HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/07/1997T • •
•
J
Council Liaison: Mike Byrne
Staff Liaison: Bob Blanchard
Chairperson: Gwen Bell Phone: (H) 221-3415
Vice -Chair: Glen Colton Phone: (H) 225-2760 (W) 679-3201
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Gwen Bell.
Roll Call: Chapman, Craig, Gavaldon, Colton, Davidson,•Weitkunat, Bell.
Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Stringer, Frazier, Reavis, Wamhoff, Ludwig, Harter
and Deines.
Agenda Review: Ted Shepard, Senior Planner reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
1. Minutes of the September 9, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing.
2. #32-96A Atlas Roofing P.U.D. - Final
3. #13-82BV Oakridge Business Park P.U.D., 26th Filing, Comfort Suites -
Final
4. #12-97 Harmony Technology Park - Overall Development Plan
Discussion Agenda:
5. Recommendation to City Council for the Approval of the
Transportation Master Plan as Part of City Plan.
Member Craig pulled Item 4, Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3,
including a variance for item 3.
Member Chapman seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 2
Project: Harmony Technology Park, Overall Development Plan
Case #: #12-97
Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for an office and
industrial park located in the Harmony Corridor. The site is
155.59 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of
Harmony Road and County Road #9. The property is zoned
H-C, Harmony Corridor.
LA :r •Ilt -- •- . i • •• .
ll,• M u• t ti t7 _i• • i •-t
Members Gavaldon and Colton declared a conflict of interest due to employment on
this project and would not be participating.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, representing the applicant gave a presentation on their
project. He gave a history of Hewlett Packard, future growth potential (land banking),
land uses within the Harmony Corridor Zoning District and the surrounding zoning
districts. Mr. Hendee also reviewed the site plan, spoke about transportation, access,
phasing, location of the commercial center, and the Harmony House.
There was no public input.
Member Craig asked about pedestrian safety at the pedestrian crossings.
Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning replied that the project meets the
requirements of the Level of Service C for pedestrian traffic.
Member Craig had concerns with the amount of traffic and level of speeds on Harmony
Road and asked Ms. Reavis if she thought this was safe and user friendly.
Mr. Reavis replied that there could be improvements, but that it can be made
adequately safe to work for people. It was not an ideal situation.
Member Craig asked if there would be adequate lighting.
•
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 3
Ms. Reavis stated that it could be done.
Member Craig asked what staff felt they could do to make the pedestrian crossing more
safe.
Ms. Reavis replied that originally they had asked for a pedestrian overpass provided.
However, we cannot require it of them, we can only require what is in the code. She
felt that there could be things done to make it more safe, but it will not be user friendly.
Member Craig asked about the allowance for a 30% reduction in trip generation.
Ms. Reavis replied that they were given the reduction based on the current site
operations with alternative modes and alternative work schedules. The new site will
promote alternative modes of transportation.
Member Weitkunat asked how many employees would be crossing Harmony Road.
• Mr. Hendee replied that there would be very little crossing due to the fact that one site
has nothing to do with the other. There would be no large scale movement of people
back and forth. There is really no relationship between the two sites.
Member Weitkunat asked about Harmony Road being a State Highway and with the
State Highway Access Plan, what would it do to the City or the developments role in
changing the pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile access.
Eric Bracke, Transportation Engineer replied that the Access Control Plan is an
Intergovernmental Agreement between CDOT and the City. To change the Access
Control Plan both City Council and CDOT have to agree to it. In terms of the Access
Code itself, it deals with roadway access, all the way down to farm access. He was not
even sure the Code deals with a pedestrian access. He stated that they have looked at
adding a signalized intersection at Technology Parkway and the west access to Hewlett
Packard. The City would agree to change the Access Control Plan to include a full
signal at that location and just not a pedestrian signal.
Mr. Hendee added that if it became necessary in the future, and a pedestrian overpass
was needed, it may be more appropriate to tie that to a specific preliminary
development plan when the future is more certain that at ODP stage.
Mr. Bracke stated that this development would be done if phases. The developer will
• be required to update the traffic study and make comparisons as to how close are they
to their trip generation estimates. There can be modifications made at each phase. In
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 4
terms of visitor traffic back and forth, most of the business that transpires during is at
non -peak times.
Member Craig asked if the Southside Shuttle would be extended to this site.
Ms. Reavis replied that they have talked to the applicant about the possibility of
extending the Southside Shuttle to this site. As far as any definite plans, that has not
yet been accomplished.
Chairperson Bell asked if all of the projects that come in for review in this business park
would come before the Board.
Planner Shepard replied no, not if they are permitted in the HC Zone as a Type I, and
they don't exceed certain thresholds, or if they don't need any modifications.
Member Chapman moved of approval of the Harmony Technology Park Overall
Development Plan, #12-97.
Member Weitkunat seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
project: Recommendation to City Council for the Approval of the
Transportation Master Plan as Part of City Plan.
Tom Frazier, Transportation Department, gave the staff presentation to the Board.
Member Chapman commented on the regional connections issue brought up at
worksession and the truck and automobile bypasses planned for Fort Collins. He
stated that those two items were specifically of interest to him -- to reduce the vehicle
miles traveled, congestion and pollution that comes from thru traffic having to come thru
town. He believes that needs to be part of the Regional Transit Plan.
Member Chapman stated that what he saw in the proposed changes in the Master
Street Plan was very favorable.
Member Chapman also commented on Section 22, the Transit Development Plan. The
Plan lists a number of things that certainly seem logical that they would create more
riders. Member Chapman mentioned the goal of increased ridership to 2 million annual
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 5
trips. What concerns him is that he does not see anything that indicates that we have
done some kind of anaylsis or surveys of the citizens whom we hope will switch from
what ever mode of transportation they are currently using to the transit system. If that
has been done, he felt that it should be noted and would be useful for the support of all
the things we plan to do — that would be based on the expectation from citizens that
they would ride the bus if these things were done. His focus is not on how much we
expand the system, but how much more people use the system.
Chairperson Bell summarized what the Board was looking for in the level of service at
intersections. In general, what the Board was looking at was taking the four different
quadrants of the City and picking several key intersections and motorways — be it
pedestrian, buses or autos — and take a look at different scenarios.
Member Davidson added that he would also like to see time windows, how long will it
take us, best and worse case scenarios, to get from point A to point B thru the city.
Member Gavaldon also would like to see lane segment anaylsis included. He felt it
• would give a good visual perspective of the information they are looking for.
Member Colton would also like to see anaylsis of what traffic will be like when we get to
the 2015 City Plan. How long will it take, if the City develops according to City Plan, to
get from one destination to the other. He would like to see factual data on that issue.
Member Davidson was concerned with traffic evolving with density and how that would
effect our natural areas. He is also concerned with noise on natural areas, air quality
and water quality and these are things that are not dealt with in this Transportation
Plan. He would like to see them addressed in some manner.
Member Davidson would like to see water standards, for runoff into wetlands.
Planner Shepard replied that the Stormwater Utility Department is working on that anc
his understanding is that under the federal level, the EPA will mandate that cities over
100,000 by a certain year, implement through ordinance, pre treatment of the
stormwater before it enters into a drainage channel. He believes the city is ahead of
the curve and staff is already working on it.
Planner Shepard stated that the way it will probably be implemented is through the
development review process. That plans would not be approved until the applicant
• would demonstrate that they have a water treatment process that will treat the surface
runoff per the standards.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 6
Member Weitkunat asked if staff is looking for additions or addendums to what they
have already done -- will the comments received be additions to the Master Plan that
would be looked at in future years or added to this plan.
Mr. Frazier replied that what they are seeing is a synopsis of all the previous plans the
Board has seen -- that this is a short version to give to developers so they don't have to
read every document, with the exception of financial plan. The expectation is that the
feedback staff gets from all the Boards and Commissionswould be things that they may
have missed, that are not clear, and that needs further investigation. These would be
things that are open to inclusion in the Board's motion for staff to look at in the future.
Member Weitkunat commented that this is a good document. There are a lot of pieces
that have gone into it, there have been a lot of Boards and Commissions, community
input to cover all things. One thing that is an area of concern is inadequate public
facilities. The deficiencies and the problems — we can take care of new projects and
new development, but there are parts of the city that are inadequate where it is not
even looked at and no capital funds are ever available. Where would this be
addressed, or is it, in the Plan.
Mr. Frazier replied that throughout the document it talks about not only the current
service that is being provided and that some of it is inadequate -- the inadequacies
that are addressed throughout each document will be part of the financial plan, and
those unfunded needs will be identified.
Member Craig asked about the connection between Summitview and Timberline and
was it the east/west connection, not the north/south connection, 7a.
Mr. Frazier replied that on the current plan it shows Summitview as a collector
connecting into Timberline. What the current design is that that will be a cul-de-sac. It
will not connect and what will happen is that the collector, Summitview will be
disconnected from Timberline.
Member Colton commented that the Board would like maps of each of these plans.
Mr. Frazier replied that the Board would receive those in their final copies of the Plan.
Member Colton asked about a regional plan.
Mr. Frazier replied that there are two plans going on, the 2020 North Front Range
Regional Plan which covers out metropolitan area. The other one is the Transportation
Anaylsis and Feasibility Study that will take a look at the corridor from Fort Collins to
Denver.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 7, 1997
Page 7
Member Gavaldon stated for the record that he is concerned about the financial plan
and felt that it was the glue to bring all the wonderful plans together. How we will pay
for this and the needs and costs and felt it was important to make their decisions. In
the future he would at least like to see an outline.
Member Colton would also like to see in the financial plan is the unfunded deficiencies
and also some discussion around how to determine which things are attributable to
growth and what is not. What things go into street oversizing and which things end up
in capital improvements or unfunded.
Mr. Frazier reviewed for the Board a timeline for when they may see other components
of this plan and what the Board would be seeing in the future.
Member Chapman moved that the Board recommend to City Council that the
portion of the Transportation Master Plan they have reviewed tonight is ready for
approval, but that they not approved it until they have a satisfactory financial plan
and a satisfactory regional transportation connections plan with the visual aides
included in that documentation.
• Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
0