HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS PARKWAY PUD - PRELIMINARY - 36-89 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (2)• • Oppff�
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
November 20, 1989
The regular 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: Chairman Sanford Kern,
Jim Klataske, Rex Burns, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard and Alternate Joe Carroll.
Members absent included Lloyd Walker.
Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Rick Richter, Mike Herzig, Ken Waido and Georgiana Taylor.
AGENDA REVIEW
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agenda. The Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the October 23, 1989
meeting; Item 2 - Forbes Rezoning, #48-89; Item 3 - Kieft Annexation and
Rezoning, #49-89; Item 4 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD - Master Plan,
#44-89; Item 5 - South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD - Preliminary, #44-89A;
Item 6 - Foothills Parkway PUD - Preliminary, #36-89.
Chairman Kern asked if there were any items that staff, the Board or the
audience wished to have pulled for discussion.
Member Strom asked that the Forbes rezoning (Item #2) be pulled from the
Consent Agenda.
Member Shepard moved to approve Consent Items 1 and 3. Member Burns
seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.
FORBES REZONING - #48-89
Member Strom asked for an explanation of the size of the lots and the
intended use for the property.
Mr. Shepard replied that the purpose of the two southerly lots was to place
each individual farm house that existed on the property on its own lot. It was
the desire of the applicant to do some remodeling and improvements to the
property and the structures in the near future, in which case building permits
would have to be received. To receive building permits, they need to be on a
subdivided lot. There were no plans for development.
The 10 acre lot to the north, would remain in pasture. The reason it was
platted was so the right-of-way along the frontage of the property for County
Road 11 could be dedicated via the plat.
Member Strom asked if there was any proposal for development of this
property other than the existing uses.
Mr. Shepard replied there was not.
Member Strom moved for approval. Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
The motion to approve Forbes Rezoning passed 7-0.
FOOTHILLS PARKWAY PUD, PRELIMINARY - #36-89
Ted Shepard gave a description of the project. He stated it was a request for
a preliminary PUD plan for a 2,780 s.f. auto tune-up and auto lubrication
shop, which would be an Econo-Lube, and a 770 s.f. drive up restaurant which
would be a Good Times Burger. The site measured .998 acre and was located
on the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Foothills Parkway, in
front of the Steele's Market. The parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business.
Ed Massey, President of Round the Corner Restaurants, the developer of the
Good Times Restaurant stated they had worked with the Econo-Lube to be
their co -tenant. This was a project similar to some other Denver projects.
Mr. Massey stated that he would like Boyd Hobak, Chief Operating Officer,
and Ed Zdenek, their architect, to talk about the technical aspects of the
application. He would talk about the responsibility aspects.
He stated that after the last meeting, he asked his people to redesign what
they had submitted so they would be completely compatible with the South
College Access Plan. He stated he was concerned that the project be done to
be compatible both short-term and long-term.
He stated that when a new plan was prepared, a meeting was held between
Boyd Hobak, Ed Zdenek and Rick Ensdorff, the City's Transportation
Administrator. Mr. Ensdorff said it was acceptable to the city and it met all
the requirements of the South College Access Plan for short and long-term.
After the meeting with Mr. Ensdorff, they contacted their neighbors and asked
them to meet to discuss the plan and raise any objections that they might have
with the ingress or egress. He stated that they met with Ted Shepard, Joe
Frank, Dick Dellenbach, Mike Dellenbach and representatives of Jack Williams.
He stated that they went over the plan, answered all of their questions, and
everyone, except the Dellenbachs, said that they had done a good job and that
it was compatible. The Dellenbachs said that, on the surface, they had
answered all of their questions and objections. He stated, that based on these
comments, he was going to resubmit so they could go before the Board tonight.
He stated that they had asked the Dellenbachs to study the plan and if they
had any questions, to call him. He stated that it was his responsibility to get
the answers to the Dellenbachs.
He stated that they did not hear from the Dellenbachs until last Thursday when
Mike Dellenbach called him and asked him if there was adequate land there to
develop. He replied that, as a single purpose user, they look for approximately
10,000 to 15,000 square feet and that Econo-Lube looks for about 15,000 and
20,000. Combined, it was the perfect size for a co -development of an
automobile type user trying to use the same ingress and egress and that they
were trying to do some of the same projects with Minute Lube, Grease Monkey,
and Econo Lube and other automobile oriented businesses compatible to this
proposal. He stated he went over the plan with Mike Dellenbach and he felt
that it was compatible.
Mr. Massey stated that they believed they were being responsible by being good
citizens. They prepared this plan to be acceptable to the Board and staff, and
acceptable to his neighbors. They wanted to be good neighbors.
-4-
0
Ed Zdenek, architect designer, thanked the Board and staff for their quick
response in allowing them to appear this evening.
Mr. Zdenek distributed an area map that showed more clearly the traffic issues
that they would be speaking about.
Mr. Zdenek stated that at the end of the last Board meeting, they felt the land
use issues and the architectural aspects of the PUD were not an issue with the
Board, but the issues centered around traffic circulation. As a result, they
have worked with the neighbors and city staff extensively to arrive at an
alternative proposal.
Mr. Zdenek pointed out that at the last month's hearing, they had a right
turn -in only like the one that had been recently approved at the McDonald's
site with two consequences. One was that the right turn -in eliminated a lot of
landscaping along College Avenue, and second made access to Dellenbach more
difficult.
Mr. Zdenek stated the new plan created a T-intersection with the access into
Steele's. He stated it would provide a thru traffic motion and would allow for
future access to continue to the north into the Dellenbach property, if that was
their desire.
Mr. Zdenek stated
they
had also
introduced
a minor right -in only access on
Foothills Parkway.
He
felt this
would meet
the needs of Mr. Williams, who
was the neighbor to
the
north, as
well as the
Dellenbachs.
Mr. Zdenek stated that, in the future, a right -turn only from College Avenue
would happen if desired by the adjacent property owners, anywhere within the
shaded area as shown on the plan. It would fit completely within the South
College Avenue Access Plan and it could happen as the adjacent land owners
desired it to happen.
Mr. Zdenek reiterated that the intent was to relieve the current problem of the
frontage road.
He stated that they had also eliminated the potential for U-turn's on Foothills
Parkway which currently existed.
The existing landscaping along College Avenue would remain intact.
Mr. Zdenek stated they agreed with all of the conditions recommended by
Staff.
Member Klataske asked Mr. Zdenek about the use of the area to the east of
the Jiffy Lube.
Mr. Zdenek replied that it was parking.
Member Shepard asked Mr. Zdenek to review internal traffic circulation.
Mr. Zdenek replied that there was a right turn -in only access from Foothills
Parkway which would intersect with the new frontage road alignment. This
drive in would be one-way and would be 14 feet wide. The other access point
to Foothills would be a full turning access with three lanes: a left out lane; a
right out lane, and; a right -in lane.
-5-
+ • DpaffQ
Member Shepard asked Mr. Zdenek about how a vehicle would enter Good
Times from both accesses.
He replied by demonstrating to her the circulation from both accesses.
Member O'Dell asked if there would be any kind of stop signs or yield signs
where the one-way frontage road heads north and where the vehicles would be
exiting the Good Times restaurant.
Mr. Zdenek replied that there was a stop sign where there was a bend in the
road which would become a stop intersection. He showed that there were two
stop signs and both lanes were in a stop condition.
Member Strom asked that if someone were entering the drive-thru restaurant,
coming off the frontage road turning south into the property, how would they
know what window was open and what window was not open.
Mr. Zdenek replied that one of the windows was only open during the peak
hours being the lunch hour. It would be closed the rest of the time and there
was a gate during the off hours.
Member Klataske asked where the loading and unloading would take place for
supplies.
Mr. Hobak, president of the corporation, replied that the unloading comes in
through the back door of the restaurant and the delivery trucks use the
drive-thru lanes.
Member Klataske asked what time of the day would deliveries occur.
Mr. Hobak replied that they had an agreement with their supplier that it was
never the time the restaurant would be open, that it was early in the morning.
The suppliers will have keys to their restaurants and they deliver even before
the restaurant is opened.
Mr. Shepard replied that the staff recommended approval with the three
following conditions: 1) the final plat indicate reciprocal cross access easements
for the realigned frontage road and the right in curb cut off of Foothills
Parkway; 2) the amount of screen material in the area of the menu board
along Foothills Parkway be increased so that the menu board is not visible
from the street. The screen material may consist of berming and landscaping;
and, 3) at the time of final PUD, the applicant provide a legal instrument
suitable for recording designating the eight parking spaces immediately west of
the Good Times restaurant as shared parking. Such agreement should be in the
form a non-exclusive parking easement executed by all pertinent parties.
Chairman Kern asked if anyone from the public would like to speak on this
issue. There was no audience participation.
Member Shepard asked staff if the City's position last month was to get rid of
the access to College Avenue and adding the one-way frontage road back in,
which seemed to be something to satisfy the property owners north of this
property. She asked if there was any thought given to eliminating the one-way
frontage road at such time that Dellenbach put through an entrance to their
property from College Avenue.
In
i
10 mmpfftv
Mr. Shepard replied no, that if the curb cut that was proposed mid -block
between Foothills Parkway and Swallow was to go in, there was no condition
that this 14 foot access lane be eliminated.
Member Shepard replied that she did not mean the access off of College
Avenue, rather the access off of the road that was on the boundary with
Steele's parking lot. But in either situation, if something happened to improve
access to Dellenbach and Long John Silver's, could the one-way frontage road
be vacated.
Mr. Shepard replied that if this project received final approval, the frontage
road would become private, at which time it would not be the city's to vacate.
Member Strom asked Mr. Shepard why the city would want to make a public
frontage road a private access way.
Mr. Shepard replied that the public frontage road would become more of a
parking lot drive aisle built to a 28 foot width with raised vertical curbing. It
would not become a public street that the city would maintain but it would be
reserved for public access and public utilities. It could not be closed down, it
would remain for public use. The reason that staff felt comfortable in
recommending the vacation to the private property owner was because of the
improvements the city would receive by closing off the intersection with
Foothills Parkway. If the intersection were moved further west, there would
be a considerable public benefit in improving circulation.
Member Strom asked if it was the City's position that this was an improvement
to the frontage road to bring it back away from College Avenue.
Mr. Shepard replied yes.
Member Strom replied that if this was the case, why was a 14 foot in -only
access needed. If it would work as a frontage road through this property, it
seems that the 14 foot access way was redundant and also leaves a hazard at
that intersection point.
Mr. Shepard replied that the right -in turn movement was considered a through
movement. It was the exiting movements that cause the congestion. The
illegal u-turns and the stacking at the intersection cause the sort of grid lock
that was currently happening. The unimpeded right -in, through movement, will
not effect the safety or the efficiency of the intersection.
Member Strom commented that it was his personal observation that when you
are turning into a 14 foot lane, you slow down quite a bit from what you
normally would and that his point still stands if the other drive actually
functions as we want the frontage road to function, what was the point of
putting this one in. Also, regardless of the right -turn in only being an
acceptable free movement, it created additional congestion within the site and
onto the frontage road further back, in terms of left turn movements to get
around to either to the quick lube or the restaurant.
Mr. Shepard stated that the City's Transportation Director had reviewed the
traffic impact analysis and the general circulation and had approved the lane.
It was wider than a normal one-way aisle. He stated that staff had reviewed
it and found it was acceptable.
-7-
• • D�3L^�ffq
Member Carroll commented he had to take a different outlook on it, stating he
read the letter from Dellenbachs, who had concerns about the traffic
congestion problems in the site, especially at the four way intersection on the
west side of the property. It seemed to him that by having the right -in only,
some of the congestion would be alleviated in the area in which people would
be coming from Swallow, or northbound on College who wanted to go to
Dellenbach's, Long John Silver's or this particular site, could make their right
turn and then proceed directly north, pulling some of the traffic out of the
interior of this lot. He felt that it might end up as a traffic jam at that four
way intersection or even where they come back on to Foothills Parkway,
although that would be a right turn in, but this right turn in on the old
frontage road would alleviate some of the internal congestion, but then again
the point was well taken that there still may be some congestion as the people
slow down to get into that relatively narrow drive -way.
Member O'Dell stated that when McDonald's at Harmony Road requested a
right -in only access on Harmony Road, and wanted the access soon after the
intersection of Harmony and College, that wasn't acceptable. She was
concerned as to why this was more acceptable in this situation.
Mr. Shepard stated that this situation was a little different in that Foothills
was a collector and not a major arterial. The traffic volumes on the frontage
road are about 600 or 700 vehicles per day and it would be predicted up to
about 1,100. All of the intersections are at service level A & B, in fact the
Foothills/College intersection was at service level's A & B. The Foothills
Frontage Road intersection would operate at levels A & B for all movements.
These intersections are relatively uncongested and considered acceptable in
terms of levels of service analysis.
Chairman Kern asked if level A & B was throughout the day and would some
of the traffic levels at some of these corners be higher than that.
Mr. Shepard replied that it was throughout the day.
Chairman Kern asked whether that was an average, or whether there was times
when it would peak.
Mr. Shepard replied that the noon hour was the peak time and nothing gets
below service level B at all the intersections.
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, added that a big difference between
this project and the one at College/Harmony was that Foothills Parkway was
carrying about 4100 trips and at College, it was about 25,000 trips per day.
The Board might want to ask Matt Delich to comment upon what the traffic
impact might be of not having the 12 foot driveway.
Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant for this project, stated that the traffic volumes
at Foothills were acceptable. It was far enough back and the volumes were so
much lower on Foothills Parkway compared to Harmony Road, that this was a
much better condition than having the frontage road at the existing location.
Member O'Dell stated that what she was concerned about was having an
immediate right -turn in where the existing frontage road was.
-8-
• • M M N ff V
Mr. Delich replied that it would operate very well because it was 14 feet wide
at this location. Mr. Delich indicated on the map how the turns of the right -in
only would work.
Member Strom asked Mr. Delich about access to the Jiffy Lube. He stated that
he understood that people coming in for a quick lube enter from the east, and
people coming in for a tune up would have to enter from the south. He was
concerned about what would happen to the guy who came in and wanted a
tune up and got in line for the lube job and had to back out and work his
way around. He felt the access was very tight.
Mr. Zdenek replied by showing the escape route on the map and also pointed
out that they had treated the plaza much as the fire access through Old Town.
He also noted that the car was taken by an individual, and that it was not a
drive that the customer had to take.
Member Strom replied that still added to the congestion of the whole site.
Mr. Zdenek answered that it probably would, but that it would happen very
infrequently, in his opinion.
Member Strom stated that he felt there was an awful lot of signage for such a
little site, and he was unsure whether the project was functionally a part of
the Steele's Center or not. What he felt was proposed was about 575 square
feet of signage, including a sign that was 22 feet tall for the Steele's Market.
He felt that instead of the project serving as a functional center, it was
strictly commercial on College Avenue in front of the Steele's Market and that
type of signage that was proposed reinforced that impression. He asked staff
to describe the signage and how it was evaluated.
Mr. Shepard replied that the two parcels for the two users would be platted on
their own individually platted lots. Under the sign code, they would be
allowed one square foot of signage per linear foot of lot frontage or two
square feet of signage per building frontage, whichever one was greater. The
two monument signs that were proposed were within those parameters. The
Steele's Market had asked for a project identification sign on the Foothills
frontage of the Good Times Burgers lot, that was a corner lot so they would
have signage allowance on the frontage road and on the Foothills Road. The
sign on the Foothills Road would be taken by the Steele's project ID sign and
the sign facing College Avenue would be the other frontage. The height of
the sign that was proposed for Steele's was conceptual at this point, and it was
shown on the plan as an indication, it was a schematic, it was not designed to
specifics yet. It approximated the height of the Rain Tree sign at the
northwest corner of Shields and Drake or the Cimmaron sign at the southwest
corner of Shields and Drake. It was a taller sign, for the anchor tenant,
Steele's who would be located further to the West and the two monument signs
on College Avenue would be monument signs mounted on a pedestal.
Member Strom stated he felt the Board was dealing with what was reportedly a
single center and really does not see any coordination at all on the basis of
the two monument signs having similarities, but they were a very small element
to the whole feature and did not see any relationship at all between them and
the Steele's Market sign. It seemed that the applicants were generating a whole
lot of signage for three independent uses and were trying to justify as a
coordinated center.
Mr. Shepard replied that if the Board would like to add a 4th condition
relating to unified signage, he would work with the applicants and the tenants
over the course of the final review to accomplish this.
Member Shepard asked why Steele's wanted to put their center sign on the tiny
Good Times parcel rather than on the curve of their parking lot which would
be more closely identified with Steele's, It seemed to her that there was no
reason that Good Times should have to have the center sign, basically be
penalized and have that much signage on that tiny parcel when the center sign
would be more appropriate to Steele's.
Mr. Zdenek replied the sign was there for what was an obvious reason that it
was closer to the street and that was what they were looking for. They were
looking for an identity to College Avenue and they felt they didn't have one.
Also, that they could, if it were a condition of the Board, move the sign to
the other side of the entrance and would agree to coordination of the signage
before final.
Member Carroll moved to approve the Foothills Parkway PUD with following
four conditions: 1) the final plat indicate reciprocal cross easement for the
realigned frontage road and the right in curb cut of Foothills Parkway; 2) the
amount of screen material by the menu boards along Foothills Parkway be
increased so the menu board is not visible from the street; 3) that the property
owner to the west, Steele's Market give a cross easement which legally provides
to Good Times restaurant the eight parking spaces directly to the west. It
would be in the form of a legal instrument binding the property owner to the
west suitable for recording, basically a non-exclusive parking easement executed
by the pertinent parties; and 4) that the signage on the site be coordinated and
that the Steele's monument sign be located directly to the west of its location
on the west side of the intersection.
Member Burns seconded the Motion.
Member Shepard stated she supported the motion of approval of this project,
and the project had suffered from mixed signals and changing directions with
respect to the frontage road. She hoped that in approving this, the Board
would still have the option of closing off the one-way frontage road,
particularly since the goal of the City was to have an access off College which
would alleviate the need for this. She stated that her vote in favor was a
comment that she would still like to see the frontage road closed.
Member Strom stated he had struggled quite a bit with this proposal both last
month and this month and he could not support the approval of the plan as it
stands. His impression was that they were trying to accomplish too much on too
small of a site. He felt that the project was not part of a functionally
existing shopping center and felt the project was awarded too many points
which if they don't get points for being a part of a planned center would
drop them down below the 50% requirement. It was his impression that several
points in the all development point chart were not adequately addressed, and
that the proposal was not well integrated with the organizational scheme of the
community and the neighborhood which was Site Design Criterion #26. Also,
for Criterion #27 under Site Design, he didn't think it produced an efficient,
functionally -organized planned unit development. Under Site Design Criterion
#36, which requires that the street parking system be designed to contribute to
the overall aesthetic quality of the site and configuration. He felt this
proposal, with a tremendous amount of asphalt and very difficult access
-10-
• • M M M ff V
situation for uses that are essentially high traffic uses did not meet this
criterion. Finally, Criterion #40, asks is the pedestrian circulation system
designed to assure that pedestrians were able to safely and easily access
between Steele's and the proposed site? If a pedestrian would cross Foothills
Parkway across the College frontage of this site a pedestrian would have to
cross three driveways, a street and 170 feet of frontage. Consequently, he did
not feel he could support this proposal at this time.
Member Klataske stated that he could not support this proposal for the same
reasons. In addition felt that Criterion #33 had not been met. He concurred
with Member Strom on Criterion #36. He felt that Criterion #37 had been
met to a limited degree, however, he questioned the adequacy of the parking
arrangement. He felt Criteria #40 and #41 also had not been met.
Member O'Dell stated that last month she cited Criteria #26 and #35 as a
reason for denial. She stated that she has struggled with this, but felt the new
plan was better because there was not any direct access off College Avenue,
but did not believe that Criteria #26 nor #35 could be answered yes, so she
would not be able to support the motion.
Chairman Kern stated that he went out to visit the site twice and jotted down
which issues to address and tried to evaluate what the site might look like
when built, and what the traffic might be like. Some of the distances were
awfully short especially within the site, but, some of the numbers that Mr.
Delich had given and Mr. Shepard gave reference to, have alleviated some of
those concerns. He mentioned Criterion #35 relating to parking and movement
of vehicles on and off the site. He felt the access was better than before and
by the nature of the design that some of the external concerns would be
addressed because people just were not going to use that road. He stated he
still had concerns about the internal circulation which didn't seem to be
smooth for a noon time crowd.
Motion for approval was denied 5-2, with Members Shepard and Burns voting
yes.
OTHER BUSINESS
Administrative Review Soundtrack at Arbor Plaza
Mr. Shepard explained that the applicant for Soundtrack had applied for an
Administrative change. The administrative change was denied based on the
change in character being interpreted as being major, in which case it was
brought to the Board for formal action.
Bill Messner, architect with RMA architects, representing Soundtrack, and with
him Alan Kessick with Soundtrack stated that they applied for an
administrative change to change the proposed color of the metal roof on the
Soundtrack building, which was currently under construction, located on the
corner of Harmony and College.
Mr. Messner presented slides of the Soundtrack building and the shopping
center located right behind with the brown roof. He explained the color
scheme.
-11-