Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND PUD, 1ST FILING (HARLEY DAVIDSON) - FINAL - 34-88C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESr-I L-A n LA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 Continuation of the May 20,1996 Hearing 6:30 p.m. Council Liaison: Gina Janett Chairperson: Gwen Bell Vice Chair: Glen Colton The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Phone: (H) 221-3415 Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201 Roll Call: Mickelsen, Byrne, Strom, Gaveldon, Bell. Members Davidson and Colton were absent. Staff Present: Ludwig, Haas, Wamhoff, Stanford, Schlueter, Bracke, Eckman, Blanchard, and Deines. Agenda Review: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning reviewed the consent and discussion agendas, which is as follows: 1. #34-88C Minutes of the November 13,1995, March 4, 6,1996 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. Discussion Agenda: 14. #34-88C Interstate Land PUD, 1st Filing (Harley Davidson) - Final 15. #57-86N Sunstone Townhomes PUD - Preliminary and Final 16. #1-96A BMC West PUD - Final 17 #11-810 Huntington Hills Village PUD, 7th Filing - Preliminary (Continued) 18. #49-95 Harmony Ridge - Overall Development Plan (Continued) Member Strom moved for approval of the Minutes on the Consent Agenda. Member Mickelsen seconded the motion. The motion was approved. INTERSTATE LAND PUD 1ST FILING (HARLEY DAVIDSON - FINAL #34-88C. Mitch Haas, City Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the standard engineering condition. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 2 Member Byrne asked about the second building and what assurances do we have that it will be in conformance with the rest of the overall plan. Planner Haas replied that the architecture of the second building will be compatible with the Harley Davidson building in scale, form, materials, and colors. It is the same colors as the Harley Davidson dealership, the same materials, accent stripping and windows. Member Byrne asked about multiple uses in the second building, excluding a restaurant. Why was that? Planner Haas replied that staff felt it was significant to note that restaurants have been excluded because they tend to generate more traffic. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant gave the applicant presentation. Mr. Ward stated that the final was consistent with the preliminary plan and the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Mr. Ward asked that all the documents that were part of the preliminary process be made a part of the record of tonights hearing by reference, so if they are needed in the future, they can be part of the record tonight. The traffic impacts of this phase have been looked at, the setbacks along Boxelder Creek have been increased, the Elco Water Crossing would be reviewed by City Staff, and modifications made to the architectural design. Member Byrne asked for the applicant to elaborate on pedestrian and bike access. Mr. Ward replied that there will be, as per the Prospect Road Streetscape Program, detached walks on the frontage road, and bikelanes on the improved frontage road section. The overall preliminary is set up to tie into the citywide bikeway system. There has also been provisions made for a trail extension along Boxelder Creek, which is beyond the scope of this final, but does provide some opportunities for both recreational and other types of pedestrian trips in the area. The site plan makes provisions for a walkway connection from this business on the frontage road down to that potential City trail system. The trail along Boxelder Creek is not officially part of any adopted park or Transportation Plan. CITIZEN INPUT Sally Craig, 1409 S. Summitview Drive stated she was here to night to convince the Board that the traffic analysis that Matt Delich did for this particular project is inaccurate. The raw data that he used with the 2.5 growth factor are really not giving the Board an accurate picture or assessment of the traffic on Prospect. March 28th, the City of Fort Collins did a peak hour count of the intersection of Prospect and Summitview and this was the same type of count Mr. Delich used, and she compared the two figures. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 3 Ms. Craig stated that Mr. Delich, on his traffic analysis of March 12th, -- on the existing peak hour P.M. count -- total traffic east bound was 742 cars. The March 28th count done by the City of Fort Collins came up with 908 cars. That is a 22% difference in count. On the west bound total traffic from that intersection, Mr. Delich came up with 610, the City came up with 789, a 29% difference in the traffic count. To her this shows that Mr. Delich's modeling and raw data are out dated and a new count at these intersections should be done to get an appropriate assessment of the traffic on Prospect. Ms. Craig stated that there has been a 20 to 25% increase in traffic in less than a year. At the preliminary hearing, Mr. Bracke, City Traffic Engineer, told Member Colton that Prospect was not running at arterial standards at this time. Additional lanes are needed and would require a capital improvement project to widen Prospect. Ms. Craig was concerned with the size of the buildings on lot 1 & 2 and the metal siding on the north and west side of the building that will be the motorcycle dealership. She was concerned with the natural areas around these buildings. Ms. Craig would like to see the buildings made smaller, and would like to see the dealership covered in synthetic stucco just like the building on Lot 2 all the way around the building. The west side will be the natural corridor and the public trail. She cited LDGS Criteria 2.7. C.J. Streit, citizen, stated he was in favor of this project. He lives on the east side of Boxelder Estates, and has a clear and unobstructed view of this proposed site and has lived there for 21 years. Mr. Streit felt that the applicant for the project has met all the legal requirements and has gone above and beyond design standards to comply with the wishes of the staff . He is also appreciative to the opposition and felt that the buildings were attractive and there was nothing wrong with the north and west side, the least visible to the public, being of a different material than what is on the east and south side. Mr. Streit spoke on the traffic issue. He felt it was not the fault of Interstate Lands that this problem exists on Summitview and Prospect. He felt that the additional traffic brought in by this project would be minimal. The developer is doing his share of improvements on Prospect and that will make the situation better than it currently is. He asked for the Board's approval of this project. Chester Watson, 1828 Cottonwood Point Drive stated he would be coming to the dealership from the north. He is the director of River and Stream Studies Center at CSU, on the County Floodplain Board, and a registered engineer. He stated he had reviewed the staff report and has visited the site. He stated he was in favor of this type of responsible development. He sees no technical problem that the development would cause. Don Magnusum, representative of the Lake Canal Company and Cache La Poudre Reservior Companies. He noted there was a letter in the Board's packet of their position. They are in favor of this development with reservations of some of the accesses that have to be worked out. He Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 4 has found the staff to be very cooperative in addressing the concerns that need to be addressed for this project. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Byrne asked about the medium term impact of this development on Prospect. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied it would be minimal. He felt the traffic study over estimated the traffic and he felt it would be about 1/3 of the number stated in the report. He felt there was longer term impacts with Prospect Road and the urban area as a whole. Sometime in the near future, a capital project will be necessary to bring Prospect up to either arterial or minor arterial standards. This project's impact will be hardly noticeable for this particular filing. Member Byrne asked if there was anything on the drawing board currently to bring Prospect up to arterial or minor arterial status. Mr. Bracke replied that the City was in the process of doing the capital improvement program for the next Choices projects. Out of the Transportation Service area, Prospect road is a very high priority. Other improvements planned is to add auxiliary turn lanes and signalizing Prospect and Summitview in conjunction with Larimer County. Chairperson Bell asked if the difference in the two traffic studies was that one was estimated too high. Mr. Bracke replied that it was fairly common, if a traffic count is less than a year old, to inflate them. Traffic on arterials in the Fort Collins area grow anywhere from 1 '/z to 3 %z percent per year. Chairperson Bell asked for discussion on what if any road improvements are being made with this project. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department responded that the improvements that would be done with this project along the frontage road in front of the project would be a lane in each direction with a center turn lane. There would be improvements to the intersection, providing a left turn lane in and also a right turn lane in to adequately meet the requirements of the traffic study. There will also be sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the west side. No sidewalk, curb and gutter will be placed on the east side due to the State not wanting sidewalks next to a State Highway because of safety concerns. Member Byrne asked about some of the development depicted inside the secondary road. At what level will traffic have to increase to say there is no more capacity on that road, Prospect Road. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Wamhoff replied that would have to be looked at according to the traffic study provided for each project as it comes in. Chairperson Bell asked about the setbacks in the report given. It was mentioned that the setbacks were increased, and she would like to hear the specifics of how much of an increase the setbacks off of the creek are. Mr. Ward replied that the site design at preliminary dovetailed together with the surveyed location of Boxelder Creek itself -- at one point is a little less than 15 feet from the top of the bank. Essentially, that has been doubled. To make everyone more comfortable, they agreed to a 30 foot minimum setback from the top of the bank. That is about 50 feet from the center of the channel to the building. Chairperson Bell asked about the aerial pipeline and would it look something like Spring Creek. Mr. Ward replied that was one of the details that was yet to be resolved. Chairperson Bell would like to see it as natural in appearance as possible. Mr. Ward replied that was what everyone was striving for. Chairperson Bell asked for a clarification of how this building relates to the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. Planner Haas replied that the Prospect Road Streetscape Program has one standard which says all sides of the building should be given equal architectural detail. Planner Haas reviewed the building and the compromise that was made to that standard. Chairperson Bell asked to here from the applicant on the issue. Mr. Ward stated that he has not see the picture submitted by Ms. Craig and how this building would compare in size to the one in the picture. Mr. Ward stated that the building is fairly long and the approach taken has been to baffle it with landscaping, to paint it in a subdued color, and do the same detail with color. Unlike the photo, there will be landscaping between the building for anyone who is looking at the site beyond. Architecturally, there have been a great number of changes and many months of delay through storm drainage studies and things that have gone on in the review of this project, and all have substantially added to the cost. The more cost we layer onto this project, the more difficult it becomes. We came in with the current proposal, staff said it was O.K., and we proceeded from there. Member Gaveldon asked it there were any temporary solutions to keep people from crossing on those pipes and getting them to use the bridge. i Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 6 Planner Haas replied that it has not been explored in detail yet. Member Mickelsen moved for the approval of Interstate Land P.U.D., First Filing, Harley Davidson, Final including the standard condition on the staff report, and also that the drainage and traffic studies from the preliminary be part of the record of tonights meeting. Member Gaveldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. SUNSTONE TOWNHOMES P.U.D., PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, 957-86N. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report on the proposed project, recommending Preliminary approval only with the following conditions: l . Preliminary P.U.D. approval is granted for LAND use only. No approval is granted for layout and density. 2. The applicant shall submit a Final P.U.D. plan which provides a minimum of 15 foot side yard setback for any lots with driveway access from Gemstone Lane and side yards adjacent to Summerstone Court. 3. The applicant shall submit a Final P.U.D. plan which provides a minimum 20 foot rear yard setback for any lots with driveway access from Gemstone Lane and rear yards adjacent to Stoney Creek Drive. The applicants are also requesting a variance from All -Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation", which staff feels qualifies for a variance. Member Byrne asked if the sidewalk along Gemstone is 4 feet. Planner Ludwig replied it is 4 '/z feet, and a detached walk. Member Byrne asked if is this was an example of the new emerging street standards. Planner Ludwig replied that was correct. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, representing the applicant gave the applicant's presentation. Mr. Ward spoke on design direction in accordance with the new City Plan, their disagreement with staff regarding All Development Criteria staff feels they do not meet regarding Building Placement and Orientation and Setbacks. Mr. Ward reviewed the setbacks of