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.