Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE MARKET PLACE PUD - FINAL - 21-89A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES • JUNE 26, 1989 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:38 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Jim Klataske, Jan Shepard, Rex Burns and Alternate Joseph Carroll. Board members absent included: Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell, Sanford Kern, and Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included: Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Mike Herzig, Rick Richter, Rick Ensdorff, Paul Eckman, Linda Ripley, and Kayla Ballard. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 22, 1989 meeting; Item 2 - Soundtrack at Arbor Plaza PUD - Preliminary and Final - #137-8017; Item 3 - Pineview PUD Tract C - Two Year Extension - #76-81 D; Item 4 -I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning - #24-89,A; Item 5 - Highway 14 East Third Annexation and Zoning - #25-89,A; Item 6 - Harmony Annexation Seventh Annexation and Zoning - #27-89,A; Item 7 - Amendment to the Land Development Guidance System - Submittal Date Requirement. Acting Chairman Klataske asked if there were other items to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Lou Trionfera, 2620 SE Frontage Road, stated that he did not receive notification of the I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning. Acting Chairman Klataske stated that Item 4, I-25 Second Annexation and Zoning would be pulled from the Consent Agenda and would be heard first on the Discussion Agenda. Member Carroll moved to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Member Burns seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. I-25 SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING - #24-89,A Linda Ripley stated that the applicant supplied staff with the area of notification property owners list which included property owners within 500 feet. She stated she would check the list with Mr. Trionfera. If his name did not appear on the list, she would include his name on the list. She added that the annexation was a minor housekeeping matter and that no developable land was included in the annexation. Member Shepard moved to approve the 1-25 Second Annexation and Zoning. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 4-0. RESOLUTION PZ89-4 - ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - #11-88A Joe Frank gave a description of the proposed Plan, the history of the plan, the process and people involved with the proposed Plan. Major points included: pros • and cons of findings; Vision of Downtown 2010; organization of Downtown Plan; land use; image and character; pedestrian and vehicle environment; Mr. Peterson replied that City Council had not made a decision on that matter. Because of that and because the voters have recently approved funding for it, staff would prefer City Council view it as something to make a decision on as a policy. Staff felt the wording was strong enough however, if the Board wished stronger language, it would be their option to vote on that. Member Burns commented that, overall, staff had done an incredibly good job on the Plan and he was impressed with the graphics on the Plan. He added that this was a complete job with citizen participation and notification of various concerned parties. Mr. Frank suggested that the incorporation of the changes be voted on tonight and show the editorial changes to the draft as part of the minutes that will be before the Board for approval at the July meeting. Member Shepard moved to recommend adoption of the Downtown Plan and its inclusion as an element of the Comprehensive Plan with the changes and suggestions that she made and staff agreed to and with specific reference to Policy 6 Action 1, that the wording be left as It was but that the Board make a specific recommendation to City Council that the Senior Citizen Center be located downtown. Member Burns asked if the Board was adopting Resolution 89-4. Mr. Eckman replied that this was what he understood but the Board was wanting to amend the Plan. He asked if the Board was desiring to amend the Plan or the resolution to make the remark about the Senior Citizen Center. iMember Shepard stated that she desired to include it as a statement in the resolution. She stated that she was proposing to leave the language as it was in the Plan but to indicate that the Board desired to have the Senior Citizen Center located downtown in the resolution. Mr. Eckman stated that staff would draft the resolution accordingly. Member Carroll seconded the motion. He commented that he served on the Choices 95 committee. He stated that the senior citizen center was the most discussed item of the entire 130 projects, as was the location of the center. The subcommittee, as well as the executive committee, strongly supported the location of the senior citizen center in downtown Fort Collins for the benefit of the senior citizens and the downtown. He strongly supported the motion. Acting Chairman Klataske commented that this was one of the most comprehensive plans he has seen in Fort Collins. The scope and scale of neighborhood plans pale in comparison to this Plan. He stated that staff did a superb job on this Plan. Motion to recommend adoption passed 4-0. THE MARKET PLACE PUD - Preliminary - #21-89 THE MARKET PLACE PUD, Phase 1 - Final - *21-99MA Joe Frank gave descriptions of the proposed projects. He stated that the square footage should be 105,856 square feet. -5- Gene Yergenson, Yergenson, Obering and Whitaker, briefly discussed alignment of curbcuts, inclusion of the outparcel, and building materials. He presented slides of various views of the proposed site and the surrounding areas. He stated that revisions were made to the plan which included: inclusion of a 15 foot landscape easement on the adjacent property to the north, irrigated with trees and shrubs; additional parking lot islands; additional trees in front; the moving back of the sidewalk on College Avenue into the property and provision of a 3 foot berm in front; elevation reductions; Pad B elevations; and the redesign of buildings D and E to provide pedestrian access from the center to the outparcel. Mr. Frank stated that these two items had conditions that have been met. Mr. Peterson suggested that a brief condition be inserted into the final regarding the dedication of Troutman Parkway. Mr. Eckman stated that the dedication of easement requires that all encumbrance holders, which includes all owners and/or proprietors, must execute the plat. With this project there are several encumbrance holders, of which one has not executed the plat. He stated that he has written the following condition that should be inserted into the final plan: "The plat is approved upon condition that, prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction of improvements upon the platted property, the developer shall provide to the City satisfactory evidence that any lien or encumbrance holders with any beneficial interest in any portion of the platted property and who have not signed the plat or otherwise duly and lawfully consented to the development of the property in accordance with the plat and other development documents, have first released and surrendered any such beneficial interest or interests." Acting Chairman Klataske asked what was to keep that party from extorting a fee for that release. Mr. Eckman stated that prior arrangements had been made and that the holder will be paid off when the closing occurs. Jay Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum -Dean and applicant for the proposed project, stated that this problem had been worked out and that the property had been purchased by his company. Member Burns asked what would happen if the encumbrance holder refused to sign. Mr. Eckman replied that the City had a deed with Mr. Strickfaden but had been waiting a subordination from all the lien holders applicable to that deed. Authorization had been approved to record this plat. He asked if Mr. Strickfaden was withdrawing that authorization at this time. William Strickfaden, a managing general partner of Fort Collins Assemblage Ltd., stated that when the plat was executed by the seller of the property and all the mortgage holders, he understood that it would be recorded upon -6- approval of this transaction of final and preliminary approval this evening. • Nothing was mentioned of a condition of recording on the plat that the Peterson encumbrance would affect his part of the property should the transaction not result in a completed sale. He asked if the condition would affect the encumbrance of his property. Mr. Eckman replied that it would prohibit the issuance of a building permit on his property under this plat until the plat was completely executed, which was a requirement of the city and the state statutes. He stated that Mr. Strickfaden could not proceed with development of his property without the plat being recorded. Mr. Strickfaden stated that he did not have control of all of the property. He added that he had no solution and was not sure he had a problem with this matter. He felt the condition placed on the approval would be a limiting factor in the event that this transaction did not complete. Mr. Eckman stated that there was a possibility of that and there would be no solution other than requiring that this project be postponed until the completed plat was submitted. Mr. Strickfaden stated that the encumbrance holder that had not executed the plat was a mortgage holder having a note and Deed of Trust on property other than Fort Collins Assemblage. At this time, a recess was held so the developer and owner could discuss the situation and arrive at an agreement. . After 10 minutes, the meeting reconvened. Mr. Eckman stated that it was agreed by the developer and the owner that the condition prepared would be acceptable. George Holter, property owner to the north of the proposed project, commented that the design showing the location of the buildings and some of the land not included in this preliminary and final was for conceptual only. He stated that he understood there was to be some language placed on the Plan. He stated that he would not be in agreement showing the buildings as they are located on the master plan. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Holler was referring to the Amended Superblock Master Plan No. 3 for South College Properties concept plan. He stated that, for the record, those buildings shown in the area called "Phase Two" were conceptual only. Member Shepard asked if they reflected officially amended master plan. Mr. Peterson stated that they do not reflect an amended master plan. Member Carroll moved to approve The Market Place PUD Preliminary. Member Burns seconded the motion. Member Shepard asked if Outparcel H was included in the traffic impact is study. -7- Mr. Yergenson stated that it was included in the study. Member Shepard asked if Outparcel H had agreed to follow the proposed general design of the Phar-Mor building. Mr. Yergenson replied that Outparcel H was in agreement to that stipulation of the general design and the landscaping. Member Shepard asked about signage for Pad H. Mr. Yergenson replied that this will be presented in final. Member Shepard stated that signage was a condition of preliminary approval and asked if the Board was to expect a monument sign on Pad H. Mr. Yergenson stated that this was not addressed because they do not have control of that pad. Member Shepard stated that there was no information on signage, maximum building height or intended uses for the preliminary plan. Mr. Yergenson stated that the design and the intent of the preliminary was that it would be retail on the lower level and Para -retail offices on the upper level. The signage issue was not brought up by staff or discussed with Mr. Johnson. The main concept was to have the utilities and circulation controlled as part of this preliminary. Mr. Frank stated that staff felt there was sufficient information to give it preliminary approval. The goals had been established and staff felt comfortable with the information that was provided. Member Shepard asked if the exterior wall signs would be along JFK Parkway. Mr. Yergenson replied that the exterior wall signs would be strictly on Troutman Parkway. Member Shepard asked if, on the final, all the landscaping on the street frontages would be included except the street frontages along Parcel H. Mr. Yergenson responded that this was correct. They do not control that ground. Acting Chairman Kiataske asked what kind of landscaping would be on Parcel H until it was developed and what kind of maintenance would be provided. Mr. Yergenson stated that this was under separate ownership and would be the responsibility of the owner of the property. Acting Chairman Klataske asked what was to prevent the site from being the refuse area from the development of the rest of the site. Mr. Eckman replied that city code provisions prohibit littering and tracking of construction debris. He stated that the owner might also be watchful of the site. -8- Mr. Frank stated that this would be part of the inspection process either by • Public Works, who inspects the site and public improvements, or by staff. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that Mr. Johnson will be very watchful of the site since that it was his insistence that his parcel be placed in the preliminary approval. He added that it was included in the development agreement that littering and such be prohibited. Member Burns commented that he was not comfortable with the location of the of the entrance of the Phar-Mor site. He suggested that the access on the west would align with the access on the east. Mr. Yergenson stated that this could be an option in the future, depending on how the adjoining property was developed. Member Burns felt that the plan has certain inefficiencies built into it as far as the traffic circulation routing through the site. Motion to approve passed 4-0. Member Burns moved to approve The Market Place PUD, Phase 1, Final with the condition that Mr. Eckman stated. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. SThe meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. • 52