Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPINECONE PUD THE TOWER SHOPS FINAL - 60 91M - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES• CONTINUATION OF THE MAY 22, 1995 HEARING JUNE 5, 1995 STAFF LIAISON: BOB BLANCHARD COUNCIL LIAISON: GINA JANETT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Member Bernie Strom. Roll Call: Walker, Bell, Strom, Carnes. Members Fontane, Clements and Cottier were absent. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Shoemaker and Deines. AGENDA REVIEW: Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner, reviewed the evening's discussion agenda. • 20. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Adoption of the Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Management Plan. 21. Pinecone PUD, The Tower Shoppes - Final 22. Timberline Farms P.U.D. - Diamond Shamrock Cornerstore -Preliminary. (Continued). 11. #5-95 Rocky Mountain Auto P.U.D. - Preliminary and Final. DISCUSSION AGENDA: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE FORT COLLINS/LOVELAND CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN. Staff Presentation: Tom Shoemaker, director of Natural Resources for the City of Fort Collins, presented a slide presentation to the Board regarding a plan for preserving the region between Loveland and Fort Collins. Highlights of his summary included: A plan has been visualized for the last 20 years. It has become a combined effort of Loveland, Fort Collins, and Larimer County. The corridor is being defined by Harmony on the north, 57th Street on the south, Fossil Creek on the east, and the first hogback on the west. The corridor would preserve the unique identity of the two communities; retain the natural wildlife in the area; preserve the scenic landscapes; and halt the encroaching development in the area. An inventory has been completed and mapped of the areas within • the corridor. A planning influence map was developed as a result. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 5, 1995 r_O�}�L Page 3 ((i 11 Development approval process and platting would help ensure that cluster development keeps its preservation goals intact; that permanent conservation easements can be used to help ensure preservation. Staff developed specific goals as well as broad strategies, and the recommendations may need amending to reflect those specific goals. Subarea 17 captures the bulk of Fossil Creek area, a high - priority area. Subarea 16, a TDR receiving area, is an example of an area that will help ensure preservation of higher -priority areas. Public comment: No public comment was heard. Board discussion and vote: The Board noted the high amount of effort that had been devoted to the plan development, the creativity applied to plan, and the need to press forward with action on the plan. Upon request, Mr. Shoemaker noted the stated goals and their conformance to the language in the resolution. Two goals of rural development standards and airport area standards were not included in the resolution language. The Board and public will need further communication as the plan is developed and implemented further. Moved by Member Carnes, seconded by Member Bell: To recommend to City Council Resolution PZ95-11, Option A, with the changes regarding Fort Collins -Loveland Airport, U.S. Highway 287, and the rural development standards, noting that Larimer County is expected to implement such standards within its jurisdiction. The Motion was approved 4-0. PINECONE PUD, THE TOWER SHOPPES - FINAL.: Staff presentation: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner presented a brief overview of a request for a Final PUD for Tower Shoppes at Pinecone Overall Development Plan; a request for a neighborhood shopping center, featuring 99,000 feet of retail/commercial floor area. Only Pad B is being considered for final approval of a drive -through restaurant with an indoor recreation area. Staff is recommending approval, with the conditions presented in the written staff report. Member Carnes asked what would be vested with this approval. -Member Carnes also asked if this was a Neighborhood Service Center? Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 5, 1995 Page 4 Mt. Shepard replied that vested rights are not approved until final approval. Mr. Shepard reviewed the .Land Use Policies Plan and its several policies concerning Neighborhood Service Centers. This proposal would be the largest grocery store anchor for a neighborhood center. Applicant's presentation: Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, summarized the history of development approval to the present date. He showed slides of'the site plan and elevations. No problem is presented by the suggested staff conditions, except signage; a suggestion was made to modify the staff conditions to remove the signs from the play area on the north and south area to the fascia or gable areas, similar to the convenience store -by Pinecone Apartments. The sign on the west play area is more problematic; a suggestion was made to place the sign at a lower established sign band area. Mr. Ward noted the fast food restrictions that were in place within the area, including Horse.tooth East Business Park. He exhibited non-traditional appearance of the proposed fast food restaurant. He asked that conditions of approval help compatibility and not be prohibitive. In response to questions, Mr. Ward reiterated the proposed signage changes; stated that the prominence of the location within the building is reflective of the building function and the problems that a more distant location may present within the building. In response to Board questions, Amy Carlson from McDonalds noted that a flanking location for the playplace within the building would interrupt the flow of the drive-thru. The design of the two-story addition reflects the function of the plan needed within the establishment. Dropping the play area below ground level would incur additional expense. Ms. Carlson further explained how the play area is furnished and policed. Mr. Ward noted the efforts that had been made to make the restaurant compatible with the neighborhood. The restaurant will appeal to a broad audience; the high school students are not seen as forming the most significant clientele. The high school will be able to enforce rules on the Tower Shoppes that it may not elsewhere. Concerning the aesthetics of .the roofline, a condition may be placed to make final design subject to approval of staff. Member Carnes expressed concern of the ultimate results. of the project in terms of the anchor establishment and the remaining square footage of the project.- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 5, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Ward noted that the industry standard concerning size of grocery stores had changed since preliminary approval. That changed standard resulted in the proposed commercial/retail mix of the project. Proximity to the high school prohibits a number of uses that are customary to a neighborhood shopping center. The size of the site was limited due to these restrictions and -the character of the neighborhood. Citizen Participation: Karen Lawrence expressed concern over the traffic flow on Horsetooth, the nature of the anchor tenant, and the visual and traffic impact on the neighborhood. Jeff Lawrence expressed concern over the disturbance caused by delivery trucks, the character and location of tenants, and the traffic impacts. Mr. Shepard stated that the anchor tenant would be a grocery store or a building permit would not be issued. Traffic -flows will be as stated at the preliminary hearing. He reviewed the anticipated flow of delivery trucks. other pads may be used for: fast food restaurant; day-care; and/or a bank. Mr. Shepard reviewed the project layouts and tenant locations. Mr. Ward further reviewed the circulation and screening of truck traffic. The project will not be completed until finalization of an ,anchor tenant. In response to further questioning, Mr. Shepard stated that no light is planned for the Arctic Fox intersection, as a local street; however, a light is anticipated for the Caribou, a collector street, and Horsetooth intersection. He outlined the anticipated parking lots, roads, facilities, intersections, and landscaping. Board Discussion and Vote: Discussion was held concerning the conditions of the staff recommendation regarding removal and relocation of signs. Moved by Member Walker, seconded by Member Carnes: Approval of the application at the Tower Shoppes at Pinecone PUD Final, with the conditions cited in the staff report, but modifying the first condition to reflect removal of the flush wall signs from the indoor play area on the north and south elevations, and allowing a sign on the center band level of the west elevation of the play area component. Discussion was held concerning the second -floor roofline element and its desirability and whether staff would be given discretion to approve finalized plans. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Eckman expressed reservations of that discretion being placed with staff. Mr. 1 Planning and zoning Board Minutes June 5,.1995 Page 6 Shepard suggested the format of a referral of an administrative change. Comments were made on the viability and forms of neighborhood activity centers. The Motion was approved 4-0. ROCKY MOUNTAIN AUTO P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL•Q 5-'j5 Staff Presentation: Steve Olt, City Planner summarized the application regarding Rocky Mountain Auto PUD Final, and its history for the Board. The additions would comprise 1300 square feet in size, approximately 600 feet on either side of the existing building. Circumstances have not changed from the previous variances that were granted for the site, and the staff recommends approval upon the conditions of the standard . development agreement, and that the City and the applicant work together in providing a detached sidewalk in lieu of the proposed attached sidewalk along the frontage of the property of East Vine Drive. In response to questioning by the Board, Mr. Olt explained the nature and history of the attached sidewalk situation along Vine Drive and the possibilities presented by a detached sidewalk. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department explained the nature of the present conflicting sidewalk.plans for other nearby areas and the planning that would be needed to effect a detached sidewalk. Energy conservation points were not raised by applicant nor researched by staff. Applicant Presentation: Roger Kinney explained the impracticality of energy conservation points in view of the activity at the entrance. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions and willing to place a detached sidewalk in an acceptable location. Mr. Eckman, Deputy City Attorney suggested a tightening of the condition of sidewalk placement to.a specific location, subject to an administration change should the location be nonfeasible. Board Discussion and Vote: Moved by Member Walker, seconded by Member Bell: For a variance to the minimum required points required due to extraordinary circumstances justifying the action. In discussion, the basis for the variance was set forth as the size and geography of the site resulting in practical difficulties in meeting the required points. The Motion was approved 4-0.