Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA - PDP/FDP - 26-97 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (3)Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 1990tj Page 12 Mr. Davidson explained there were two concerns. There were no identifiable crosswalks between the north and south parking lots. There was not a continuous sidewalk or identifiable crosswalk to the display vehicles or the maintenance area. There also needs to be sidewalks on both the north and south side of the building. The Chairman recommended at this point that the Board not get into designing the sidewalk. Staff agreed and clarified the traffic flow situation. Mr. Davidson suggested that not all possible traffic flow situations were being adequately addressed. Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To withdraw the motion to approve and ask for a continuance to reassess the pedestrian accesses. The motion was approved unanimously. The Chairman asked to have the pedestrian access changes be brought before the Board at the next meeting. She stated that the accesses would be the only issue brought up at that time. There was no other business. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 199fs8 Page 11 Mr. Davidson concurred with Ms. Craig's remarks and stated his biggest concern was with pedestrian traffic. Mr. Gavaldon stated he would not support the motion. He had great concerns about Mason Street and future traffic problems. Ms. Weitkunat stated she felt it was a workable project and it was an appropriate use according to the standards of the Land Use Code. Mr. Colton wanted clarification about the grounds for rejecting the motion. Staff suggested the vote should be based on the reasons stated in the motion and not on the modifications because certain members did not approve the modifications. The Chairman asked if the Applicant had any solutions to the pedestrian accesses in terms of continuity and traffic flow. Mr. Lockwood stated there could be signage or texture treated pavement to help with the traffic flow. He felt that from experience such standard is not essential but it could be accommodated. Ms. Craig asked if Staff would be amenable to working with the Applicant on internal pedestrian access from the service bays to the display areas. Ms. Bell stated the Board would like to help the Applicant find a solution to the Board's concerns. Staff suggested the Board make a condition on the final. If the Board was adamant about reviewing proposed the solutions, they would need to be reviewed at a future meeting. Staff reiterated that the conditions needed to be very specific to give clear directions as to what the Board wanted in the way of changing the pedestrian and traffic flow. Staff suggested the Board either deny the motion to provide the Applicant a chance to appeal or to table the motion to give the Applicant an opportunity to submit another proposal to incorporate suggestions given by the Board. The Chairman asked the Applicant to address the concerns made by the Board. Mr. Lockwood stated they were on a time schedule and requested the Board made a decision at this meeting. He also stated he would be happy to work through any conditions. Ms. Weitkunat asked the Board if they could give specifics as to what the problem with pedestrian traffic was. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 1998 a Page 10 Mr. Colton was concerned about the building conforming to the proposed sections of the Code and that granting variances might not be the best idea in this case. Mr. Davidson felt granting variances would not be necessary if the site was more conducive to the business rather than the site trying to conform to the facility plan. Mr. Gavaldon stated the City Plan was designed to be flexible but felt there could have been better planning regarding the scale of the building and the scope of its missions and operations. He also stated that future traffic problems needed to be studied. He felt the facility might be too intense for the space involved. The Chairman asked if there were any traffic signals placed in the area. Staff responded there were none planned at this time but they will be added on an as - needed basis. Motion passed 5 to 2. Moved by Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the request for modifications set forth in Section 3.5.3(b)(2)(b), the build to line of the Land Use Code. The rational being that granting of the modification will neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this chapter. And that the plan as submitted will advance and protect the public interests and purposes of the standard. And the granting of the modification from the strict application of any standard will result in a substantial benefit to the City. Mr. Colton stated he did not support the motion for the same reasons cited earlier. He also agreed with Mr. Gavaldon's observation that the facility is too intense for the site. Motion passed 4 to 3. Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To Recommend the approval of the Pedersen Auto Plaza Project Development Plan No. 26-97. Ms. Craig stated she would not be supporting the motion due to the fact that the pedestrian walkways adequately addressed according to Section 3.2.2C(5)(a). She stated there were no pedestrian accesses to the display room and around the parking lot area. Planning and Zoning Boaro Meeting of March 19, 199�g Page 9 the third modification was on Page 13. The Code requires specific explanations by Staff for modifications. Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the request for Alternative Landscape and Tree Protection Plan in accordance with Section 3.2.1, Alternative Compliance. The rational is as stated by Staff. Motion passed unanimously. Moved by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Weitkunat: To approve the request for modification to standards as set forth in Section 3.5.3(b)(2) the orientation to building to lines for street front buildings. The rational is that the modification would neither be detrimental to the public nor impair the intent and purposes of this chapter. And that the plan as submitted would actually mitigate the traffic and pedestrian issues. Granting or modification of the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city. Mr. Davidson asked if Mason Street will remain a two-lane street according to the 20-year plan. Staff explained it would remain as a minor arterial. Ms. Craig suggested that painted signage could be changed to actual signage or a raised or bricked entryway. Mr. Davidson suggested there be a crosswalk on Mason Street over to Kensington Street to simplify pedestrian traffic. Staff informed there will be a ramp on the west side that lines up with the corner to facilitate pedestrian crossing. Staff is anticipating when the path is built, the crosswalk will be marked. Mr. Davidson pointed out that Pedersen's was triggering the increased pedestrian traffic, and they needed to address that specific issue. The Applicant felt Mr. Davidson's point was well taken and would concur with his suggestion of painting the crosswalk. Ms. Weitkunat expressed that she had no doubts that Pedersen's would have the highest regards for pedestrian and customer safety. Mr. Chapman corrected his rational stating that by placing this facility close to the present facility, it will eliminate cross traffic on College Avenue when shuttling cars from one facility to another. He supported the concept that the building will be set back further than the Code calls for. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 199YI5 Page 8 Ms. Craig wanted clarification on routes for semi tractors. Mr. Lockwood explained the maneuvers semi tractors would be able to make. She also questioned what would happen with extra persons waiting for service. Mr. Lockwood showed on a drawing where customers would wait. Mr. Colton wanted to address the modification for the build to lines. He asked why the standard needed to be modified. Staff explained the standard to the Code and the exemption it related to. It was stated the nature of the project justifies the standard. Mr. Colton asked why there couldn't be more than two access points. Staff explained an effort had been made to put together a shared access point. Businesses were not willing to participate in a cooperative access point. Staff also pointed out that criteria needed to be met because of safety issues. The undeveloped parcels around the facility and the existing access point to Target is too close. Mr. Chapman discussed the intent of the City Code regarding pedestrian and auto traffic. Ms. Craig wanted information regarding fire truck routes to the facility. Staff informed the Board that since semi trucks can maneuver around the site, it is assumed a fire truck could. There are also the required sprinkler systems. The Chairman wanted clarification on the noise issue. It was stated that the loud speaker equipment had not yet been chosen and that a neighborhood representative is welcome to give input. Ms. Bell also discussed her concerns with traffic problems. Staff explained the various routes available to automobile traffic. Ms. Bell noted she would have like the modification written to include numerous pedestrian walkways around the facility. She questioned the wording in the modification regarding the pattern of existing buildings. Mr. Gavaldon asked if the 12-foot easement included the utility easement. Staff advised that the 12-foot easement including the utility easement. Mr. Gavaldon also questioned Staff on the sidewalk around the facility. Staff felt there was a good effort made to mitigate pedestrian/vehicular traffic. The Chairman requested Staff rational for request for modification. Regarding the first modification, Staff explained the rational was in the Staff Report, Page 10. The rational for the second modification was on Page 12. The rational for Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19. 199Yg Page 7 10. Rationale for the build -to -line modification. It was stated that the site is located on a curve making it difficult to build consistently to the line. Access points are limited. The business is single -focused towards automobiles. No public input was given. Mr. Davidson expressed a concern with pedestrian crossways and hazards associated with facility traffic. Mr. Lockwood advised that a customers car would be brought to them after service was performed. To look at display cars, customers would have to cross certain lanes of traffic. Mr. Davidson questioned whether there would be an identifiable crosswalk across the entryway. Mr. Lockwood explained the various customer thoroughfares. Mr. Davidson also expressed a concern regarding an outside employee break area. It was explained that the interior break area was very accommodating to employees and an outdoor break area was not incorporated into the plan. Mr. Davidson also asked about automobile transfers from one facility to another. He wanted to know what elements went into the traffic study. Mr. Davidson was particularly concerned with shuttle trips between facilities. It was again reiterated that the owners felt safety was a primary issue and they would do whatever was necessary to keep safety a priority. Mr. Gavaldon brought up the fact that the appendices were not included in the traffic report. He asked if the traffic study included demo drives and parts deliveries. Mr. Lockwood assumed they were included in the traffic study. Mr. Gavaldon also questioned the frequency of employees walking back and forth from each facility and if there would be a marked route to ensure safety. He also questioned the intensity of the traffic, car and citizen, going through one intersection. He didn't feel the traffic study addressed those issues and would like to see more data. Mr. Lockwood acknowledged there was not a traffic engineer available at the meeting to address those issues. He felt the amount of traffic did not encourage a dangerous situation. The Chairman reiterated she felt the Applicant had stated on a number of occasions that he felt the plan was safe. If the Board felt differently, criteria in the Land Use Code should be looked at. Ms. Weitkunat advised there were three issues in the Land Use Code that had not been addressed. She stated she had no problem with the standards but wanted to be clear on what was being asked. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 199�6 Page 6 representative will be able to contact the architect and will be involved in the decision -making process. 3. The buffer on the west side of the building. The Board was given a layout of the proposed landscaping. 4. Internal parking lot circulation, conflicts between cars and pedestrians, no crosswalks or sidewalks to building from parking areas and the protection of cars leaving the building. The Architect explained the owner's first priority is safety. He explained the various routes customers and technicians will take around the facility. He stated the speed limit within the lots is posted at 5 miles per mile. The parking lot is managed so that pedestrians and cars are safe. 5. Why 102 parking spaces were provided beyond the maximum parking spaces allowed. Mr. Lockwood explained there are 141 spaces allowed. The facility will provide 130 to accommodate the business but does not accommodate the automobile sale lot. 6. Strategically placed berming and landscaping. The Board felt they wanted to mitigate the visual effect of the site from Mason Street. The Architect cited Section 3.2.1(e)(4)(a) and Section 3.2.1(e)(4)(b) from the Land Use Code. He stated that the requirements have been met accordingly. 7. The buffer between parked cars and the trail system. Mr. Lockwood stated a fence will be built as a buffer. Shade trees will be located close to the easement line to provide a canopy effect for the trail system. The bench area, intended to be a buffer and not a courtyard, will be provided as seating for employees and customers. S. Crosswalks are painted instead of raised or bricked. Mr. Lockwood stated the Land Use Code made a painted crossing viable. He stated in the event the Board insisted on raised or bricked crosswalks, the owner would defer to their preference. 9. The Board wanted to view 3-D renderings of the building. Mr. Lockwood stated the facility will be of similar construction as the existing building on College Avenue. The proposed building will be taller to provide better screening for mechanical equipment on the roofs. Planning and Zoning Boaro Meeting of March 19. 199 f $ Page 5 terms of how this corridor will function. It is anticipated that within eight years a plan will be implemented for multi -modal transportation use. The Applicant has agreed to dedicate that 12-foot wide easement for a future bicycle/pedestrian trail. Such access easement would be dedicated along with the project. There are three exceptions to the Land Use Code that have not been met. They include: (1) Building Orientation, Section 3.5.1(d); (2) Orientation to Build to Lines for Street Front Buildings, Section 3.5.3(b)(2); and (3) 3.5.3(b)(2)(b). Staff found that the project as submitted based on land use and architectural compatibility to the surrounding land uses is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent and purposes of the chapter of the City Code. It will also protect public interests and purposes of the standards for which this modification is requested equally as well than would a plan that complies with the standards for which the modification is requested. The last request had to do with a 5-foot setback requirement along the side and rear property lines. The Applicant will be constructing a 6-foot high solid fence along with south side. The implementation of the 12-foot wide easement precludes the ability to provide a 5-foot wide landscape setback. Because the Applicant has agreed to dedicate a 12-foot wide access easement for a future trail, Staff recommended that the 5-foot landscape setback be waived and the parking lot be built to the north easement line. The Applicant would construct a fence along that property line once the trail is constructed. The Applicant, Dana Lockwood, Architect for the project, gave an overview of the project and addressed concerns by the Board at an earlier work session. Some of those concerns addressed by Mr. Lockwood were as follows: 1. The Board wanted to know why the existing facility on Troutman Parkway is being moved and how the move will affect the operation of both Pedersen facilities. Mr. Lockwood explained that the sister facility located on Troutman Parkway works closely with the dealership on College Avenue. Cars are transported from one facility to another. The high volume of car traffic to and from the facilities has resulted in a number of accidents. He stated that safety has been one of the primary reasons for moving the facility. The proposed facility will be less than a block from the existing facility on College Avenue. 2. Noise. The owner of the facility has invited a neighborhood spokesperson to be involved in the placing of any outdoor or exterior speakers. The Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of March 19, 1999 6 Page 4 Mr. Gavaldon supported the recommendation to deny the jail. He expressed concern for the citizens crossing at Midpoint Drive. He would like to see the facility look at their internal controls with better planning and internal security. Ms. Weitkunat spoke as a citizen and expressed concern for the security of the citizens of the community. She supported the idea of not having a sidewalk to deter people from getting close to the facility. She was against the motion. Mr. Eckman proposed an amendment to the motion. He suggested changing the wording from 'recommendation" to approval or disapproval. He also stated that the Board of Commissioners could overrule the P & Z Board by a two-thirds vote. He also suggested that the Board find the request violates Section 24,95 of the City Code, which is the code provision that requires a sidewalk. Mr. Chapman stated that he stood corrected on his motion in using the word "recommend" and would use the word "deny." He also supported the other changes suggested by Staff. Mr. Gavaldon stated he agreed with the changes to the motion. The Chair appreciated the statements of Staff but asked if there was another solution to the fence and sidewalk problem. Staff responded that there have been several internal meetings regarding the issue. The feeling was the sidewalk was needed to provide for pedestrian traffic in the area. Mr. Colton commented as to the security issue. Motion passed 7-1. Pedersen Auto Plaza Subdivision - Project Development Plan. (Replat of a Portion of Tract B. Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza), #25-97: Steve Olt, City Planner, related the following information: This is a request for a project development plan regarding an auto -related use located west of Harmony Road on Mason Street. The property is approximately three and -a -half acres in size. The building is approximately 30,000 square feet. Staff has reviewed the proposal and considered the provisions under the Land Use Code. Screening and landscaping standards have been considered by Staff to be met. A 12-foot wide pedestrian access easement is on the south side. The City has initiated a multi -modal corridor system along the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Money as been set aside to implement a study in