increased setbacks. Ted Shepard stated that in front of the parking lot where the sidewalk was adjacent to the parking lot stalls, a range of 5'-10' was suggested. Member Strom asked if there would be in/out left turns on Lemay Avenue and Riv- erside. Ted Shepard stated there would be both curbcuts and full turn movements. He added that the Transportation and Planning departments had large issues associated with this request. Member Strom felt that this would be problematic with the high traffic volume per square foot and that the facility across the street was not allowed this in/out left turn. He stated that this proposal has some serious traffic problems that conflict with an existing traffic problem at this location. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic circulation of the facility to the west of this proposal currently works well for Lemay Avenue. Transportation has reviewed existing and future conditions to establish a way to allow for the desired access. The key element was to have the southbound left into this site, which could also serve existing elements of future development. A significant left turn movement northbound on Lemay Avenue was mentioned and, to make this happen, a double left turn would need to be installed on Lemay Avenue. Transportation felt that this would be acceptable for this site. Member Strom asked if the maximum stacking was 2 cars for the left turn into the site from Lemay Avenue. -2- Mr. Ensdorff replied that it was 60 feet or 3-4 compact cars. The site would access best from Riverside, even in the peak hour of traffic. Member Strom asked what problems have arisen with the railroad crossing and sig- nals that still need to be resolved. Mr. Ensdorff replied that in moving the curb to allow for another lane, all of the northbound lanes would be moved to the east. To keep the "jog" that is by the railroad, track a safe movement, the railroad crossing arm will have to be moved to the east and the curb opened up so the traffic flow can be made safely and at the posted speed limit. This will all need to be done in coordination with the Public Utilities Commission and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads. Member Strom asked how much additional burden would be put on the existing traf- fic problem by putting in traffic intensive roadside commercial use. Mr. Ensdorff replied that it would not be significant. The left turn was a common desire and would be less intense. Transportation would like to see a double left turn in place within the next five to ten years. Member Walker asked what would happen between the time of development of this site and the time the intersection is completed, if it takes five to ten years for that intersection to be completed. Mr. Ensdorff replied that he was not sure when the intersection improvements would happen. The phasing of this site has not been decided. The southbound left turn lane would not be installed until the double left was in place. Member Shepard asked if the City had a preference as to which side of Lemay Ave- nue, the east or the west, the additional width comes from to accommodate the two left turns. Mr. Ensdorff stated that the City has been dealing with the scenario where it has been on the east side, which was the applicant's proposal. Other options have been reviewed because, as the current proposal gets more involved with the widening of the east side, the complexities have been seen. There will be a lot of infrastructure that will need to be moved which will be costly. Member Shepard asked that if the additional width were to come from the west side, would it eliminate the problem with the railroad crossing and make the "jog" less severe. Mr. Ensdorff replied that was correct. Member O'Dell asked what was the optimum of two left turn bays turning onto Riv- erside. Mr. Ensdorff stated that they are currently at that distance now. One need should not be compromised over another need. What was shown works well with projected traffic. Member Shepard asked for clarification of effectiveness of internal access as proposed, in particular entering on Lemay Avenue to the drive -up window. Mr. Shepard replied that three left turns would be required from the Lemay cut to get to the drive -up window, all of which will have to yield to on -coming traffic. '.<z Mr. Eckman stated that, in respect to the internal traffic circulation, the traffic crosses property lines and contemplates shared access with adjacent property owners. To make this clear, he suggested a sixth condition be placed that states that, at the time of final, a reciprocal access agreement or easement be executed between the parties so as to clarify what the rights are of the various parties in the area. Chairman Kern asked that when a vehicle emerges the property, will it go left or right at the easternmost portion of the building. Mr. Shepard responded that it could go either way. He stated that the Riverside cut would be a left and the Lemay Avenue cut would be a right. Chairman Kern asked that if a vehic➢e were to make its way out to Lemay Avenue, would the car have to "wind" its way to traffic coming in. Mr. Shepard stated that it would be a sharp right turn, would have to yield to on -coming traffic, and would have to go through the parking lane. The parking width was 33 feet, which would be wide enough to accommodate those movements. Member Strom asked for justification for varying the point chart for this project. Mr. Shepard stated that the market place was bringing commercial use to this site. The location was peculiar in shape and doesn't have good access to begin with from any direction. The volumes on Lemay Avenue and Riverside, the offset intersection, and the existing improvements would be hard on any proposed development for this site. Staff reviewed the peculiar shape and hardship, compatibility of proposed use, character to the surrounding area, the impact upon the adjacent neighboring uses, the fact that it is an infill project and the upgrade of the existing site. He stated that this particular intersection, corner and site lent itself to the proposed land use. Member Walker asked what would be different about the design if this were brought in as a use -by -right. Mr. Shepard stated that the landscaping along Lemay Avenue would have to be dif- ferent unless it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance that landscap- ing along arterials be a 15 foot minimum. Fie added that another different would be the signage. Member O'Dell moved to approve Burger King at Riverside PUD, Preliminary with the following seven conditions: 1) The front setback of the building shall be shifted to the east to create a larger landscaped area behind the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue in front of the drive-thru lane; 2) The parking lot setback along Lemay Avenue shall be Increased to protect pedestrians from vehicle overhang and to provide increased screening from the street; 3) The overall signage of the PUD shall be reduced. In particular, the wall sign on the east elevation should be deleted, the overall height of both pedestal signs should be decreased, and the height of the readerboard should be reduced; 4) The impact of a large menu board shall be mini- mized. This includes moving the menu board further south, and adding trees, shrubs, and berms to screen the menu board from Lemay Avenue; 5) All transportation issues relating to the relocation of a traffic signal, streetlight, railroad crossing, and underground utilities shall be resolved at the time of Final PUD; 6) A reciprocal access agreement or easement be executed between the parties so as to clarify what the rights are of the various parties in the area by the time of Final PUD; and 7) That left turn movements, in and out, not be allowed according the Criteria #26 and Criteria #35 of the LDGS. -4- Member Shepard seconded the motion. Member Walker commented that this site was a small, difficult site and that it was an intense proposal for this site. Chairman Kern commented that the use for this site was compatible and felt the infill portion was sufficient. He stated he had concerns with the low points acquired by this proposal. He felt that the setbacks were minimal and that the interior traffic pattern was clumsy. He stated he did not favor the turns on Lemay Avenue. Motion to approve carried 4-3 with Chairman Kern, Member Strom and Member Walker in the negative. ARKWAY PUD - PRELIMINARY - tt36-89A Ted Shepard gave a—b%cription of the proposed property. Ed Zdenek spoke represen ' Round the Corner Restaur , Inc. He briefly described the land use and discu d the South College Acc Plan involvement with this proposal and the circulation of a frontage road of ollege Avenue through the proposed development. He stated that Ney had discu d the moving of the frontage road with the adjacent property owners t the n. Their concerns were that the moving of the frontage road would make it,mari difficult to their needs. He added that the land use was appropriate for Colleg Avenue and had dealt with the trans- portation issues correctly. Outdoor dining ar s ave been provided for people within the area. The landscaping issue needed be dealt with in relation to the access plan. By providing an access into this site, the landscaping would be reduced. A 300 foot decel lane would be installed, which wot d reduce the median along Col- lege Avenue. He briefly discussed the/building eleva ons. Member Carroll asked why a west ly ingress into theN teele's Market site was shown but did not currently exist. Mr. Zdenek replied that they re asked to combine t e current Steele's access and the proposed access instead o relocating it. The total ccess to Foothills Parkway will not be increased, just re Gated. 11 Chairman Kern asked yho will maintain and plow the private road that goes through the center of is project. Mr. Zdenek replied hat this has not been negotiated as yet but will be part of the final PUD. Chairman Ker asked what type of lighting will be on a site and will there be substantial e , rgy savings in the buildings. ?theouth-facing de k stated that the lighting would be of the d wn-directed variety. The or the garage facilities would be a infra -red syst which would heat the and not the air which would save energy. Also, gl ss will be introduced in exposures which would allow the building be heated in a natural uring the winter months. r Walker asked if the eight parking spaces along the ri� ite road would be there to serve the restaurant. -5-