Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST VINE DRIVE STREETS FACILITY PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 30 91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING • JULY 22, 1991 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Vice -Chair Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Lloyd Walker, and Rene' Clements Cooney. Member Laurie O'Dell was absent. Chairman Klataskc introduced and welcomed Rene' Clements Cooney to the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff members present included: Planning Director Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman and Kayla Ballard. Mr. Peterson gave a description of the Consent and Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the May 20 and June 24, 1991 meetings; Item 2 - #72-79F, Fairview Shopping Center PUD, 3rd Filing, Preliminary and Final; Item 3 - #65-82S, Fairbrooke PUD, 5th Filing, Amended Final which was continued to the August meeting; Item 4 - #29-91, 725 Martinez Street PUD, Preliminary and Final; Item 5 - 030-9I, East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD, Overall Development Plan; Item 6 - 030-91A, East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD, Preliminary; Item 7 - #43-83C, Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, Preliminary, and; Item 8 - #31-91, Amigos at South College PUD, Preliminary which was continued to the August meeting. . Member Walker pulled Item 2, Fairview Shopping Center PUD 3rd Filing Preliminary and Final off the Consent Agenda for discussion. Member Strom moved to approve Items 1 and 4 on the Consent Agenda. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. FAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER PUD 3RD FILING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - #72-79F Member Walker stated that his main concern was the vacant property that currently existed. He asked what was the ownership and what was the configuration of the property. Steve Olt presented a slide of the map that the Board received in their packets. He stated that the current ownership of the Fairview Shopping Center consisted of a number of businesses currently in operation, with Taco Bell being one of the owners. The vacant land was originally part of the Matador Apartments Fourth Filing and is currently in existence. The other part of the property was purchased by Chesterfield, Bottomsley and Potts (CB&P) to facilitate a parking lot that they were in the process of constructing. Subsequent to that, CB&P sold .2 acre parcel of land, which was south of the existing Taco Bell, to Taco Bell for the purpose of expanding their parking lot. The remainder of the land to the south was still owned by CB&P. CB&P had recently sold approximately 1/2 acre between their expanded parking lot and Taco Bell's proposed expanded parking lot to the Matador Apartments to be used as a buffer zone. Member Walker asked if the dead end road along the cast side of Taco Bell would be the only access into this area and what could happen with the land south of the road. Les Nordhagen, general manager of Taco Bell, stated that he had no problem with extending the fence 10 to 12 feet as long as the City deemed it as not being a traffic hinderance. He added that he had no problem with installing a speed limit sign or "caution pedestrians" sign at the entrance to Taco Bell. He stated that he would also have no problem with sending someone out daily to clean up the trash in Mr. Foster's yard. Mr. Olt stated that the fence extension would not be a hinderance to visibility or create a safety hazard. Mr. Foster suggested that a trash container be placed along the sidewalk that goes from the parking lot to the bridge, place signs to control noise and alcohol use and enforce the signage. Mr. Nordhagen stated that there was a no loitering, no alcohol, and no littering sign and every Friday and Saturday night there are guards present to keep the kids moving off the lot. Member Walker moved to approve Fairview Shopping Center PUD 3rd Filing Preliminary and Final with the conditions that: 1) the fence be extended further north as appropriate, and; 2) re -enforce the slow speed, whether it be 5 mile an hour or caution pedestrians, some signage to encourage people to go slower through this site. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member Strom commented that he had concerns about the access to the undeveloped property but would still support the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0. EAST VINE DRIVE STREETS FACILITY PUD - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - #30-91 EAST VINE DRIVE STREETS FACILITY PUD - PRELIMINARY - #30-91A Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed City facility overall development plan and the preliminary plan recommending approval of both items. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated the City had three goals associated with this project which were: 1) to design a functional facility for the Streets Department while preserving the historic architectural features of the buildings; 2) to design an aesthetic design solution that was sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods, and; 3) to develop a project that the City could be proud of. City Council directed the design team to submit this project as a PUD instead of as a permitted use within the I-P zone. He believed that this demonstrated their commitment to the neighborhood to involve them in the design process. He stated that the site was currently in need of repair and had multiple tenants in the various buildings. He added that there was currently no architectural continuity, no organized access plan, and no landscaping. Mr. Vaught stated that they were proposing to develop the site into four phases. Phase One would be the 12.7 acres, Parcel A, which would contain most of the facilities, parking, outside storage, etc. Phase Two would be the 9.3 acres, Parcel B, which was along the east side of the site that would be the stormwater detention area as well as providing access off of 9th Street into the first phase. Phase Three, Parcel C, would be about 7.7 acres and would be the future location for recycled asphalt storage operation. The last phase, Parcel D, would be along Linden and Vine and would be used for a future city facility site. 3 Mr. Vaught stated that after hearing from the neighborhoods, traffic was one of their foremost concerns. After reviewing the options from an access standpoint, they believed that they would have to gain access from 9th Street and Linden due to the railroad track along the north boundary of Vine. The public and employee access would enter from the existing access point on 9th Street and directed into the center of the site. The truck access would be from the Linden Street direction. He added that the only time the trucks would use the 9th Street access would be in an emergency situation. Mr. Vaught stated that by designing the access point in this manner, they were able to design the best side of the buildings to the neighborhoods and to incorporate the vehicle storage and the outside storage of materials along the west and south sides of the site using the existing brick structures to screen those activities from the neighborhoods to the north and east. He stated that they would remove the unsightly buildings on the site, bury overhead power lines, removing fuel tanks, and removing the existing trash and storage conditions that were currently on the site. They are planning to restore the two remaining brick buildings that have historical significance. A small facility would be incorporated within Parcel B that would provide a few parking spaces, picnic structure, and a surface that could be used for basketball. Mr. Vaught stated that their proposal was to remove about 38,000 square feet by eliminating the metal structures as well as the lean-to structure on the north brick building. He stated that the additions would be an administration wing along the east side of the long brick structure, a vehicle storage area along the south side, two areas of parking, and a wash & paint facility located on the west side of the two brick buildings. He added that the entire compound would be fenced but would be limited to connection between buildings. He stated that the brick structures were very sound and could withstand renovations. Mr. Vaught stated that these buildings did not have national or state historic designation but the design team concluded that they had local significance and should be preserved as part of the heritage of the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that the landscaping would follow a xeriscape concept and would buffer the railroad tracks along the north side of the property. Member Walker asked what would the roofing and wall materials be for the new additions on the south side of the long brick building. Mr. Vaught replied that they would be steel panel and painted. Member Walker asked if the area to the south would be industrial zoning. Mr. Vaught stated that it would be industrial zoning. Member Walker asked what would be the schedule for the parking to the east and if the recreational and storm drainage facilities would be built at the same time. Mr. Vaught stated that the storm drainage facility would be built as part of phase one. The timetable for the neighborhood improvements had been discussed and that there would be no problem with building the recreational facility as part of phase one. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the truck traffic would still be accessed off of Linden Street as the development was phased. 4 Mr. Vaught replied that there currently was an asphalt drive that would be used as a temporary truck access. As the sites to the west develop, that access would be moved down onto the new private access road along the south boundary. Member Strom asked if all the parking and driveways would be paved. Mr. Vaught replied that they would be paved. He added that the internal area would be concrete and the parking and access drive would be asphalt. He stated that on the overall development plan there would be extensive screening with berming along the south side of the railroad tracks. Member Strom suggested that a landscaping concept should be initiated to go along with phase one in order to size the plant material. Mr. Vaught asked if this could be brought back in the final plan with more of a solution to this suggestion. Member Strom stated that this would be agreeable. Member Strom stated that the Streets Department have been through a large amount of site selection and had determined that this was a beneficial site for many reasons. He asked for more information about the site selection process in terms of location relative to the growth of the city. Jon Ruiz, Streets Department employee, stated that important factors were access to major arterials, availability to maintenance capabilities, size of acreage, availability of existing buildings, and possible improvements to the site. He stated that from a streets standpoint, a lot of the streets maintenance currently exists in the northern part of town. Member Strom asked if future access to Buckingham through a parcel easement would be possible future consideration. Mr. Vaught stated that this was investigated and at this point there was no interest by the property owner to accommodate any type of access through that parcel. Member Strom asked if this was, in the future, to become a possibility, would this be truck access from Buckingham to Lemay south. Mr. Vaught replied no. He stated that the truck traffic would be to Buckingham and would route it back to Linden Street. This site was designed so that if this were to occur in the future, it would tie into the public access and parking. Member Walker asked how much of the storm drainage would be developed with phase one. Mr. Vaught stated that this was currently at a preliminary stage and was still up for discussion. This would not be 100% with the first phase. Member Cottier asked if the city intended to purchase the entire parcel at one time. Mr. Vaught stated that the city would purchase the entire 32 acres. He presented the proposed facility model and slides of the elevations and the existing conditions. 5 James Alario, representative of the neighborhood, stated that he was in favor of the proposed facility. He stated that he believed it would be safer for the neighborhoods if the city were to take over this property. He stated that for the last five years the city has been using this property and the neighborhood wasn't even aware of the truck traffic impact. Diane Joy, resident of the area, stated that currently that was a terrible problem with traffic and this proposal would create more traffic. She stated that any more traffic on this would road would create a hazard. She stated that the landscaping of natural grass would not be attractive and that there should be a deadline for installation of the landscaping. She stated that because of the neighborhood, it would not be landscaped nicely. She stated that the children in the neighborhood currently have no crosswalks to get across the street and this was not safe. She believed that the money for the purchase of this site could be spent another way such as improving the roads. Mr. Vaught stated that the intersection of East Vine and Lemay currently warrant a signal and there were plans to install that signal with some geometric improvements along Vine Drive that would allow left turns even in the instance that there would be a train moving along the tracks. This would help relieve some of the traffic during peak hours. Chairman Klataske stated that the intersection off of Linden into the facility for the truck traffic would be moved south. Mr. Vaught stated that the current drive would be curved down 200 feet back from the intersection and in the future would be moved further back. Member Walker commented that he was pleased this was submitted as a PUD. He encouraged the city to follow this same PUD process in the future. He stated that the city, through the proposal of the site, accomplished several things such as improvements to this site, goals of encouraging development in the northern part of town, consolidating city facilities in the same area of town, a sensitivity to historic preservation, and landscaping improvements with xeriscaping. He stated that he would like to see in phase one the neighborhood facility developed because it would be important to be good neighbors to the people who live in the area. He believed that the landscaping along the asphalt recycling area could continue along the perimeter of this parcel. Member Strom concurred with Member Walker's comments. He stated that there were currently several users to this site and believed that the city, in developing this PUD, would make some efforts to encourage these users to remain in the community. He added that when the final landscape plan is presented it would demonstrate how advantageous xeriscaping could be in this environment. Chairman Klataske commented that this was a fine example of an adaptive reuse of a facility particularly with historical and architectural significance. He hoped that in the park area, there would be some mention that this was part of a sugar factory and of its significance to the community. He believed that this was a good location as far as access and the size of the facility with the railroad tracks acting as a buffer. Member Cottier moved to approve East Vine Drive Streets Facility Overall Development Plan. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Z Member Walker believed that the recreational site in Parcel B and the suggestion of landscaping around Parcel B should be included as a condition to the preliminary. Mr. Shepard stated that this would be appropriate but suggested that the conditions should be more instructive than prescriptive since this was a large area and were not sure what kind of materials and how much distance would be covered. Member Cottier asked if this could be addressed as, at the time of final for Parcel A, everything that would need to be done to Parcel B be clearly identified. Mr. Shepard stated that this could be a condition. Member Walker stated that he would like to see a timetable on the recreational facility as a condition. Member Walker made a motion to approve East Vine Drive Streets Facility PUD Preliminary with the condition that the recreational facility be incorporated into Parcel A and therefore be part of this preliminary consideration and that the consideration be given as time and money permit to incorporate the landscaping for Parcel B and C as quickly as possible. Member Cottier seconded the motion and added the condition that pedestrian access dealing with crossing Lemay to the residences so the residents may get to the recreational facility be addressed. Mr. Shepard stated that the crossing would be at San Cristo and Ninth. He stated that given the future signal at Vine and Ninth, there should be sufficient gaps in the platoon flow of vehicles so there would be safe crossings. He suggested that the condition be left as such and the traffic consultants could come back with the best solution. Member Walker accepted that amendment. Member Strom pointed out that there was a correction to the original point chart as to the variance and that it was not necessary and not for consideration. The motion to approve passed 7-0. PHEASANT RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY - Case #43- Steve Olt gave a description of the proposal with staff recommendation of approval with the conditions that: 1) a 46 foot wide dedicated ROW be secured by the developer/owner of Pheasant Ridge Estates from the owners of Lot 5, Terry Ridge Subdivision prior to final approval of this request. This access easement must be accepted by the County and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to recording of Pheasant Ridge Estates subdivision plat; 2) the determination of responsibility for perpetual maintenance of the two detention ponds be made by the City Stormwater Utility prior to final approval, and; 3) a landscape plan for the on -site detention ponds be submitted to the City for final review. Chairman Klataske asked what was the justification for the variance on street width. Mr. Olt stated that currently the City had a standard that, in a large lot subdivision of an acre or more, a 28 foot wide street had been frequently requested. In this case, the lots did not meet 7