Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK REZONING COUNTY REFERRAL 2.26.90 P AND Z BOARD - 56 89, A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES February 26, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kcrn, Jim Klataskc, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, and Alternate Joc Carroll. Members absent included Rex Burns and Lloyd Walker. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Joe Frank, and Georgiana Taylor. Board Members present at the February 23, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included Rex Burns. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the January 28, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Elm Street Daycare PUD - Preliminary & Final, #64-89; Item 3 - Silverplume Estates, 3rd Filing, PUD - Preliminary, #62-89A; Item 4 - 1635 Blue Spruce PUD - Preliminary & Final, #2-90; Item 5 - Giant Video Administrative Change, 078-81F; Item 6 - Larimer County Landfill Rezoning - County Referral, #5-90; Item 7 - Maxwell Annexation and Zoning, #63-89A. Member Strom asked to place item #5, Giant Video on the discussion agenda. Member Shepard moved to adopt the consent agenda, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 with the conditions stated in the memo dated February 23rd for items 2 and 6. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. GIANT VIDEO ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE Ted Shepard gave the staff report on the admi,'strative change. He recommended approval with the condition that the order board be subject to the stipulations found in the sign code, as listed in the board's memo. This would have to be met in order for a permit to be issued to allow the order board. Fred Croci, a representative of Arrowstonc Development, stated the proposal was to add a drive-thru lane and a pickup window at the existing facility at 1107 West Drake Road. He stated that when the original PUD was submitted in 1986 for that pad site of Cimmaron Plaza, there was a drive-thru showing on the PUD. He said that in 1988 when they came in to do the Giant Video Building, they had discussion with staff and told them at that time that Giant Video had no need at that particular time for the drive-thru, and at that time showed staff several other options, one of which was the addition of the drive-thru at a later point in time. is Mr. Croci stated that about a half a block north of this facility, the Board had recently approved a Burger King restaurant and with the measurements he took, the Burger King is situated very similarly in its relationship to Shields Street as with the Giant Video facility. Scott Pearson, a representative from Giant Video, explained that the purpose of the drive-thru was to enhance customer service. He stated the drive-thru would be used for reservation pickup, and drop-off service. He stated that somewhere in the plan they would like to leave a provision for a menu board, not like a restaurant menu board, but a television screen tied to the computers inside, and list movies that are available to people driving thru as to not create a backup of cars. Member Shepard asked if the drive thru is at this point intended for people who have reserved tapes, why would they need a menu board ? Mr. Pearson replied that they did not at this time, but would like to leave it as a provision. He stated all they are asking for at this point is reservation and return. Chairman Kern noted that the original plans included room for a drive-thru and wasn't it true that they took that drive-thru space and put that into the building. Mr. Croci replied that under the original PUD the building was 400 s.f. less, but the drive thru was in the same location. He also stated that if they were concerned about landscaping, they have an additional pad site available where they could make up some additional landscaping. Mr. Croci explained the landscaping and where the drive-thru would be located. He stated there were 12 Junipers along the building and that the plan was to move the Junipers to another location north of the Wheeler Building, and if necessary put additional landscaping along the drive thru. He stated the building was constructed all along with the idea that the drive thru would eventually be put in. Member O'Dell asked if the Giant Video was built prior to the Neighborhood Convenience Center Guidelines, how was it going to affect the percentage of landscaping. Mr. Shepard replied that the loss of landscaping will consist of a 10 foot swath the length of the building along Shields and a 10 foot swath the width of the building along the south elevation. In addition, the foundation plants, Junipers, on the east elevation would have to be removed. Member O'Dell stated that in the LDGS there was an all development criteria which deals with landscaping along the edge of the building. How was this normally dealt with in other drive thru situations, and how was it off -set with additional landscaping somewhere else, or is landscaping physically impossible next to buildings? Mr. Shepard replied that order boards were one thing they look at with fast food restaurants. He stated Giant Video's order board was slightly different in location. &a 0 Chairman Kern asked how many s.f, of area will the new drive-thru lane take up. Mr. Shepard replied about 3500 s.f. of hard surface will be added. Member Shepard asked what was the set -back from Shields compared to the set back of Burger King north of Giant Video? Mr. Shepard replied it was 37 feet at Giant Video. At Burger King it was 10 to 12 feet less. Burger King was closer to Shields by 10 to 12 feet. Member Shepard asked what the distance would be between the cast edge of the drive-thru lane to the sidewalk in each case. What was the width of the green space? Mr. Shepard replied if the drive-thru was approved, the distance between the drive-thru lane and the back of the walk would be about 25 feet for both. Member Shepard asked about the tree at the southeast corner which appears to almost touch the building. Will the branches have to be cut off to accommodate the proposed feature? Mr. Shepard showed a few slides of the tree and stated that in his opinion the tree will be fine. Member Strom stated his concerns about the set back and its effect at this location. Chairman Kern stated his objections to the proposal such as landscaping and set back, and addressed items in the LDGS as #22, 28, 33, 42, 44 most of which relate to visual impact. Member Strom moved for denial based on all -development criteria numbers 36 and 44. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Member O'Dell stated that she believed that the drive-thru cuts into pedestrian access and could c use conflict between pedestrians and automobiles in area. The motion for denial passed 6-0. POUDRE VALIEEY BUSINESS PARK REZONING - COUNTY REFERRAL Sherry Clark gave the staff report which recommended denial. She stated this proposal was inconsistent with the Latimer County Land Use Plan which designated the area for rural non -farm uses. Mr. Benjamin Hatch, project manager with CDS Engineering in Loveland gave a brief opening statement on the proposal. Mr. Ritchie of REA spoke on the commitment REA had to the proposed site, the problems with the current building and cited growth of the company and the traffic problems of South College Avenue. -3- Member Carroll asked for any changes in the plan from December 18th and what the proposal was tonight. Mr. Hatch gave a presentation on the changes in the proposal. He stated the zoning would go from FA-1 to Commercial instead of FA-1 to Industrial. The three out lots have been eliminated. They were not asking for a subdivision, and the building had been moved back from the original location, because of wetlands. They had received approval from the Army Corp of Engineers for the roadway. Mr. Hatch stated that the major issue for denial was the inconsistency with the Larimer County Land Use Plan. He stated when the plan was drafted it did not list public utilities and this should be looked at as a public utility. Member Strom stated that he believed this plan would work very well for Poudre Valley REA, but believed this site would work very well for even a refinery. Even though it works well for that use doesn't mean its an appropriate location for that use. He noted that the County has evaluated land use for its entire jurisdiction and has come up with guidelines to where certain types of uses can go. The use was basically an industrial use with an office associated with it and was not in compliance with the land use plan that the County had adopted. He stated he had not heard an argument that the land use plan was wrong, but only that the site will work well for PVREA and itself it not enough for him to support it. Chairman Kern felt that we did not get enough justification for any changes, only that being essential public utility was enough of a reason to locate where ever they wished. He stated this project had been evaluated in accordance with present requirements. Member Carroll stated that the County Land Use Plan did have some merit and reason behind it. He stated if REA was to locate within the Urban Growth Area the board would apply those criteria that were available. He stated as he had in December that it was hard for him to oppose REA with the beautiful location they have on South College but again looking at it with the land use plan and the location, he had no alternative but to vote no. Member O'Dell stated she believed that it was important that they follow the plans that have been established and adopted by the County and the City and in this situation, it is just not in conformance with the plan that has been adopted. Member O'Dell moved recommending to County Commissioners dental of this proposal. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed 6-0. RESOLUTION PZ90-2 - ADOPTION OF PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN RESOLUTION PZ90-3 - AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE POLICIES PLAN AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Joe Frank gave the staff report on both resolutions and recommended approval -4-