Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/12/1997Council Liaison: Mike Byrne I 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: Weitkunat, Gavaldon, Colton, Davidson, Chapman, Bell. Staff Present: Blanchard, Eckman, Olt, Wamhoff, Stanford, Ludwig, Schlueter and Macklin. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the continued discussion agenda: 10. #58-86C Richard's Lake PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan. • 11. #58-86D Richard's Lake PUD, Phase I - Preliminary 12. #1.97 First Assembly of God PUD - Preliminary (Continued) 13. Modification of Conditions of Approval 2. #17-90C Spring Creek Center PUD - Preliminary Project Name: Richard's Lake PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan Case Number: #58-86C Project Description: This is a request for approval of an amended Overall Development Plan (ODP) for a total of 682 residential dwelling units, 21,000 square feet of neighborhood business/commercial/office/residential uses, a 15,000 square foot community building/daycare/clubhouse building, and a 7.2 acre neighborhood park site on 181.7 acres. The project is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 11 and Richard's Lake Road and is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. pF-Ii. :_ •j7M °1 •- e • ee a .I 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 2 The following individuals testified at the hearing: Steve Olt, City Planner, gave a staff presentation stating that staff was recommending approval. (See Staff Report for more detailed information). WOMOW.Tons ,1 Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, 117 E. Mountain Avenue, Suite 200A, gave a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He gave a history of the project and spoke about current zoning on the property, vested rights, current utilities on the property, transportation, neighborhood compatibility, density, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, the current and proposed Overall Development Plans, and the proposed Activity Center. Member Colton asked what uses would be anticipated being in this smaller neighborhood size commercial center as compared to the larger Activity Center. Mr. Sell replied that there would be a small coffee shop/restaurant, maybe a laundry, convenience store, etc. Neighborhood services that are within walking distance. Member Weitkunat asked what changes were the Board being asked to consider on this ODP. Mr. Sell replied that the changes were in density, the location of the Activity Center, the street structure, the size of the commercial area, the increase in open space and the deletion of the school that was in the original plan. Chairperson Bell had concerns with inter -connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Sell responded that it was a sensitive issue due to the neighborhoods having private streets and that they were just assessed by the County for repaving, and they did not want additional traffic on their streets. r-I I1 IW,I11�� Shirley Knox, 2505 N. County Road 11, representing her neighborhood stated that the neighborhood has been involved with this project for over a year. She asked that the Board approve the ODP. Ms. Knox stated that the Board had a memorandum of agreement in their packet that they have come to with the developer. Ms. Knox spoke on compatibility, the neighborhood community center, that her neighborhood agrees • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 3 with the commercial being located in the center of the development, and the trail system. Ms. Knox stated that her neighborhood felt that this is a better plan and urged the Board to approved the ODP amendment. Randy Allen, read a letter into the record from Richard Andrews, who was not able to attend. The letter stated that he felt that the proposed ODP was a better plan than the existing plan. Virginia McCambridge, 1905 Richards Lake Road spoke about working with the developer to incorporate their ideas into this plan. She stated that this plan has the approval of all the residents on Richards Lake Road. She spoke on compatibility, the park and commercial area, and accessibility. She asked the Board to approve the amendment to the ODP. Jerry Duath, Serramonte Homeowners Association stated that the new plan provides better transitioning from the currently approved plan. He stated that the residents of Serramonte support the amended plan. • Kathleen Kilkelly, northeast resident stated that she supports the efforts of the neighborhood working group. She feels that the amended design is far superior to the existing plan. Ms. Kilkelly spoke on the trail system and she asked the Board to approve the amendment. Bridgette Schmidt, northeast resident stated that the amended plan is better, more compatible and works well in transitioning. Tom Parker, resident stated that he has concerns with density and traffic. He did not feel that the traffic issues have been addressed. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CLOSED Member Colton asked about vested rights, and if this is not approved, would the development have vested rights. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied that it is a process that the developer is going through for a determination of a common law vested right. It is more of, is there a vested right because of developer activity and expense incurred. • Member Colton asked what the timeline would be for the Commercial Activity Center. Director Blanchard replied that was unknown. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 4 Member Colton asked about current and future employment in the area. Mr. Sell and Planner Olt responded that there are 702 employees at Anheuser Busch currently and that they did not know of any future industrial locating in the area at this point. Chairperson Bell asked where the existing approved commercially available sites were located. Mr. Olt presented a slide and explained the surrounding land uses: Member Colton commented that this was an improvement from the existing ODP, but he did not feel that this project meets the Land Use Policies Plan. Member Weitkunat felt that the Policies that should be looked at are the one's that are directing growth in the northeast. She felt it was not the intent of the Land Use Policies Plan to make ODP's address every policy in the Plan. Member Weitkunat moved for approval of the Amendment to the Overall Development Plan for the Richard's Lake P.U.D. Member Chapman seconded the motion. Member Gavaldon commented he felt a lot of good work had been done by the Developer and the neighbors. He would be supporting the motion. Member Chapman felt the Developer and the neighbors had done the best example that he had seen in trying to work together to come up with a better plan. He felt that this was a better plan and it addresses many of the key things in the northeast that need to be addressed. Member Colton commented that until the City changes it's policy on locational criteria not being important, he would stand by those policies in saying that it is important to be close to existing schools, to existing shopping, to existing employment centers, or at least be close to ones that are planned. He did not think this amended plan meets #16, 22, 50, 49, 79a and 79c of the Land Use Policies Plan. He would not be supporting the motion. Member Davidson also felt that we were creating more vehicle trip miles because we do not have a viable service center in this development or in the area. He did think that there were many nice things about this development, with the exception of the commercial, and it was a more improved version of the last ODP. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 5 Planner Olt stated that the existing ODP expired with the Transition Ordinance, but the developer has submitted an application for vested rights of that ODP. The application tonight is for an amendment to that ODP that was approved in 1986. Chairperson Bell felt that the changes are good, but felt that there might not be enough supporting services in the area. 0 The motion was approved 4-2, with Members Colton and Davidson voting in the negative. Project Name: Richard's Lake PUD, Phase I - Preliminary #58-86D Case # #58-86D • Project Description: Request for a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for 293 single family residential lots, 64 multi -family residential dwelling units, 21,000 square feet of neighborhood business/commercial/office/residential uses, a 15,000 square foot community/daycare/clubhouse building, and a 6.0 to 7.0 acre neighborhood park site on 114.62 acres. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 11 and Richard's Lake Road and is zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: The determination of final off -site access alignments will be decided prior to final Planning and Zoning Board approval. Determinations will be based on a future study of the proposed northeast activity center, to be conducted by the City Advance Planning Department, future traffic development that may occur in the area, and necessary negotiations with area property owners for street right-of- way. 2. The applicant/developer of the Richard's Lake PUD must submit to the City all necessary signed easements and agreements witht the Eaton Ditch Company, owners of the No.8 Outlet Ditch, and affected private property owners to allow • detained storm water runoff to outfall into the No.8 Ditch. The necessary easements and agreements must be included with the Final PUD submittal to the City and the Eaton Ditch Company must approve and sign the final utility plans prior to their being recorded and filed in the City. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 6 Hearing Testimony. Comments and Other Evidence: For the City: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval with conditions. For the Applicant icant: Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing the applicant gave a detailed presentation. He discussed the large greenbelt areas, the trails, density, the activity center, the mix of housing types, the commercial area, road alignments and improvements, and the variance for the child care center. Member Chapman asked about the homeowner's list of agreements with the builder and that the south side of Richard's Lake Road would not meet city standards. Mr. Sell replied that no changes would be made to the south side of that road, but curb, gutter, a detached sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway would be added on the north side. He stated that Engineering had approved it, and that it would be to disruptive to the mature landscaping to make those changes to the south side. Member Weitkunat asked about contiguity. Mr. Olt replied that Hearthfire does not qualify because it is not built. It does have some contiguity from the first phase of Richard's Lake P.U.D., but it is such a small portion that they cannot get points for it, and the Country Club is in the County, so no points can be awarded there. Member Davidson asked if the two designated lots for daycare were unsuccessful as such, would they then become houses. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney replied that it would be a violation of the PUD. PUBLIC INPUT Margaret Phillips, resident, addressed the issue of growth in the north. She stated that this was an error the City made several years ago when this property was annexed as a flagpole annexation. She believed that the developer has done an excellent job trying to make the best of a bad situation. Nick Yobbaby, lives on Richards Lake Road reiterated that the developer has done a fine job in making this area contiguous to the area that already exists. Mr. Yobbaby spoke to concerns with County Road 11 and the traffic it will bring into the area. He stated that the frontage road the developer is proposing has consent from all the homeowners on County Road 11 and felt it would help the situation and provide a buffer and limited access. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 7 Pat Knavel, lives on Country Club Road, spoke on the traffic pattens and his concern that people would use Country Club Road to access services and asked that a traffic study be done to show what the traffic would be going out to Lemay or College. Ken Forbes, lives on County Road 11, spoke on his concerns with County Road 11, access into the area and traffic patterns. Don Homan, lives in Adriel Hills stated that he did not have a problem with the proposed development and spoke to his concerns with the traffic patterns. Dean Smith, Boxelder Sanitation District, spoke in favor of the development. He encouraged the Board to support this project. Tom Parker, resident, felt that this was putting the cart before the horse. He had a lot of concerns with traffic patterns, and no alternatives. He felt that there was a.minority supporting this as far as population is concerned in the northeast. • Dr. Codd, lives on Country Club Road, spoke about traffic on Country Club Road. He was concerned with the children on Country Club road walking to Tavelli School. He asked that the developer have another alternative route but Country Club Road. Shirley Knox, 2505 N. County Road 11, stated that she understands the transportation issues and she felt that all the roads would have to be built eventually if this property was going to develop. She stated that the developer was willing to make major road improvements in the northeast and work with the neighbors. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Planner Olt asked the Board to add to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the staff report, the day care variance, so it would be part of any action the Board might take on this proposal. He would like it to indicate as an additional Finding of Fact that the single daycare location is considered to be an appropriate location in this development. It will require a variance by the Board. Staff is suggesting that it is an appropriate location in lieu of the two proposed daycares -- it would meet the intent of the residential density point chart. Planner Olt also read into the record the two proposed conditions of this project. • Member Chapman asked what streets were planned in this area according to the Master Street Plan. His concerns were north and south access on arterial roads and east and west access. He also asked when the road in Hearthfire would be completed in conjunction with the roads in this development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 8 Ward Stanford, Engineering Department gave an explanation of the existing and proposed roads and their designations according to the Master Street Plan. Chairperson Bell asked about the impacts around Tavelli School. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer for the applicant stated that traffic studies that some of the neighbors called for have been done. He stated that Country Club Road is now operating at a level of service A and B. He stated that the road can handle a lot more volume than it is currently. He stated that with phase 1 of this development the service level would only drop to level B and C. Member Davidson asked about pedestrian safety on Country Club Road. Mr. Delich replied that there is no curb, gutter and minimal paved shoulders. It is a County Road, and that is the preference of the people who live along it. Member Weitkunat asked what purview did this Board have over county roads. Mr. Stanford replied that there is cooperation between the City and County for off -site improvements, and that if the property is in the UGA, then they have to meet urban street requirements. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Delich about the intersection of Vine Drive and Lemay and where did he see it in 5 years. Mr. Delich replied that the intersection would operate acceptably by city standards, no worse that level of service D. Member Gavaldon asked Mr. Delich about the intersection of Lemay and Country Club road and where did he see it in 5 years. Mr. Delich replied that with minimal improvements, it would operate at an acceptable level, but would operate better if it had a three -lane cross-section, which the residents that live along the road do not want. Scott Price, Wintergreen Homes gave a history and progression of what they have looked at as far as traffic. Member Colton stated that he understood the off -site improvements that are being done here, but he also knows that there are impacts to other areas. He would like to know what is going on with all the streets in this area and long-term, who is actually paying for the needed improvements. He asked that it be part of the analysis that is being done by Advance Planning and Transportation. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 9 Chairperson Bell asked about the needed easements for storm drainage. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Department explained that the easements were off -site easements, and without them they probably do not have a project. Member Chapman moved for approval of the variance for the daycare center, allowing a single daycare center, and that it will comply with the intent of the code, and we do not require two to be in exact compliance with the 1,000 feet. Member Chapman stated that the variance would be equal to or better than the original proposal. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Chapman moved for approval of the Richard's Lake PUD, Preliminary, Phase 1, with the following conditions: • 1. The determination of final off -site access alignments north to south and east to west will be decided prior to the final Planning and Zoning Board approval. Determinations will be based on a future traffic study of the proposed northeast activity center, to be conducted by the City Advance Planning Department and Transportation Services Department, involving future development that may occur in the area, and necessary negotiations for street right-of-way with area property owners. 2. The applicant/developer of the Richard's Lake PUD must submit to the City all necessary signed easements and agreements with the Eaton Ditch Company, owners of the No. 8 Outlet Ditch, and affected private property owners to allow detained storm water runoff to outfall into the No. 8 Ditch. The necessary easements and agreements must be included with the Final PUD submittal to the City and the Eaton Ditch Company must approve and sign the final utility plans prior to their being recorded and filed in the City. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion.' The motion was approved 5-0. n LJ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 10 Project Name: Spring Creek Center PUD, Preliminary Case #: #17-90C Project Descriptien: This is a request for 86,055 square feet of mixed use development to include office, business services, and auto - related convenience uses in seven buildings on 11.6 acres. The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of E. Prospect Road and Timberline Road, north of Midpoint Drive, and west of Specht Point Road. The property is zoned E, Employment. Approval with the following condition: 1. The alignment of the proposed bike/pedestrian path between the north facades of buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the Spring Creek Channel will be further reviewed at the time of Final PUD application(s) to ensure the safety of users. Hearing_ Testimony. Comments and Other Evidence: Member Colton pulled this item from the consent agenda. He stated that his issues were stormwater drainage and what would be done with the water before it is let out into Spring Creek. Second, the location of the bike trail being too close to the creek. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, replied that the stormwater will be treated with a water quality device of some kind. Also, the question on the bike path deals with a pedestrian/bike pathway that is not the city trail, and is being provided with the development, and it's proximity to the top of the bank of the channel. Mr. Ward stated that they have talked to staff and have agreed to make adjustments to get more separation. Mr. Ward explained that the water would drain into a central circulation way which is where it will be treated and released into a pipe into the natural drainageway. Chairperson Bell asked what the treatment process would include. Mike Jones, Northern Engineering, representing the applicant replied that oil/water separators are common devices and that is what device would be used. Member Davidson asked about capacity. Mr. Jones replied that it could be designed for any size storm event we want • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 11 Member Davidson asked about safeguards being taken for fuel tanks leaking. Mr. Jones replied that they would have double vaults. That is where the fuel tanks are sifting in another concrete vault which has one and a half times the capacity of the fuel tank itself. There are also monitoring standards. Motion: Member Colton moved for approval of Spring Creek Center PUD, Preliminary with the condition stated in the staff report. Member Weitkunat seconded the motion. The motion was approved. 5-0. Project Name: Review of Selected Projects for Continued Modification of • Final Approval Project Descri t� At the March 24, 1997 P & Z Board Meeting, the Board identified five projects that they would like to review and reconsider continued modification of final approval. After reviewing each project, the Board should take one of two actions: • vote to continue modifying the final approval which will allow the project to remain active while utility plans are being finalized and a development agreement formulated; or, • deny the modification of final approval which will deny the continued extension of the time frame for finalization of utility plans and development agreement. The Board requested a review of the following project: • Bank One at Harmony Market • Waterglen PUD; • Hugh M. Woods; • Centre For Advanced Technology, 17th Filing; and, • Christ Fellowship Church • Chairperson Bell reported that items One and Four have been filed and are no longer on the list. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 12 Director Blanchard reported that P & Z Approval was given on November 20, 1995. Engineering has indicated that several rounds of utility plans were reviewed, but the final round of comments were returned to the applicants in April of last year and there has been no activity on the project since. Director Blanchard explained that the Pastor has indicated that they have been actively raising money to continue the process and when sufficient funds are raised, the project will once again become active. Chairperson Bell stated that since the church is raising money to continue the process, she feels that they are actively working on the project. Member Chapman moved to approve the extension on this project. This will leave the project on the month -to -month list. Chairperson Bell asked for a letter from the church stating that they are actively fund raising to continue this process. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-1, with Member Colton voting in the negative. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design stated that the Board received a brief summary in their staff report. He stated that this was a very complicated project from an engineering standpoint, and gave a list of requirements this project has had to complete. Mr. Ward reported that there is ongoing progress and the plans are nearing final form. The applicant has well over $400,000 invested in the project and pulling the rug out from under the project certainly would be deemed a hardship. Mr. Ward stated that there was a letter in the Board's packet stating the change in ownership on the project from the original owner at the time of approval. Mr. Ward stated that it would be at least the fall, later this year before there is a development agreement executed and that would be with ongoing efforts. Ward Stanford, Engineering Department concurred with Mr. Ward. He stated they have worked out a great deal of issues on the off -site items. They are fairly close to being finalized. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Ward gave a detailed history of the project highlighting all the changes in staff and other people over time involved with the project and its effect on the processing timeline. PUBLIC INPUT Dana Lenninger, 941 N. County Road 5 read a statement she prepared on the issue. She asked that further extensions on the project be denied. (Copy of letter included with minutes). PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Colton asked how much time City Staff has spent on this project. Mr. Stanford replied that both parties have spent a great deal of time on this project. He felt that the developers new engineer will get the job finished because they are more familiar with this kind of development. • Member Weitkunat commented that from everything they have heard, it seems that this project is being actively worked on. It sounds like there is some specific and unique circumstances that prevent this from coming to fruition at an earlier date. She doubts that it would be detrimental to the public good if the Board did approve this. Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the continued modification of final approval for the Waterglen PUD. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Colton recommended that the project be completed by January of 1998, or the Board will no longer continue to modify it. That would be three years from the date of the appeal. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked Member Colton if he was suggesting that this extension go to January 1998 and no further unless the development agreement and utility plans are done. Member Colton replied that he would like to have the conditions met by that time. Member Weitkunat felt that the process should be scrutinized more carefully and that it is not just Waterglen, but many other projects in the pipeline. She feels that in fairness to all the applicant's and projects, she would like the Board to consider what is fair and reasonable and appropriate that would span all projects. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 14 Member Colton stated he would accept the motion as stated. The motion was approved 5-0. Wi a 13 ... Jim Sell, representing Front Range Limited Partnership, owners of the property, stated that the PUD has been vested since March 10, 1995. He stated that the project was inactive, but that they did not want to abandon the PUD, so it would remain valid for three years before an extension request is necessary. He stated that his client was not asking for an open-ended period of time where a development agreement could be pursued, but for them to get the three year vesting from the time the final appeal was approved. Mr. Sell read into the record from the landowner, "In connection with this extension request, Front Range is willing to provide the City with a written waiver, waiving it's right to assert a three year statutory vested right from the date the development agreement condition is met." Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that Mrs. Liley's letter indicates that the Code differs from the condition that we attached to the project. The Code at that time, Section 29-514, which is the site specific development approval, final approval, is when the three year time period begins on the vested rights. With the condition placed on the project, we have a different provision about the commencement of the clock running on the vested right. The clock does not start to run until the development agreement is approved. Mr. Eckman stated that a legal issue has been raised that the land owner has sunk enough money into this project, that he might want to take that issue up in some form of litigation. Mr. Eckman suggested that the Board might want to adjourn to executive session to discuss the matter. Member Chapman suggested that this item be deferred to another meeting so the Board can get some counsel on the legal issues. Mr. Eckman suggested an executive session to reserve the attorney/client privilege since litigation has been suggested by the landowner. Member Chapman moved to adjourn this meeting until next Friday, May 16th to conduct an executive session on this issue and determine when this issue would be reheard. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 12, 1997 Page 15 There was no other business. The meeting adjourned to Friday, May 16th at 11:00 p.m. at 12:25 a.m.