Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - FINAL ..... CONTINUED P & Z BOARD HEARING TO 4/08/96 - 21-95A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 17 Member Bell asked about the south elevation and what could be done to accommodate it better. Ms. Ripley replied that the first time the neighborhood saw it, there was nothing back there but brick. Since they have added dormers to the building, columns have been added for articulation, and there maybe some signage back there to provide some visual interest. They are the back of retail buildings and not an appropriate place for windows or entrances. There will be doors back there, but they will be back doors. Ms. Ripley presented the building materials to the Board. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the Prospect Park PUD - Final, with the standard condition from staff, including the updated condition of approval from the City Forester. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Davidson asked for an amendment to insure that all crosswalks are scribbed concrete including the south side and all entrances. Members Mickelsen and Colton agreed to the amendment. Member Colton also added a condition that the Austrian Pine trees be increased to 7 and 8's on the south side of the buildings. Member Mickelsen agreed to the condition. The motion was approved 6-0. JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D., PRELIMINARY. #50-95. Member Strom joined the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Mike Ludwig, City Planner gave the staff report and presented slides, recommending approval including a variance to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four for each of the 120 - 4br units and approval of the Preliminary P.U.D including the completion of Orchard Place through the site. Member Gaveldon asked what the vacancy rate was on the CSU campus. Planner Ludwig responded he did not know. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 16 the owners of both of the housing projects have not agreed to allow them to build a walk. Her client was willing to build a sidewalk connection, and so far they have declined the offer. Planner Shepard added that staff was working with the Northwood Property Management Company as well as the Stonecreek Management Company in hopes that Stonecreek will grant an easement, and Northwood will grant the developer to build an 8 foot sidewalk off of the semi -circular drive you see off of Stuart. Member Davidson asked about the sidewalk at Shields and Prospect. Was it a sidewalk that abuts the road, or is there a grass median between the sidewalk and the Road. Ms. Ripley reviewed the sidewalks using the site plan slide. Member Bell asked about the truck traffic. Ms. Ripley replied that they anticipate that trucks would enter the site coming from the north, the site is designed so that would be the easiest way for them to maneuver through the site. Ms. Ripley felt that the trucks would not use the left -in because they could not do it without running over the median. Member Bell asked about the median. Ms. Ripley replied that the median would extend from the intersection south then allowing the left -in but no left -out. Member Bell stated that her only concern is still pedestrians going north to the school. Ms. Ripley replied that crossing guards have been discussed, but the City did not want to get into recommending crossing guards at every street intersection. The City did not encourage that option. Member Davidson asked if there was any potential for 24-hour businesses or gas stations. Planner Shepard replied that those land uses are prohibited. Member Colton asked about the view from the south and asked if it would be possible to have the oversized plantings installed. Ms. Ripley responded that all the shrubbery was 5-gallon. She stated they could up size the trees to 7 and 8 from 6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 15 Mr. Bracke replied that it was always difficult to modify an individual's access. The City has the right to go in and modify access, they cannot deny it, but can modify it if there is a safety issue involved. Member Davidson asked about pedestrian/bike access within the service center. Mr. Davidson reviewed his concerns with the entrances to the development. Mr. Davidson asked it the concrete would be colored so it would stand out. Ms. Ripley stated they had not planned on colored concrete, but that decision has not been finalized. Ms. Ripley addressed the pedestrian/bike concerns. She reviewed the access locations and the materials that would be used in the crosswalks. Ms. Ripley also reviewed the pedestrian circulation. Member Davidson stated he still would like to see color in the crosswalks. Ms. Ripley stated they would rather spend the extra money in the plaza than putting into color concrete. Member Davidson asked about maybe a brick or stone material. Ms. Ripley stated they would like to keep the scored concrete at this point. Member Davidson asked about the entrances on Prospect. Ms. Ripley replied they do not have a crosswalk scored at that point but if the Board felt if was a major pedestrian route they could accommodate it. Member Davidson asked about crossing the island, and that there was no other way of crossing it besides going around it. Ms. Ripley responded that they could correct that and make the point of the island paving if the Board would prefer. Ward Stanford, Engineering Department added that they would be requesting pedestrian access across both of the entrances on Prospect. Member Davidson also mentioned access coming from the apartments at Stonecreek. Ms. Ripley stated that was the end of their jurisdiction She stated that the neighborhood was adamant about wanting to get pedestrian connections to both Stonecreek as well as Northwood Apartments. Staff also put a lot of energy into trying to make that happen. Ms. Ripley stated her client was not opposed to that, however, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 14 Mr. Bracke talked about the bus stop and the right -turn lane. He stated that there were better situations. Bus turnouts are becoming more common, and is one of the recommendations of the Transit Development Program. Bus turnouts are not the same as a right -turn lane. Mr. Bracke stated that we currently have bus stops in decel lanes, they work, the buses are there only a few minutes of every hour and is very typical in urban conditions. Staff has no reason to believe that it is unsafe. Member Bell asked why the bus could not go through the development. Gaylene Rossiter, Transfort Department replied that if the buses were to go through development after development, it could really strain the schedule. Transfort does go into some areas that are very heavily populated, such as Foothills Fashion Mall, and even then the buses stay to the outskirts. The route on Shields that would be going southbound and northbound would have difficulty with it's schedule. That route does go into the Senior Center, and going into this center also would create a non -direct route and a non -efficient route to ride. Member Gaveldon asked if it was possible to push the stop further south of the development. Ms. Rossiter replied that could be a possibility, and that possibility would be evaluated. Member Gaveldon asked about sporting events in the area and was there any consideration of minimizing that. Planner Shepard replied that we try not to plan land development for those infrequent events. Member Davidson asked if a turn -in could be added to not block the deceleration lane. Mr. Bracke replied that would make a very unsafe move for the bus driver. Member Davidson was concerned about people crossing over on Shields to get to this development. Mr. Bracke responded that all we can do is provide the facilities and the safe crossings. We do provide people with information about how to cross an arterial, but people will cross where they want to and we cannot make them cross at the crosswalk. Member Davidson asked about the two-year removal clause regarding the left turn -in off of Shields. He was concerned that once it was in there it would be very hard to change it if that is what needs to happen. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 13 access. They also still have concerns with the bus stop and it's location, and possibly moving the bus stop internal on the site. Mr. Roehrig stated they also had concerns with unknown land uses. Mr. Roehrig talked about vehicular safety and cited Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.1 for vehicular/pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Mr. Roehrig showed an overhead of the Prospect/Shields intersection and discussed his concerns with bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Roehrig also discussed the left -in only turn lane off of Shields Street and explained that they adimetly oppose it. Mr. Roehrig also discussed the safety of the pedestrian traffic of school children, Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.6. The concern they still have is with the bicycle and pedestrian access to this project, especially from the south. He asked that an access to the south be pursued. Mr. Roehrig spoke on architecture and landscaping, Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria A2.7, and A2.13. He stated that the architecture has improved considerably, they would have like to see a little more imagination on how the building design was done, specifically, the south elevations. Mr. Roehrig also suggested making the plantings oversized on the south to help break up the building and make it more visually pleasing. Mr. Roehrig encouraged the developer to work from their list of suggested users for this center. They spoke for the record that they were against 24-hour services, and gasoline and service stations. Mr. Roehrig stated, in summary, they have tried to summarize where they stand and give the Board some issues to think about. Betty Maloney, lives in neighborhood, stated that she has no objection to the drug store and thought it had been adequately addressed regarding the kinds of businesses they would like to see in the center. She felt the interior of the center would be pedestrian friendly. She did not feel that the left turn on north Shields would be a concern. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairman Walker asked that the transit issues be addressed. Eric Bracke, Transportation Services stated he was hesitant about allowing the left turn - in, and that the left -in would improve the level of service at the intersection. Mr. Bracke addressed pedestrian activity. There are approximately 60 - 70 children that walk this route and back daily, but the peak times are different when the children are going to school. This is an area that is used to high pedestrian activity and with the school kids that cross the intersection now, the City is providing three crossing guards in the area. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 12 Ruth Clear, Traffic Engineer for the project gave an overview, reviewing the three access locations of the project. Ms. Clear stated that three intersections were looked at in the traffic study, Prospect and Shields, Prospect and Stonecreek, and Shields and Stuart. There was an A.M. and P.M. peak hour study done and existing traffic count data, which was collected when C.S.U. was in session, and a 1997 background traffic analysis was done. They also did a year 2010 traffic analysis with and without the extension of Centre Avenue. Ms. Clear stated that the intersection of Prospect and Shields is currently operating at level of service E during the P.M. peak hour. Ms. Clear reviewed her recommendations regarding the accesses, turn lanes and intersections. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association stated their neighborhood was lacking services like those being provided in this center. Ms. Smith stated the Prospect/Shields Association had worked diligently for several years and with several developers on ways to provide these needed services. Most recently, the Prospect Park proponents toward a solution which would meet both the developers expectations and the neighborhoods needs. They believe these efforts have been highly productive and consistent with current City policies, the City's future planning direction, and their neighborhood's best interest. The proposal the Board is considering tonight reflects cooperative efforts between the Prospect Park developers and their neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated that preliminary analysis in the West Central Neighborhood Planning Process shows that 21 % of the city's people live on 7% of the city's land and within 1 mile of this site. Ms. Smith stated that their Association was not interested in roadside business, but only businesses that benefit their neighborhood by providing the necessities that the neighborhood lacks, promoting a sense of community within the neighborhood, and making the neighborhood more viable as a place to live and work in over the long-term. Ms. Smith stated that they believe the current Prospect Park proposal meets most of their goals. The developer, city staff, and their Association spent a great amount of time in resolution of problem issues related to the project. However, a few, which they have discussed at length with the developer had not been fully resolved. John Roehrig, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association reviewed the problem issues they felt were not resolved with the developer. Mr. Roehrig addressed the left -in turn from northbound Shields; and that the tractor-trailor rigs coming in to deliver goods and services into the development from northbound Shields would be blocking across southbound Shields as it is trying to get into that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 8, 1996 Hearing Page 11 Member Mickelsen was impressed with the changes that have been made and moved for approval of the requested variance to Absolute Criterion 1 on the Community Regional Shopping Center Point Chart pertaining to the primary access being off South College. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Mickelsen moved for approval of the University Center P.U.D., Preliminary. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. PROSPECT PARK P.U.D. - FINAL. #21-95A Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the standard final utility plan and development agreement condition and the following condition from the City Forester: Approval of Prospect Park Final P.U.D. is conditioned upon a further evaluation of street trees at the intersection of Prospect and Shields. Such evaluation shall take place no later than six weeks after issuance of a Temporary/Final Certificate of Occupancy. Such evaluation shall include the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, the City Forester, the City Planning Department, and the Developer. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the planting of street trees is desirable in relation to the view of the mountains and the project. In the event that planting is agreed upon, the City would plant the trees during the next planting season. If necessary, such trees shall be of a height that may be less than that of a traditional deciduous street tree. Linda Ripley, Ripley Associates, representing the property owner and developer for Prospect Park spoke on various aspects of the project. Ms. Ripley spoke on previous proposed land uses on the property, working with the neighborhood on acceptable land uses, reduction of intensity on the site since preliminary, traffic, architectural character, signage on buildings, elevations of the drug store, lighting on the site, landscape, architecture, the plaza space for the neighborhood, pedestrian access, hours of operation, water quality and the wetland. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 8, 1996 CONTINUATION MEETING FOR MARCH 25,1996 6:30 P.M. Council Liaison: Gina Janett I Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard Chairperson: Lloyd Walker Phone: 491-6172 (W) 221-0489(H) There was no Vice Chair elect at this hearing. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Colton, Bell, Davidson, Gaveldon, Mickelsen, Walker. Member Strom arrived at 10:36 p.m. Staff Present: Ludwig, Ashbeck, Olt, Shepard, Wamhoff, Duvall, Blanchard, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director Blanchard reviewed the continued Discussion Agenda, which consisted of the following: 1. #1-96 BMC West PUD - Preliminary and Final 2. #2-96 University Centre PUD (University Mall) - Preliminary 3. #21-95A Prospect Park PUD - Final 4. #50-95 Jefferson Commons PUD - Preliminary 5. #7-95 Country Club Farms Rezoning Mike Ludwig gave a staff presentation on the project, recommending approval with the standard development agreement and final utility plan condition. Linda Ripley, Ripley and Associates, representing BMC West gave a brief history of the project and believed they had satisfied all 32 development criteria. Ms. Ripley stated the issues to her are vague and asked for questions to be asked so she could address them. Member Davidson asked about the Prospect Streetscape Program, and he felt this property fell within that area, Roman Numeral 11-1; and, that the business park style should apply to all development improvements within the developed urban district from Riverside Avenue to the Cache La Poudre River. He also referenced Appendix A.1 and the statement regarding streetscapes. Member Davidson stated that he did not feel the mandatory standards were being applied to this site.